NationStates Jolt Archive

Just because the majority get their way.
Are they always right?
In think there should be a Judge or something that decides what is right and what is wrong.
This "judge" should be unbiased on all issues.
This means the "judge" will have to be replaced to suit the topic.
What do you think?

[singing]

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

[/back to the world]

When you find your totally unbiased Judge, would ya drop us a telegram? Thanks in advance.

No, the experiences I've seen on here of late have made me wonder about about democracy.

Democracy is no good if people don't take the time to educate themselves of the pros and cons of the situation.

Your Judge idea is a decent one, however it's not applicable to Nation States and will likely not be implemented.

Democracy is no good if people don't take the time to educate themselves of the pros and cons of the situation.


I can't really think of much I need to add to that one, so:
Amen.
And amen.

Is anyone at some time right? What is right and what is wrong? The terms in itself imply subjectiveness if you look at it closely. I'm sure this all has to do with the euthanesia thing in the UN last week, so let's focus on that (for sake of argument, we're not going to debate the issue AGAIN).

Let's say I'm suffering from some terminal disease and I'm in the last stage, no cure has been found and I'm in agonising pain. I think that I'm right by saying that I want to end my life here and now instead of waiting for the grim reaper to take me in a day or two and suffer needlesly. The Pope will say that I can't and think the's right because God (supposedly) said this and that about it. You may have another view, based on religion, background or whatnot. How on earth will you be able to get an unbiased opinion on this? Not likely. Not one person is 'right' of 'wrong'.

The system of voting in a democracy is chosen so that you'll have the majority say what's acceptable or 'right' for them. In the forementioned case the vote was thight. If it had swung the other wat, half of the people would have felt betrayed by the 'tyrrany of majority' as one member of the forum called it.

The more freedom the people have, the more debate you'll get. It's not possible to satisfy everybody, so the majority will do nicely. And once in a while you get these hot items...

No, i don't think the majority is always right, but then, many times right or wrong is just related to our own personal morality. I don't think homosexuality is wrong for example, other people do. You will never find a judge that is unbiased on all issues, i just don't think it's possible. Everyone has opinions and no matter how hard we try, there are just certain issues we feel so strongly about that it is hard to be unbiased.

It depends what you define as "right"

Democracy is no good if people don't take the time to educate themselves of the pros and cons of the situation.
I can't really think of much I need to add to that one, so:
This sounds like you don't like the outcome of a vote and blame the ignorance of the majority for it. Is it so hard to accept that some people (sometimes a lot) have another opinion. It's very easy to say that people are ignorant because they vote for another person or idea, but it's a bit arrogant isn't it? It saying that you're right and they're wrong. Just like the 'American Democracy' that George W played with the UN last summer...let's ask their opinion and if they don't agree, we'll do it anyway! Ok, it's a way to do it. But don't bother to ask if you'll accept only one answer.

Makes me think of a line from an old Joe Jackson song:

"Don't ask me what I think of you, as I might not give the answer that you want me to"

The majority is not always right...in fact, they are usually wrong. There is a famous quote that goes like this: "What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular."

Jen Rizzo is right. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.

Ideally we'd all like to believe that everything we support is "right" and everything we oppose is "wrong". That's not the case. You may think mcdonalds is best, I may think taco bell is best. No one is "right" and no one is "wrong".

It also applies to bigger issues. Like what religion is "correct" or what the punishment for murder should be. It's just a matter of opinion. There is no holy grail of a book that lists all the "right" answers and opinions . . . sorry to disappoint.

Oh, and the majority view is just the opinion of what is "right" that is held by the most people.

The more freedom the people have, the more debate you'll get. It's not possible to satisfy everybody, so the majority will do nicely. And once in a while you get these hot items...

The problem is people arn't debating. About half the people who voted against the Euthanasia Act are actually for Euthanasia, but the wording of the act had loopholes.

