Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Peter Singer and Robert Dahl argue democratic legitimacy requires not just procedural equality but equal consideration of interests across decisions over time.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Measuring 'equal consideration of interests across time' is indeterminate—no objective metric exists to verify substantive equality was achieved.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Requiring outcomes-based validation of democratic legitimacy empowers unelected judges or experts to override procedural democratic choices.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Persistent minority losses may reflect legitimate value disagreements, not democratic failure—majoritarian preferences have democratic weight too.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Procedural equality alone permits systematic exclusion of minority interests if majorities consistently outvote them across repeated decisions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Democratic legitimacy requires actual responsiveness to citizens' needs, not merely formal voting rights, to justify state coercion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Equal consideration of interests reflects the core democratic principle that each person's wellbeing matters equally in collective decisions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.