If, for instance, the majority in a country wants a state religion, should it be instated?
1 Like
On the religion question, in the U.S., the people (well, their representatives) would first need to abolish the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the Constitution to begin with.
I would have judged this unlikely before January 20th. At this point I struggle come up with that nonsense which the current administration wouldn’t engage in or enact. So it’s a wait and see deal, I suppose.
1 Like
This is more a general philosophical question than one specific to the goings on in the U.S.
Should there actually be a majority rule? Is it ethical?
1 Like
What is your definition of “ethical”?
My knee-jerk reaction is to consider whether such a situation is consistent with long-term survival, and I would say that it probably isn’t, and is–therefore–unethical.
This is because diversity has always seemed to be a long term survival stratedgy. When we invest money, we want a diverse portfolio. When an ecosystem has many different types of plants and animals, it is more robust. An ecosystem in, say, a cave may only have a few types of animals and fungi, and a cave ecosystem is very, very fragile.
I believe that when there are many different types of people with many points of view and a diversity of thought, then such a society is better able to meet challenges and has a better chance of survival.
So, if you define ethics as a mechanism for survival, then a majority rule of everything would probably be unethical.
In places like Iran and Afghanistan, the religious rules of the majority avoid many aspects of modern medicine and science.
Iran’s government is starting to become unstable, and I predict that it will collapse in the future.
1 Like
Sorry to point it out, but you don’t need to look as far away as Afghanistan and Iran to see this. The USA currently fits this description as well, courtesy of your winner-takes-it-all electoral system and the resulting two-party system.
3 Likes
I can’t disagree with you.
Trump is trying to disassemble the department of education, he put an anti-vaxxer crackpot in charge of the health services, and he wants to terminate our association with the World Health Organization.
He is also trying to mandate Christianity in American politics.
Places like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Australia are starting to look better and better.
I’ve actually been reading more on Aristotle lately.
There is much about him I didn’t know.
1 Like
Hi! We belong to a dangerous majority just because they are the majority doesn’t make them right.
1 Like
The U.S., along with other countries, has always been a majority rule country. That means, for instance, that 50.1% of the population doing the choosing gets their way and 49.9% do not.
Here in the U.S., the majority voted in trump, vance, musk, project 2025, the brain worm guy, etc. Because of this, a lot of people are or will be fucked…non-gender-binary, seniors, the poor, farmers, the disabled, anyone who values their health, the middle class, 1st generation citizens, non-xtians, non-whites, women, future generations, the list goes on.
Is that ethical, fair, or even reasonable? Are there conditions we lack currently that, if corrected (for example, better education of citizens) would make it fair, reasonable, ethical?
I’m struggling because I don’t know if this is something I’m pondering simply because of being faced with the majority choosing something by which I’m horrified.
3 Likes
You are unfortunately, facing something horrifying. The world is also, and we didn’t get a vote 
.
We and you can only respond.
Many citizens around the world have lived in these types of governments. I won’t go into how, in the past, the USA’s role in inflicting these types of “rulership” on other countries.
The USA citizens will and are on the receiving end of “rulership”.
Slovakia, Georgia & Serbia have been fighting and protesting their authoritarian government.
The President, The House and The Senate are GOP. The judiciary? We’ll see…
Understand that my heart hurts for my American friends who did not vote for this. BUT apparently enough did and too many DID not vote (so they get what they deserve). Collectively, the 
is going to be learning a very difficult lesson.
Those who cheered “daddy’s home” - yah, he is… drunk, stupid and ready to beat the shit out of his family.
Edited to add: the Military arm of the could be a black swan event…
2 Likes
Actually, no. Because of other candidates, Trump got just below the majority with 49.80%, Harris got 48.32%, while other candidates got 1.88%. Source: Federal election commission.
Your biggest problem is your indirect system with the electoral college and the winner-takes-it-all approach that favour two big parties such that a third party or independent candidates in reality have no chance in hell. So voters that don’t align with any of them waste their votes on other candidates, vote for the lesser evil, or don’t vote at all. Also, have the number of electors from each state been updated according to modern population distribution?