The current mental health act is the same thing. It looks great! I'm all for fair treatment of mental health! But there are problems with the way the bill is executed (as I pointed out in this thread http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116462)

People are not taking the time to examine the issue, they just go "OOH fair treatment, sounds great!" *clicks approve*.

If people were debating and actually understood that there are hidden costs and implications, then I'd have no problem with them voting 'yes'. However they don't. And that's why the majority is 'wrong' because they act on ignorance.

And I just know that this is the case in the larger world as well wherever there is majority rule there will be people who vote without knowing the whole issue.

The Majority is not always right. As a form of Government, Democracy is actually quite lousy. As long as you can sway the masses to your point of view, you win, whether its right or wrong.

Yes, if you can find a sensible, unbiased judge, telegram me

There is right and there is wrong. If anyone disagrees, feel free to debate the matter.

If you do choose to debate this, remember that by saying that I am wrong, you have confirmed my point.

This said, most people today do not believe in right and wrong. They believe it is possible for something to be right for one person, but wrong for another. This is fallacious thinking. What is objectively wrong for one person is objectively wrong for all.

Notice that I claim the 'majority' can have a false belief. Because of this, Democracy can only work in cases where a population is well educated. I believe we should discount the vote of anyone who cannot correctly pick out 3 issues (from a list of about 5) their candidate is running on.

Drigania

This topic seems to come from which one of the following beliefs you hold:

1. Their is a universe set of codes determining what's right and what's wrong

2. There is no right and wrong, only opinion.

3. The majority is always right.

The majority isn't always right, but I am.

There is right and there is wrong. If anyone disagrees, feel free to debate the matter.

If you do choose to debate this, remember that by saying that I am wrong, you have confirmed my point.

This said, most people today do not believe in right and wrong. They believe it is possible for something to be right for one person, but wrong for another. This is fallacious thinking. What is objectively wrong for one person is objectively wrong for all.

Notice that I claim the 'majority' can have a false belief. Because of this, Democracy can only work in cases where a population is well educated. I believe we should discount the vote of anyone who cannot correctly pick out 3 issues (from a list of about 5) their candidate is running on.

Drigania

Ha, can't argue with that first sentence can we? So I won't. You're not wrong, but you've excluded the major point which is that we don't (necessairly) KNOW what will best accomplish right/wrong.

For example, take the economy. Almost anyone you ask would say increase in economy = good. But how to go about that? Bush said "tax cuts!" Others said "No! Those will just favor the wealthy! We should do..." etc.

So, even if you have a common goal, you often can't agree on how to go about achieving it in the righ way.

Democracy is no good if people don't take the time to educate themselves of the pros and cons of the situation.

Agreed, and something that is very apparent within the Nation States.

There is right and there is wrong. If anyone disagrees, feel free to debate the matter.

If you do choose to debate this, remember that by saying that I am wrong, you have confirmed my point.

Drigania

By debating that you are wrong, when you clearly believe you are right, I prove that I believe myself to be right which, I think you'll all agree, makes me indisputedly right. :wink:

I used to work with judges, and never have seen an unbiased one.

The majority isn't always right, but I am.
Indeed. Right and wrong are based in verb conjugation, not majority:

I am right.
You are misinformed.
He/She is a slack-jawed member of the rabble.

Democracy is no good if people don't take the time to educate themselves of the pros and cons of the situation.
I can't really think of much I need to add to that one, so:
This sounds like you don't like the outcome of a vote and blame the ignorance of the majority for it. Is it so hard to accept that some people (sometimes a lot) have another opinion. It's very easy to say that people are ignorant because they vote for another person or idea, but it's a bit arrogant isn't it? It saying that you're right and they're wrong. Just like the 'American Democracy' that George W played with the UN last summer...let's ask their opinion and if they don't agree, we'll do it anyway! Ok, it's a way to do it. But don't bother to ask if you'll accept only one answer.

