Vote: Negative

Premise: There is absolute moral truth.
Certain truth are absolute, and these truth precedes any political justice. For example: poverty is an issue. To "solve" poverty, we can kill all the poor people and claim that no Americans are below the poverty line. But we wouldn't do that because that is immoral, because killing is wrong. Thus, killing is wrong is a moral absolute truth.

Flourish is defined as the striving and achieving of certain moral justice. A democracy must strive toward absolute truth.

Compromise only seeks to stop a discussion by "compromising" opposing views. It does not establish the absolute truth (for absolute truth has no opposing side. Killing is evil.)
E.g. Organisms are alive once conceived, thus abortion is evil.
Opposite: A woman has the right to make decision regarding her body, which directly influences her survival. Thus abortion is not evil.

Current American Compromise: Roe v. Wade (a.k.a. terrible bullshit)

In the case of abortion, no absolute truth has been found. Thus we compromise to function democracy, but democracy itself does not flourish.

Compromise only compromises the views of opposing side. With compromise, we had slavery, gender inequality, moral injustice.

Thus, while compromise is necessary for democracy to function, it does not flourish democracy.

I meant to say, with compromise, we HAVE ......

Of course it is. How do you have an effective democratic government, especially a Presidential one - with one party controlling Congress and the other party controlling the Presidency - without compromise? Without compromise you end up with executives who operate outside the bounds of legality, because a government must govern regardless of whether or not the other side is willing to budge. In the parliamentary context, you have to compromise in order to cobble together a majority coalition - even in the usually majoritarian UK - this takes place.

Democracy is non-violent bargaining. Bargaining means give-and-take. Without bargaining, you resolve disputes through force.

The unwillingness or inability of people to compromise reveals the fundamental weakness and flaw in democracy. Any system which simultaneously calls for cooperation & competition cannot succeed very long.

"A democracy must strive toward absolute truth." - Says who? A democratic government will strive for self-protection, which more often than not means giving the people what they want, not what they need.

I say that democracy is lead by the people, made for the people, from the people.

there is no objective moral absolute.

People choose to live in a society which rejects murder (except state sanctioned murder for countries engaged in capital punishment) because they feel safer if the state guarantees their bodily protection.

This is requirement for a successful state and practices by all of the most successful states. Evolution of societal ideas and rules allows us change these non-absolute rules to take advantage of the best things which CAN be agreed.

Compromise is an important aspect of society's slow shift towards development instead of stagnation. Stagnation and slowing of moral development does not necessarily help societal groups. The comparison between scientific communities and religious communities and rate at which scientists embrace new ideas is not useful, specifically because one deal ins in tangible facts and finds it difficult (at present) to talk about moral facts at all.

However the more flexible scientific community is far less likely to get stuck 'behind the times' for long. (though it may require a new generation of scientist for a new idea to truely flourish) Religious communities can by comparison fail to adapt to new realities of life and become more and more distant and irrelevant to their supposed flocks. (not to say science can't become disconnected from the general public - as education fails to keep up - but it's 'flock' if anything is the technologist/engineers/inventors who do try to keep up with the most recent developments...)

Democracy can't flourish if it sticks to thousands year old rules and morals. The reality of social interactions is very different today as compared to pre-internet day of our parents. The reality of social pressure from our peers is different. The reality today of cultural norms is different today.

You can't ignore these changes and try to follow inflexible moral rules. However there may be such a thing as flexible moral rules. Which expect and require the person to interpret their situation. Which are basic but can have different results depending on the different people who use them.

" A democratic government will strive for self-protection, which more often than not means giving the people what they want, not what they need."

alas, paternal governments may not know any better, so when they try to give the people what they think they need rather than what they want they may do less good.

However in this era of propaganda control most people can learn to want what they're told to. Alas profit-driven-corporations are better at using this control than social-good-driven-governments...

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -Voltaire

A. Morals are subjective.
B. Humans are imperfect.
C. Thus, humans have imperfect morals.

A. Humans are imperfect
B. An institution (e.g. government or religion) can only be as good as the people who run it.
C. Thus, no institution can be perfect.

Legislative deadlock will make no one happy. Compromise will make some people happy, or no people happy. The latter is preferable to the former.

"The rule of one by all is still preferable to the rule of all by one." -Sheldon Sandbekkhaug

(inb4post is branded as non-sequiteur)

A nation which strives for peace, liberty, and equality under God is the best nation.
And I want to point out "under God." Not under government or religion, but under God.
What do you people think about this

I disagree with the idea that compromise is good for democracy.

Democracy is the rule of the people. The important word here is "the people", meaning every person who inhabits the country in question. Of course, since we can't have an agreement of all the people, we shall do the next best thing: we will do what the mayority wants in every stance.

So, a democracy is succesfull if the government's decitions reflect the will of the mayority of the people in every stance, or at least in the most stances possible.

Oh, wait! We can't ask everyone to vote on every single thing! -Perhaps today we could, but our "democracies" are built for the early 20th century at best.- So, we have the people elect representatives who, well, represent them best. And that should give you a government body wich represents the interest of the people best.

So far, in theory, it should work. But it would work if the representatives stuck completely to their political programs and the views they put forward that got them elected. No compromising, no debating, nothing. You were voted because you were going to do A, do A, vote for A in the congress, and that is that.

I think compromise is what is killing the Obama administration, for instance.

He claimed he wanted change, health care reform, withdrawing the troops in Irak and Afghnistan, and he gave you more bailouts, a crappy health care reform, and more troops in irak, no withdrawing in Afghanistan.