1 Like
This is interesting:
It’s talking about the 2016 election but the info still applies. It seems the number of electoral votes are based on the number of Congressional districts a state has,which is based on population, but each state is guaranteed at least three, so if you live in a state with a small population your vote can have more weight. Our last census was in 2020 and we have one every 10 years.
All in all I’d still prefer it to be decided by popular vote. The electoral college discourages people from voting if they live in a state likely to go for the side they don’t back so it can skew even the popular vote.
Oh that’s dark, and terrifying. I thought it would be bad, but it’s even worse than I thought it would be. I apparently lack imagination.
This is, indeed, the case for POTUS. However, it isn’t the case for the (often) thousands of other local ballot items.
There’s always been a distinction between pure democracy (“the tyranny of the mob”) and representative republics. The objective of pure democracy is the imposition of the will of the majority on all dissenters. In practice, this becomes indistinguishable from fascism, except that fascistic movements (like Christo-fascism) often gaslight about how many people actually share their views; it’s seldom a true majority.
There was a time when “the majority” believed there were 3 elements, or that the best medical care involved bleeding with leeches. There’s nothing particularly right or virtuous about majority rule.
By contrast the objective of representative republics is the negotiation of ways for everyone who is functional and minding their own business to get along with each other, even if they disagree substantively (for example, about the existence of gods, which god is the “right” one, how many genders there are, who gets to have sex when and with whom, power structures within marriage, and so forth). The premise is roughly that everything is fine so long as you’re not forcing it on people who disagree with you in some way. It’s called “pluralism”. It values diversity rather than imposing conformity. It pares non-negotiables down to a few principles (don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t be an asshole) rather than things like don’t dress a certain way, eat a certain way. You CAN choose how you dress or eat, but you can and must play nice in society with those who dress or eat differently. The only thing everyone must adhere to is essentially “do no actual harm” plus to the extent possible, “live and let live”.
Now of course people see harms where they don’t exist. People wanting gender-affirming care, or don’t believe in any gods, or have unmarried sex, doesn’t harm those who disapprove of it or don’t want it for themselves. But they think it diminished them somehow to live and let live.
1 Like
Parliamentary systems force negotiations and coalitions … it makes politics less of a zero-sum game. I wish we did not have a 2-party system in the US. It always in the end leads to a one-party system. Oh, wait …
Ding ding ding, we have a winner…
FWIW, in a democracy the majority decide who governs them, but in a free society the views of minorities are still heard, and more importantly, in a “decent” society, the rights of those minorities must remain the same as those of the majority, and cannot be taken away by any decision the majority make.
To me this is a subjective ethical / moral axiom.
What I mean is that it ultimately rests on a subjective view.
I hold this view because it is expedient, but also it involves (at some level) metaethical emotivism. I cannot entirely separate my emotions from my reasoning, but I can override them.
2 Likes
I did tell you, you will be welcomed with open arms by the Western Australian Health authority…and I could buy you beer when you are here. Tell your friends to come but keep in mind. *Due to the low standards of some US qualifications some may have to take a an RPL course before working.
Trained Ex cops and Firies (firepersons) are also sought after here expecially those with large scale bush fire experience. Cops should know they will have to go through our Academy again…
4 Likes
[quote=“CyberLN, post:1, topic:6298, full:true”] Should the majority actually rule? If, for instance, the majority in a country wants a state religion, should it be instated?
[/quote]
The minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. There’s nothing wrong with governing per the wishes of the majority, provided no one’s rights are violated and dissenting voices are not silenced.
Using the example in the question, traditionally a state religion leads to problems. There’s extensive history that state religions lead to unequal treatment under the law. Sometimes these are quite oppressive and dangerous to apostates.
So, No!! The majority can’t rule without protections for minority groups.
2 Likes
I sure wish that was the case in the U.S.
Seems like daily I read a new report of laws and policies enacted that erode, for instance, freedom from religion. I find this particularly heinous when directed at children.
3 Likes
Have to be honest, I’m becoming more and more disillusioned with democracy so…
UK Atheist
2 Likes