Makes me think of a line from an old Joe Jackson song:

"Don't ask me what I think of you, as I might not give the answer that you want me to"

Ah, but blaming the majority, the many, is a time honored tradition. After all, consider what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and some of the other greats had to say.

I would not out-and-out say that the many are necessarily ignorant, unless there were facts to back it up. I give as my key exhibit, the "Equality for All" resolution. Remember that one? The one that defined life so broadly, it would have effectively starved every UN nation to death (as no plants or animals could be killed)? Anyone giving two minutes of critical attention to that bill would have seen how ludicrous it was. And yet, it took a concerted effort by many nations to keep it from passage, and it was a tight race until the last day. This does not encourage one about the intelligence, or at least the care, of our many members.

The majority is not always right. But that is why issues can be brought up again and again. Majorities can change, especially if resolution-drafters know the right flowery rhetoric to flatter the mass of members.

look i think that the euthanasia legislation should be revoked, it's murder no-matter what name u slap on it.

There are two types of right and wrong. There's objective right/wrong, which is essentially saying that someting is factually correct/incorrect - i.e. a statistic which is false is incorrect, or objectively wrong. This kind of right/wrong is basically indisputable, as long as it is possible to prove or disprove the fact.

That's great, but the problem is, what we're debating aren't issues that can be factually right or wrong. We are mostly debating morality, which is totally subjective. IMO, as an irreligious person, there is no final answer to something being morally right or wrong, and that is a principle upon which any secular society should function.

Given the subjectivity of morality, there is no real way that a person can be unbiased unless they have no personal system of morality, in which case they would be unable to judge the whether something was morally right or wrong.

However, despite the subjectivity of morality, there are certain things which most of us agree to be right or wrong, and thus we legislate on those issues - such as murder, and theft.

On other, less universally agreed issues, we each fight for what we believe to be moral. We can offer arguments in favour of our systems of morality, but we can never prove anything in this field right or wrong.

There are two types of right and wrong. There's objective right/wrong, which is essentially saying that someting is factually correct/incorrect - i.e. a statistic which is false is incorrect, or objectively wrong. This kind of right/wrong is basically indisputable, as long as it is possible to prove or disprove the fact.

That's great, but the problem is, what we're debating aren't issues that can be factually right or wrong. We are mostly debating morality, which is totally subjective. IMO, as an irreligious person, there is no final answer to something being morally right or wrong, and that is a principle upon which any secular society should function.

Given the subjectivity of morality, there is no real way that a person can be unbiased unless they have no personal system of morality, in which case they would be unable to judge the whether something was morally right or wrong.

However, despite the subjectivity of morality, there are certain things which most of us agree to be right or wrong, and thus we legislate on those issues - such as murder, and theft.

On other, less universally agreed issues, we each fight for what we believe to be moral. We can offer arguments in favour of our systems of morality, but we can never prove anything in this field right or wrong.

Unfortunately, this style of thinking logically requires moral relativism. Consider a thought experiment: it is Germany, circa 1933. Most of those in politics agreed to the drastic curtailment of liberties that occurred, or at least said nothing. Or consider the American context: most land owners in the antebellem South thought slavery an acceptable procedure. Are we to say that we can lay no moral blame upon them, or moral praise on those who did oppose them? Or can we only say, "provisionally, where we stand now, we believe these individuals to have been morally in the wrong. Naturally, this could change in the future, and our opinions on this matter are totally subjective, not really representing anything 'right' or 'wrong,' and should therefore only be considered as temporarily 'right' at best."

If we cannot attempt to find an objective morality, it seems all we have left is vulgar realism - "honor, fear, and interest" as Thucydides' character said. Or perhaps, as Socrates' opponent stated, "justice is the interest of the stronger."

An unpleasant thought. And certainly an unacceptable way to live.

The only thing that can be said of the 'Majority' is that there's more of them. It's a no brainer, of course the 'majority' can be wrong. Go read the story of Noah and the ark.