What kind of shitty democracy do you have there? The guy 52% of the people voted because he said he'd do this and that is either unable or unwilling to do what he promised. And it is, I believe, because of the need to compromise, to keep the republicans and moderate democrats happy. But the people who voted him aren't so thrilled, IMO.

And all of this is without even getting into the lobbyist who buy legislators. What reason so you have to compromise with them in a democracy? Who do they represent?

In my opinion, and taking historical records into account, the need for "compromise" is more likely to stop a good President from doing the right thing (or at least, to follow the will of the people), than it is to stop a bad President from doing the wrong thing (or that wich is not the will of the people).

Idealist +1

Nicely written.

Well said Idealist.

That there is absolute moral truth needs to be said in this time when moral relativism is embraced by mainstream (Western) culture.

It seems self evident that democracy, the rule of the people, is good. Because "people are good", as Ann Frank innocently, hopefully, and bravely said.

But it also seems self evident that Western democracies, today, are not serving good.

My absolute moral truth can kick the ass of your absolute moral truth.

What lunacy. When God hands down THE TRUTH (in front of everyone, so we know it was him or her), then compromise is bad. Until then, the minute you have two people living together, compromise is the best solution to allow living together.

Or does one of you think they have THE TRUTH and we should all follow it?

"western democracies are not serving good" - they all stink - but what system was better?

lunacy

@Xapi "we will do what the mayority wants in every stance."

What keeps the majority from harming the minority? e.g. slavery, new immigrants, etc.

@Furball - I don't know what 'under God' means. Is there any way to determine with any definiteness what God's law is? Is there any need to compromise between the various religious groups who have different interpretation (and i can define an atheistic interpretation of 'God', however much of a contradiction that may be) - or do you have any reason to give any credit to these religious organizations at all? I mean it's not 'Under religion' - maybe God will judge our actions when we die, in an afterlife, and the most important thing to do when writing the laws of man is to encourage people to choose to live a good life... (and all the personal freedoms which this entails)

~'Democracy is the rule of the people. The important word here is "the people", meaning every person who inhabits the country in question'

just to point out, in the modern democracy it means adult person who inhabits the country. (in some places this is 16 and over, but in most it is at least 18) In the past it has also meant male person, or male person who owns their own home/land (because the poor didn't have any investment in the country - the fact that all slaves were poor and didn't own land made them closer to cattle than to person in the eyes of the state)

Actually it was the big land owners who pushed post-Feudal kings to compromise their dictatorial powers - these land owners had the ability to raise a militia and oppose taxation, so this compromise was a step between Monarchy and a Parliamentary Monarchy (as opposed to a Parliamentary Republic, in which i happen to live)


"Of course, since we can't have an agreement of all the people, we shall do the next best thing: we will do what the mayority wants in every stance."

- I disagree, we can have 'all the people' agree to abide by the decisions of the majority. Usually we give them some form of representation so they can suggest amendments to proposed laws... of course some two-party systems don't believe in compromise, and fail to pass any laws...

"[Obama wanted] withdrawing the troops in Irak and Afghnistan" - no, i watched the debates, he specifically played to a republican/conservative audience. He wanted to focus on the war in Afghanistan and not be distracted by Iraq, he claimed it was a mistake to go into Iraq when Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. He wanted to wind down the war and move the troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan (where the war is now spreading)

So his more troops in Iraq is part of his stated withdrawal strategy, he never wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan, he passed the best health care he could.

The whole system is based on compromise between people who forced it through. But now 'popular' opinion is informed largely by concentrated media sources, heavily influenced by corporate money (and yes, individual corporate interests have to compete with each other, they'd love to use the media to take each other down, but they also want to stop anyone else from hurting their common interests...)

If there is some moral absolute we can't find it. The best we can do is find an acceptable compromise to avoid violence. The compromise of the peace.

"When God hands down THE TRUTH" - i'll have to ask God for his credentials, cause if he claims to have created the entire Universe, i'll need a demonstration that this is infact THE TRUTH. Otherwise this 'extraordinary claim' will have failed to provide 'extraordinary evidence'.

Even then, there God may have an opinion on why he created us doesn't mean it is right, good or just.

If i deem (using my god given talents) that this 'God given Truth' is evil, then we should not all follow it.

IF i accept that there is a Truth, I do not accept that it can be knowable to us homo homo sapiens.

"What keeps the majority from harming the minority? e.g. slavery, new immigrants, etc." - there minorities who have stood up and opposed perceived harm - the civil rights movement was a demonstration against this kind of minority discrimination. They specifically sought to do more than just vote for their candidate, they used democracy to it's fullest but they also went beyond and campaigned for change while separate from any election campaign. (if this happened not to be opposed by corporate interests then the media had no reason to hinder the movement, unlike various more recent green movements)

"What keeps the majority from harming the minority? e.g. slavery, new immigrants, etc. "

Nothing. There's nothing in Democracy that prevents those things from happening, because, in fact, such things have happened during democracies.

@Xapi - the threat of civil disobedience, the exercise of power by the minority.

@ orathaic: But that is not part of the democratic system, is it?

The only thing I can think of that a minority can do to defend itself within a democratic system is "demonstrating" and explaining to the public why discriminating against them is bad, á la Martin Luther King. Anything else is outside of what I define as democracy (not that it is a bad thing).

it is not disallowed by the democratic system. That is democracy can mean only voting and then whining about things when your representative doesn't manage to get you what you wanted. Or it can also involve demonstrating, writing petitions and collecting signatures, public criticism of (subjectively) flawed policy, publishing of newspapers... so yeah, not specifically required when you describe a democratic nations, hence not part of it, but allowable in a free democracy...