Abstract

A democrat who finds himself in the minority on some political issue is compelled to judge that the policy favored by the majority ought to be implemented even though he believes that same policy ought not to be implemented because it does not represent the best social policy. I argue that this paradox does not reduce to a mere conflict of prima facie judgments (Rawls); that to view the paradox as a conflict of desires rather than of principles (Barry) makes it impossible for the democrat to decide what policy is best; that the paradox does not rest on the mistaken assumption that the policy favored by the majority is the best (Haksar) and that it is only by understanding the seemingly incompatible judgments in a way that allows them both to be true that the paradox can be resolved.