Unfortunately, this style of thinking logically requires moral relativism. Consider a thought experiment: it is Germany, circa 1933. Most of those in politics agreed to the drastic curtailment of liberties that occurred, or at least said nothing. Or consider the American context: most land owners in the antebellem South thought slavery an acceptable procedure. Are we to say that we can lay no moral blame upon them, or moral praise on those who did oppose them? Or can we only say, "provisionally, where we stand now, we believe these individuals to have been morally in the wrong. Naturally, this could change in the future, and our opinions on this matter are totally subjective, not really representing anything 'right' or 'wrong,' and should therefore only be considered as temporarily 'right' at best."

We say that according to the morals that the majority holds, they were wrong, so the majority of us condemn their actions, and since society in general currently holds those morals, society can condemn the actions of the slave-owners and Nazis. If people in the future change their view of morality, we can say that we would condemn their views, and we can argue our point, but there is no way to prove what we say, given that morality is a purely human construct.

If we cannot attempt to find an objective morality, it seems all we have left is vulgar realism - "honor, fear, and interest" as Thucydides' character said. Or perhaps, as Socrates' opponent stated, "justice is the interest of the stronger."

An unpleasant thought. And certainly an unacceptable way to live.

I don't actually know that much about the philosophy of morality, except for the fact that some people reckon that it is a purely human construct, as I have argued, because I see no way that it could be anything else. And following on from that, I see no way that a purely human construct can be anything but subjective.

No, the majority is not always right, IMO.

Just because something is popular and the majority likes/agrees with it does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do and to follow.

However, I'm not saying that the majority is always wrong. Like everything, they are neither always wrong nor always right.

No, the majority is not always right, IMO.

Just because something is popular and the majority likes/agrees with it does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do and to follow.

However, I'm not saying that the majority is always wrong. Like everything, they are neither always wrong nor always right.

No, the majority is not always right, IMO.

Just because something is popular and the majority likes/agrees with it does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do and to follow.

However, I'm not saying that the majority is always wrong. Like everything, they are neither always wrong nor always right.

You can still fool all of the people some of the time.

Foolish majority!

Just because the majority get their way.
Are they always right?
In think there should be a Judge or something that decides what is right and what is wrong.
This "judge" should be unbiased on all issues.
This means the "judge" will have to be replaced to suit the topic.
What do you think?

I think that the majority is always right. If you don't agree with the majority, so be it. You have your chance to vote, just like everyone else. The majority is the largest group of people who voted the same.
And the "judge" you talk about already exists, it's called a court.
Or in some cases it is a dictator. But you can also influence the majority and in that case the majority could be wrong. Conclusion: in modern politics, every politician tries to influence the majority. So the majority CAN be wrong and I think a good dictatorship is better than a terrible democraty.

It strikes me as ironic that so many of the people who argued over the loose wording of the Euthanasia Resolution (which clearly is now about 1/2 the subject of this board :P ) haven't jumped on that wagon here.
Why are we asking if the majority is always "right"?
Why not ask if they are informed?
If they are looking at issues from all sides?
If they foresee the consequences of their votes?
There are much better questions than a vague "Are they right?"

Does the majority always know what's best for them? Or even what they want?

Why are we asking if the majority is always "right"?
Why not ask if they are informed?
If they are looking at issues from all sides?
If they foresee the consequences of their votes?

The answer to those questions are, in order;

a) Because we are numbed by the sheer lunacy and disdainful behavior of the majority.
b) The are obviously not informed. A monkey trying to hump a football is more informed about the issues then these people in the majority.
c) No, and that's partially why we are numbed.
d) It's readily apparent they do not, nor would they probably know how to view something in a method other than using 'Imabonehead'-colored glasses.

Someone asked about the philosophy of ethics:

There's basically three of them, everything else stems off of the base three.

