The Tyranny of the Majority

'Why do we follow the majority? It is because they have more reason? No, because they have more power.' - Blaise Pascal, Pensees

It has often been said,'the majority wins'. But why must the minority yield to the majority? Upon what basis should this be done? If the majority is of the opinion that good is evil and evil is good, would it be so? If the majority is convinced that cannibalism is perfectly moral, would it be morally acceptable to eat you?

The purpose of this short article would be to put forth the argument that there is no rational basis to obey the majority. It is not based on reason that we abide to the view of the majority. If this is so, then why is the majority view so often accepted? I believe that there are two reasons behind this.

Firstly, it is due the fact that we fear. We fear what is stronger than us. And the majority is stronger than the minority. The 'general will', a term I borrow from J. Rousseau, is homogeneous, and is not a representative of all. But since it exercise dominance over the minority, the minority would express acquiescence to the majority. In a sense, the minority is actually coerced to agree with the majority.

Secondly, and more importantly, it is due to the fact that we are creatures of our environment. We are shaped by our environment. We also generally assume that our environment is natural. And since the majority has power, it would be their views that shapes society. It would be the view of the majority which would be made to seem 'natural'. Thus, we accept the majority will merely because it is customary to do so. We do not question it for it seems so 'natural' to us.

As a conclusion, I would appeal to all to be critical of accepted traditions, majority views, etc. For only when we do so would there be a progress of the mind.

Questions on Reasoning...

'There is almost nothing right or wrong which does not alter with a change in climate. A shift of three degrees of latitude is enough to overthrow jurisprudence. One's location on the meridian decides the truth, that or a change in territorial possession. Fundamental laws alter. What is right changes with the times. Strange jutice that is bounded by a river or mountain! The truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other.' Blaise Pascal, Pensées)

Our practical reasoning, or reasoning for that matter, is dependent upon principles. For example, we do not act upon the impulse of killing for we reason that life, in principle, is valuable. Reason cannot operate in vacuo, it needs to be rooted in principles. One's practical reasoning would be in a 'stagnant' state of inaction if it be without principles. Our principles in turn are derived from, inter alia, religious, moral and cultural factors. Surely, there would be diversity of principles here. There would surely be principles that would carry less moral weight than others. There could even be contradictory principles. How then would we judge between these principles? How then do we achieve reconciliation?

If all these principles are subjective and there is no Truth in these principles per se, then I can see no reason (unless there is a logical error) in criticising the reasoning of those of whom we do not agree with. But why then do we reject the reasoning of a terrorist in his efforts to bomb up a building? If all principles are subjective principles, why do we intuitively reject the reasoning of a suicide bomber? Perhaps, this may imply that there are such things as objective principles. Granted, it would be controversial as to what those principles are, but this does not mean that there is no objectivity in it.

As Christians we have found this objectivity, and He is not an abstract, but a person. His name is Jesus Christ; the Logos, the Reason, the Principle that upholds the universe. Only in Him (consciously or subconsciously) can we distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning. He is the ultimate reference point. And in Him should our reason rest, in Him should we put our trust.

In Principio Erat Verbum: The Power of Words

Martin Heidegger noted in his ‘Introduction to Metaphysics’ that:

‘… words and language are not wrappings in which things are packed for the commerce of those who write and speak. It is in words and language that things first come into being and are. For this reason the misuse of language, in idle talk, in slogans and phrases, destroys our authentic relation to things.’

I think modern translations of the bible have too much of a conversational tone, it regards words as ‘labels’; it forgets that it is in words that we come to contact with reality. And if words in Scripture do not possess the grandeur of poetics, then it would not correspond with the ultimate reality of God, the Word that was there in the beginning. It does not inspire devotion, but only reminds us of the mundane.

Modern translations of Scripture are not food for the soul, they do not lead us to transcend the natural plane unto the supernatural. An example would be necessary here, let us have a look at John 1:14:

The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son. (GNB)

 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (KJV)

I believe that it is self-evident that the former seemed to have muffled the mystery of the Incarnation, the God-Man. It seems so bland. But in the latter, it is as if power is flowing through these words. It conveys a sense of mystery and awe. It allows us to contemplate the 'naked' Truth, unfettered and not concealed by the misuse of words.

