Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy

This comment on Christopher G. Griffin's article, Debate: Democracy as a Non-Instrumentally Just Procedure argues that outcomes over time that achieve better consequences for people are the true measure of a democracy's legitimacy. Griffin argues that democratic government is uniquely mora...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of political philosophy 2003-03, Vol.11 (1), p.122-132
Main Author: Arneson, Richard J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Authority
Autocracy
Democracy
Legitimacy
Political power
Political science
Power
Rights
Social Justice
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This comment on Christopher G. Griffin's article, Debate: Democracy as a Non-Instrumentally Just Procedure argues that outcomes over time that achieve better consequences for people are the true measure of a democracy's legitimacy. Griffin argues that democratic government is uniquely morally legitimate, & he develops two arguments against the reasoning for pure instrumentalism. Arneson refutes each argument. Even Griffin's brief sketch of an alternative reveals defects that Arneson uses to defend the case for pure instrumentalism. L. A. Hoffman
ISSN:0963-8016
1467-9760
DOI:10.1111/1467-9760.00170