Aristotilian Ethics: Actions are amoral. Context makes the action moral or immoral and logical reasoning determines which is which. To avoid the problem, there is the life of contemplation, which has no action, and ergo no morality. That would be God.

Hedonism: Whatever makes you happy, that's right. Utilitarianism comes from hedonism, adjusting it to: Whatever makes the most people happy, that's right.

"Love/Empathy" Ethics: Essentially, the Golden Rule. However you would want to be treated in this situation, treat others like that.

These three can be divided into two schools: Good Person Ethics (Aristotilean and Empathy) or Good Works Ethics (Hedonism). Both arguments are essentially circular, but they work for the purposes of studying ethics.

As for the majority being right, it would be more accurate to say the majority always has might. This was why the early liberals talked about limiting power. Hobbes, the last classic/first modern philosopher, saw the majority as a mob, something Ben Franklin would call "a monster with many heads, but no brains." So Hobbes said all power should be vested in the state. This is a departure from the old belief that only God was sovereign. However, it still considered the masses dangerous.

Locke suggested that government should be extremely small, that morality should be up to the community at large, but that government should be an activity for elites. He diverged from the classics by arguing that the elites should be picked men rather than hereditary men. He considers the masses dangerous, but feels if the masses are played off their own interests, divided into smaller groups, or homogenized, government can work for their interests.

Russeau suggested that the State should be all powerful, freeing man from all responsibility, and allowing man to live freely. Morality was a construct, it had no bearing on government. If government controled everything, the inate goodness of man would create an enlightened society.

Hobbes created monarchies, Russuea created Dictatorships, only Locke Created democracies. We can see which philosopher was right.

So, focussing on Locke, particularly his influence in the Colonies (soon to be United States), we can see the work in action. Morality and law is determined by small sub-groups of the nation at large, the States. New York determined morality and law for New York. South Carolina determined it for South Carolina, and Washington, D.C. stayed out of it.

In theory, the representatives of the States represented the masses. The Senators of the States represented the States and cooled the hot temper of the masses. Finally, the Executive would act as the final buffer against hot tempers and the calm voice of the educated. And the courts? They existed solely to keep the various governments from getting in each other's way.

Obviously, it didn't all work out that way, nearly 30 ammendments later we've eviscerated federalism as the founders thought of it, and turned the Supreme Court into the final arbiter of who is right and who is wrong, rather than the community.

I won't belabor who is right and who is wrong. This is the current US system, and it works most of the time. As countries go, the US is still mostly homogenous in belief, and to an extent, the states still have power, so arguments like this are restricted to Oregon or Tenessee. And if you don't want euthenasia, you move, until thirty states have euthenasia and the other twenty vote it down.

The system works so long as South Carolina doesn't try to spread slavery into Arizona or New York doesn't try to force hate crimes through in Maryland.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

I think the problem is we created Mini-Nations in Capitalism which have enough ecomonic clout to change policies of nations, with the World Trade Organization Corperations are all powerful able to declare unoffical war on poorer nations which are trying to aid their populations.

With Trans-National corperations, if the company doesn't like what policies the government enacted, it just packs its bags and moves to the next country.

We have made corperations into their own self-serving nations, no democracy involved in their own decissions.

The problem is people arn't debating...People are not taking the time to examine the issue, they just go "OOH fair treatment, sounds great!" *clicks approve*.

If people were debating and actually understood that there are hidden costs and implications, then I'd have no problem with them voting 'yes'. However they don't. And that's why the majority is 'wrong' because they act on ignorance.

And I just know that this is the case in the larger world as well wherever there is majority rule there will be people who vote without knowing the whole issue.


I think you have put most of my thoughts regarding UN resolutions into words. I have a proposition for all other UN Ambassadors. How about someone drafts a good argument agains this bill. Then we take that argument and we copy and paste and we send it to every nation we possibly can and we ask these nations to vote against and try to force their delegates to do as well. Well what do you all think? We might be running out of time i am not sure for how long it will stay on there but I might work.

