Democracy in general terms, means a form of government in which the people freely elect representatives to govern them. They would vote for the candidate whom they feel is the best man for the job, and their issues will be raised via the elected candidate. However, democracy isn’t exactly the utilitarian society one would portray in his mind. Many are cases of pseudo-democratic states. Hence, I do not agree that democracy creates total stability.

Starting on the brighter side, it does help in creating stability in a society. Besides being socially successful (to an extent), countries prosper too in other fields economically. Looking at statistical figures, democratic countries rank high in the Human Development Index. Japan is ranked 11^thth. which is ahead of authoritarian China, ranked 85

Northern Ireland once faced an internal conflict because there were no voting rights for the Catholics. Although one can argue that that isn’t the only factor, the factor of voting rights does indeed influence the eventual outcome. Since, the Catholics were not allowed to vote, this meant that they had no medium or way to air their grievances (they were facing hardship imposed on them by the Protestants). Thus, this will lead to laws passed down to be less likely benefiting them as there will be no leader to argue for their rights in parliament. Thereafter, the Catholics decided to protest as they had nothing to lose. This led to instability. If only the Catholics were allowed to vote for the leaders to represent them, the conflicts will most like not occur and we wouldn’t even hear of a conflict in Northern Ireland. Aristotle’s underlying principle in democracy is freedom. Northern Ireland faced a conflict. This implies that it is not democratic as it didn’t give freedom to the Catholics. And since it isn’t democratic, it isn’t a surprise that they faced instability.

Because democracy allows for people to vote for who they feel will best represent them, it is not likely that they will undergo instability as actions taken by their elected candidate should be favour the citizens or benefit them.

However, I certainly feel that democracy has its loopholes too. Voting democratically is a case of majority wins. If you think that since many people think that something is right, it will be right (morally). This is in fact false. It is unnecessarily true actually. E.B White quotes, “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time”. Philosophically, you are committing a fallacy of bandwagon if you think that way. In old America, Blacks were treated badly and not a thing was done to protect them. This is because the largely racist White community then felt that there was nothing wrong doing so. If you were a White then, you would think that it is true. But what if you were Black? The Whites who were the majority dominated the political arena and allowed for mistreatments of Black. Since the Blacks were the minority and the Whites, the majority, Whites would obviously have the upper hand. But if you were to look at the whole scenario in the context of a modern person, with a clear neutral perspective, you would say that Blacks were indeed mistreated.

Thus I feel that democracy does not create stability. Although, it doesn’t create much instability, it certainly doesn’t create total stability too. Democratic rule that we live under isn’t the perfect democracy we see either. I shall end my argument with a quote by Agnes Repplier. “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements”.

Democracy creates stability in a society

To get the ball rolling on the motion, Democracy creates stability, i personally feel that this statement is true.

I shall prove my point on the economic point of view.
Based on the links that are given, it is shown that democratic states are ranked high in the 2005 Human Development Index.
Singapore and Korea, recognised as among the world's richest countries, are under democratic rule.
Democracy too influences development and vice-versa. This is because a transparent and fair government allows for fair chances for all and this provides for development in a country.

The Evolution Of Goodness

My personal response

In the article, it says that human beings are willing to do good to others because they are related to one another. This is why they are willing to do good for the other person, this could be seen as an act of love for the other person. However, this statement could be seen as a generalization. If goodness is only done because a person is related to the other, would the same person still be good to other people, who are not related to him/her, simply because of the fact that they are not related? Omitting close friends (whom one would relate to as family), this would mean that people who are complete strangers, one you would randomly meet across the street, are not deserving of your goodness.

Thus, this would lead to one questioning why are there such things as SOS, the police station and even helplines at all. The people who help you willingly with open arms barely know you. In fact, they might have just met you. From this example, I believe that is more than just interrelationship that leads to a kind act of goodness in being carried out.

Drawing an example from a personal experience, I was playing around with a wheelchair and was challenging myself to lift myself onto the pavement from the road, while still in the wheelchair. It took a lot of my effort and although it was just for fun, my thought was provoked by a woman who offered help to me. I was playing around with the wheelchair but there she was, a total complete stranger to me, who willingly offered help towards me as if I was indeed having difficulty. Certainly, this wasn't an act of reciprocal goodness or reciprocal altruism, but a pure and kind act of goodness, without any form of motive(s) in helping me.

Through this debate of goodness and also the philosophy of ethics and behaviour, there are many theories that were formulated just to encapsulate subject of goodness. Theories such as the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule were formulated and famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Confucius both had had their take on this intricate yet complex subject. Although all their efforts indeed provide answers for the evolution of goodness, there is yet to be a theory which fully answers it.

As such, I practically feel that goodness, happens because of the heart that a human has, the heart that feels for others and sympathise with those who are disadvantaged. Why then, does our heart wrench when we see and hear of tales of the suffering in Africa, and of those who face the wrath of nature, such as the recent Burma cyclone?