Ignorance and Abortion

From the vantage point of a Catholic, life begins at conception. Life, in this sense, would mean ‘personhood’. If one is a human person, then it would be morally wrong to kill him.

But even if one would not accept the proposition that life begins at conception, one must at least be humble enough to accept that there is no conclusive evidence as to when life begins. If this is the case, abortion would still be morally wrong.

This is due to the following proposition: that if one is unsure as to when ‘life’ begins, it would be morally irresponsible for one to engage in an abortion. If we are unsure as to whether ‘personhood’ is conferred upon an embryo, for example, then there is a possibility of the embryo being a person.

If there is a possibility of the embryo being a person, then it would be, by analogy, like shooting a moving bush (unsure of what’s behind it) hoping that it be a deer rather than a human being. In such a circumstance, if the ‘thing’ behind the bush turns out to be a human, there is gross negligence on the part of the shooter.

In a similar way, going for an abortion, not knowing whether the embryo is a person or not shows moral irresponsibility and may constituted as gross negligence.

Democracy's Christian Roots

‘just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy…’ – David Cameron

Ain't this an intellectual blow upon the face of atheistic secularism? Prime Minister David Cameron in his King James Bible speech showed an understanding that the democratic project began way before the Enlightenment, it is rooted in biblical religion, in Jerusalem.

Equality – due to the fact that God made us, that we are all made in the image of God.

Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy – due to the fact that since we are equal, one should not be made an unwilling subject of another.

Fundamental human rights – are inalienable due to the ontological view of man that biblical religion has proposed. Christianity offers a dignitarian view of man. That man has rights not because legislatures say so, but that it is God-given, by man's nature as children of God.

Aktenversendung

Aktenversendung was a practice of the German legal system, during the early modern period. It was where the courts sought for expert opinions from the law faculties of universities to come to a decision in a criminal or civil trial. Though this practice came to an end when Bismarck reconstituted the courts  in 1878, the idea of a healthy interchange between legal scholarship and practice, may still be relevant in our discussions on modern legal systems.

It is relevant, as is it would, by analogy, be able to address the notion of an intolerant atheist secularism. Modern secularism denies the influence of God in political affairs. It is a denial that man is made in the image of God. It refuses to consider the proposal of redemption offered by the Church.

Such a distorted form of secularism, which prohibits religious influence on public affairs, will lead to a sort of disintegration of society. When I use the term 'disintegration', I would mean 'lacking integration' or 'lacking a binding factor', for it is religion that binds society together by promoting a culture of tolerance through to acknowledgement of the common brotherhood of mankind. Without religion, there is a great tendency that human persons (who are the building blocks of society) would descend into an overtly individualistic culture. Where self-interest prevails over the common good. In such a scenario, at best, individuals would be isolated from each other; atomistic and self-seeking. At worst, it would not be much of an exaggeration to claim that the Hobbesian 'war upon each and all' may come to existence in even 'civil' society.

The above, of course, can be avoided, if political authorities are open enough to the vantage point of religious institutions, to be open to accept a dignitarian view of man, upon which all rights of man flow; that all men are equal due to the fact that we are all children of God.

There must be an intellectual interchange, a sort of Aktenversendung between political and religious institutions, with each sphere respecting its own autonomy, so to create a public culture which is open to the notion of a free and virtuous society, that respects the dignity of every human individual. This would allow a genuine social solidarity, instead of isolation or disintegration. Then, what Jacques Maritain termed as 'civic friendship' would be a possibility, where social relationships would not be merely reduced to the mere contractual (as it is today).

NB: When I refer to religious institutions, it would mean that of the Judeo-Christian tradition, of which is convinced that 'next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses' (C. S. Lewis, Weight of Glory).

I would also like to emphasize that this interchange between religious and secular authorities does not imply an 'altar and throne' alliance, but rather an advisory role of religious institutions to the policy-making role of the state.

Abortus???

Short and Simple. Using the term ‘abortion’ to mean the termination of a pregnancy, desensitizes people from the true nature of things; that it is the murder of innocent and defenseless human persons.