OK, thanks for clarifying! I guess thereās a bit of ambiguity surrounding talk of āthe goal of longtermists in the political sphereā, so maybe worth distinguishing immediate policy goals that could be implemented right away, vs. external (e.g. āconsciousness-raisingā) advocacy aimed at shifting values.
Itās actually an interesting question when policymakers can reasonably go against public opinion. It doesnāt seem necessarily objectionable (e.g. to push climate protection measures that most voters are too selfish or short-sighted to want to pay for). Thereās a reason we have representative rather than direct democracy. But the key thing about your definition of ādemocratically unacceptableā is that it specifies the policy could not possibly be maintained, which more naturally suggests a feasibility objection than a moral one, anyhow.
But Iām musing a bit far afield now. Thanks for the thought-provoking paper!
OK, thanks for clarifying! I guess thereās a bit of ambiguity surrounding talk of āthe goal of longtermists in the political sphereā, so maybe worth distinguishing immediate policy goals that could be implemented right away, vs. external (e.g. āconsciousness-raisingā) advocacy aimed at shifting values.
Itās actually an interesting question when policymakers can reasonably go against public opinion. It doesnāt seem necessarily objectionable (e.g. to push climate protection measures that most voters are too selfish or short-sighted to want to pay for). Thereās a reason we have representative rather than direct democracy. But the key thing about your definition of ādemocratically unacceptableā is that it specifies the policy could not possibly be maintained, which more naturally suggests a feasibility objection than a moral one, anyhow.
But Iām musing a bit far afield now. Thanks for the thought-provoking paper!