Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made. If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings.
> Public outrage is not prima facie evidence of a wrong decision being made.
For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong.
> If public outrage were all that was required then Sunil Tripathi would actually have been guilty of the Boston marathon bombings.
Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful.
> For sufficiently large definitions of massive it is indeed prima facie evidence for the simple reason that the government exists to serve the people. If the people disagree with the government's actions then the government is, by definition, wrong.
What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love?
Many bad and wrong things have passed because of mob justice.
> Since his guilt or innocence is a matter of fact not opinion the analogy is deceptively unhelpful.
Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone? All history is one long string of examples of seemingly all sides misleading the public, if not lying outright.
> What about when a sufficiently large proportion of the population want to hold a minority in concentration camps? Or hold a minority to slavery? Or prevent them from being legally wed to the one they love?
Given a sufficiently large proportion of the population there is no amount of structure that can prevent those things. Ultimately all government is mob rule, structure can only withstand certain types and sizes of mobs for so long.
I get that you are now using the word "wrong" as a moral judgment, but even morality is defined by the people themselves.
> Since when has public opinion been based on facts alone?
That's nonsensical. I said opinion does not define fact, your response -- facts alone don't define opinion. At best that's orthogonal to your original erroneous analogy.
> but even morality is defined by the people themselves
Absolutely not, and that mentality is a repeat of one of the most dangerous ideas to have ever been put into practice across history.
Much of our 'progress' has human beings has been advancing past the idea that might (of the mob, or of the authority, or otherwise) alone makes right.
It may be that the people shield you from punishment if you do something wrong, but it is still wrong and will always be wrong, though one can usually be rehabilitated.
You'll need to ask your favorite philosopher for that. If you end up getting a good answer for it you could acquire fame throughout the world, I would imagine.
I'm sorry I couldn't be the one to tell you what you're supposed to think creates morality. Maybe you can go find someone else's philosophy to unthinkingly latch onto?
You emphatically denied that morality is defined by people, but have provided exactly zero support for that idea. Backed into the corner of your own illogic you are now accusing me of being unthinking. Which is odd since all I've done is expect you to support your argument.
This isn't even a case of you and I disagreeing about the importance of certain facts, you made a bald-faced denial without even a shred of an explanation. I was waiting for something like claims about received wisdom, but nada, nothing, zilch.
