it would be that democracy would not be a good virtue. It has been established in Plato's the Republic in which he spoke on similar topic. He highlighted that out of sums of bad rulings, such as tyranny, including democracy, would be discouraged fundamentally because the idealism of democracy fundamentally relies on the assumption that the majority are knowledgeable. There is a famous story in Chinese, which depicts that in a village, there exists a well. within the well, lays the source of water, only that the water induces psychological damages and makes people crazy. one day a random man outside of the village observed and found that out, and warned everyone within the village not to drink it. The majority of the village instead pointed the fingers at him, saying that he is the one who's insane, and forced the man to drink the water. This story might be fictional, but the essence speaks truth to the practical fallacy of democracy, which is that in times of overflowing source of information, it is very difficult to differentiate wrong information from right ones. because of this, the majority tend to entrust these unreliable sources to make judgments. If democracy is to allow the majority to rule, then the rulings will be wrong.

that is the truth and the essence of my argument, the definition of a good system remains ambigious ever since the origin of human life. While there may not be a certain answer for years to come, can we to some degree discredit democracy as a candidate of a good system

it seems that you agree and stand by my statements, since my stance is that democracy is not a desirable system for modern society. a system in which the majority vote is considered the definite decision, one asks how did the majority come to the decision? The problem is that because it was a collaborative decision made by the majority, it is very difficult to hold decisions accountable. This is why most legal systems alienate from majority's views. judicial judgments can be held accountable.

Let me further advance your statement, what purpose does rewarding the loudest voice achieve? Is it to show liberation and the human rights of freedom of speech? Is it to show that the society values the majority? Or is it to achieve something of great virtues? It is to be remained that many morally compromised social beliefs such as slavery and materialistic marriage of the Eastern culture, were at some point in time supported by the majority. So is rewarding the loudest voice something desirable for the betterment of a society?

hence we both agree that the opinions of a majority should not be used as a moral guideline to govern the entirety of a society.