Personally though i do not see any loopholes. I understand that this part of the bill: "A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others." is very and I mean VERY BROAD. It may be a little too broad for my liking but its not that bad. Because all this bill is asking us to do is to put a ban in IN-HUMANE TREATMENT. They can live and work as long as they are going through humane conditions.

So basically all this resolution is doing is saying that the a mental ill person cannot be living in a dump or working as a slave and also that they have a good health care system. I voted for this even though I see it kinda redundant. There have been already about 3 resolutions regarding this. They do not deal with specifically mental ill people but they deal with people in general. The Required Basic Healthcare resolution gives basic services for all citizens regardless whether they are mentally ill or not. Also Article 5 of the UN Bill of Rights says "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment". The whole thing is redundant but since is re stating things my nation likes im voting for it.


Carl TooDubleu

i guess you are right. Do you think the "judge" would have to be aiming towards one aim? Say.... World peace? That way he would have to judge on things depending on which one would get us to world peace fastest. What do you lot think?

If you are ever charged with a crime, insist on a jury trial. Never go before a judge sitting alone.

The jury as available representatives of the community are usually retired or unemployed people, not very representative, but ten times more likely to be fair to you than that legal expert in a robe who is nothing more than a politician looking to advance his/her position.

It matters on what you describe is right :lol:

Thought I'd just drop in and add my two Almighty Komok Dollards, on democracy,

In my opinion, democracy is great! However, the current versions our civilisation seem to get up and running end up it seems like some kinda of BETA version of a bit of software, the general features are there, but my heck, what alot of bugs.

In my personal opinion, the only way we could get democracy to work with almost 100% reaching of it goals, is to eventually formulate Virtual Democracy, as seen in (I think) Call To Power 2. Which used dedicated secure computer terminals to give all people one equal vote, regardless of their situation, as well as establishing several basic voting/validity rules, it meant that all people finally had an equal say, should they wish to vote. It meant power fell back to the people, allowing them to quickly resdistribute power from corporations and the old government to the people, rapidly reducing the socio-economic differances in the society. Or something like that...

Yes, I know, all very pie in the sky, :wink:

But one can dream, can't they? :)

- The Rep of Komokom.

The problem is people arn't debating.

Less than half of UN members vote. Probably less than half of that examine the forum for the proposal. But there are a lot of messages and very little time for some between proposals.

Early on it was hoped that proposals would take three days in order to get the sheer number through to have a vote on them. I think that it would be better to slow down the process, and have committees form and draft, in a separate forum. Some of them would have moderation status in that particular forum. Polls could be had to add or remove provisions.

Something clean, simple, and spellchecked can then be put up for approval. Change the current system where any UN member nation with two endorsements may make a proposal. This would cut pages off and allow more casual members to actually peruse through them.

When a proposal is approved for a vote, a sticky could be temporally be put on it for ease of finding and debating (in one thread). The link on the United Nations page could be directly to this particular thread.

I think that you could have a more educated, and involved electorate.

Of course the majority is not always right.

Numbers is just one source of strength. And with strength one can get things done. But often it is the strength of Will or the strength of two hundred and thirty five thousand VatSoldierTM Sixpacks which will carry the day.

A plan and the Will to see it done is often worth more than the feeble support of thousands. The majority is often useless. Strength is where you find it.

Don't make me come over there.

Like many said, of course the majority isn't always right. That's why most countries have somewhat of a senate and no longer really use forms of direct democracy. Etc. etc.

democracy is an ancient concept based on the false belief that all people are equal. but as human society develops, it has become virtually impossible for the average citizen to even vaguely understand every facet of the world so as to decide what's right and what's not.
therefore, more precise decisionmaking requires thorough discussions, which may have multiple rounds, to ensure that the decision (proposal) is made by a domain expert. this should avoid one of the major problems confronting democracy today, i.e. moralism prevailing instead of logic.