![]() The idea of these sacrosanct rights of individuals is of course a minority opinion, if one were to survey every human ever alive. (featured image: Isriya Paireepairit CC BY) Rules and laws matter, and they often matter even more when we don’t like them because they protect the needs of the many against attacks by the powerful few The works of William Shakespeare are often quoted to illustrate the rich and complex nature of human life. There (in our tradition, anyway) the needs of the many would not outweigh the rights of the one. In a weird, hypothetical situation, it would be wrong for any level of government (elected by the many) to impair my freedom of speech or religion, even if it meant some genie would grant to all 300 million other Americans life eternal, free poptarts or any benefit you can think of. Western, liberal democracies Locke-ed in on a system of belief where it is morally wrong to impede certain sacrosanct rights of individuals, even if it benefits everyone else. Our republic involves many perverting interest groups and powerful individuals, so it doesn't work out that way.įascism does posit that the people or nation as a totality is more important than the needs or "rights" of any individual. The many (majority) would continually vote in ways that benefited them. Spock's utilitarianism might get played out in a true democracy. What workable alternative is there to "majority rules," which is to me another way of stating the Spock line that you mention? You can and must have protections in place to protect the rights of those who aren't in the majority, but I honestly and truly cannot imagine what alternative there is to "majority rules," aside from "minority rules." Really. Defeating apartheid required the non-white groups to join together to become "the many."Īs for what I mean by an "alternative" - I mean just that. It also affected those known as "coloured," that is, those of a variety of mixed races, and the status of these two main groups wasn't exactly the same. For example, in South Africa, apartheid didn't just affect blacks. But sometimes "the many" is lots of different groups - B, C, D and E - joined together. I mean, sometimes "the many" is one big ol' group A. After all, what is an election, that backbone of democracy, but finding out which candidate has the support of "the many"? What was the end of apartheid in South Africa but the needs and rights of "the many" finally getting recognized instead of only the needs and rights of "the few"?Īnd I also think, though I could of course be misinterpreting you, that you are assuming that "the many" is always a monolithic majority. Honestly, Gary, I think you're getting hung up on this idea of "the many." Yes, that phrase can have negative implications, but surely you can see that it can have positive implications, too. "Forcing the needs of the many over the needs of the few is never good"? Really? Never?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |