The Nature of Majority Rule

This essay is a result of a recent debate I had over the nature of majority rule. My opponents in the debate contended that the concept of majority rule (or "mob rule," as one of them preferred to call it), is not desirable nor does it actually occur in most cases. While I make no argument for or against its desirability—that is strictly a matter of opinion—I contend that the majority ALWAYS rules, whether it is obvious or not.

The quickest and easiest way to illustrate this is through a handful of examples in which it at first appears that the majority's will is circumnavigated. But upon further inspection, it will be clear that these examples show that majority does rule.

The first example: in a country, it is determined that it should be unlawful to mistreat a minority. One of my opponents claimed this as evidence that the majority does not always rule. This is first a logical fallacy of mixed terminology; the word "minority" in the above example refers to members of groups that are not the most populous group in the country. This can be defined by race, orientation, religion, ethnicity, gender etc. The use of minority and majority in this example is meant to imply opposition, but it does not. Minority in reference to the lesser numbered group on one side of an argument is not the same as minority in reference to members of less populous groups of race, religion, orientation etc. What first must be clarified is that members of those minorities can be members of the majority in sharing their opinion. But this is a digression from the real point. That point is that the real reason we protect minorities is because the majority finds that to be the morally correct position. This concept leaves a sour taste in the mouths of people that believe morality is objective. If actions are deemed moral only by the will of the majority, they are thus subjective. While this may seem frightening or undesirable to many, it is the case. Consider that for a long time, it was the will of the majority that people with black skin were inferior and should be counted as property in this country. Objective morality, something which would override the will of the majority, would have stopped that from happening. Instead, the only thing that stopped it was the gradual shift of majority opinion.

The second example: voters elect a President who begins to make decisions in office that many disagree with. In this case the elected individual is making decisions against the will of the majority. The argument is made that the majority does not control the direction of the country, but rather the individual President and his administration does. This seems to be the case when any one moment in time is viewed, but in reality, the big picture reveals that the majority maintains control. The will change the makeup of their leadership via election and exercise that control when the time comes. The majority chooses to wait for that time. They do not have to; in extreme cases, the majority can be motivated to remove by force a leader that is out of control. This had been done many times in history. An argument can also be made that those who do not vote made amount to enough people that their will would have influenced the outcome of an election differently, and by not voting they represent a majority that is not in control. However, they choose not to vote. They are still in control, they just do not exert their power over that control. The fact remains that if a majority of the population decided to actively change the leadership of their country, it would be changed.

The third example: a majority attempts to overthrow their nation or invade and control another, smaller nation. In acts of battle, they are defeated. It would seem in this case the majority has lost, but that is an illusion. Through battle, the majority was weakened by means of having many among their numbers killed and by political methods of either turning the opinions of some of their members against them or even frightening them into submission (it is still their choice to become submissive; they side with the majority by choosing to do so, regardless of motivations). The majority won because they made themselves the majority. The side that lost, while the majority at the beginning of the conflict, was reduced to the minority. If considering the opinions of other nations around the world in this conflict, it should be noted that the majority is the country or countries that throw their lot in with the winner by supporting them in battle; they are determined to be the majority by virtue of having won. Entities remaining neutral support the majority by default; the statement of not having any desire to support one side or the other is a statement of support of whoever wins.

There are myriad other examples that could be utilized here as an illustration of how the majority always rules; in most cases of counter-argument, the opposing opinion is not incorrect in showing who is in power, but rather incorrect in identifying them as something other than the majority.

Logic and Emotion

In many ways, logic and emotion are opposites. Logic means thinking, its scientific. Its about numbers and probabilities and consequences and understanding cause and effect. Emotion means feeling. It can be totally devoid of science. Its really not the opposite of logic as a rule; a logically sound choice can also be an emotionally appealing choice. But its the rules that apply to each concept that make them so different. Logic is order. Emotion is chaos.

There are times when these two concepts are at odds. The question is then which force should be obeyed and which should be ignored. There is no question that logic carries with it the capacity for making the wisest decision even when it is the most difficult decision. Truthfully, a world composed only of logic would be close to ideal. All decisions would be made based on the strongest facts and figures and would likely yield the most beneficial results. But we must remember that emotion cannot be cast aside because by its very nature, it will not allow us to do so.

Emotion often has a greater influence on decision making than people realize. Very often, decisions made or actions taken seemingly on logic alone have an underlying emotional motive. There is merit in learning to control this influence and if possible, suppress it as much as possible in situations where emotional responses can be especially unfavorable (for example, situations where fear is likely, like war). However, it is futile to expect that we can totally eliminate emotion. Furthermore, the presence of emotion dictates that we would not want to eliminate it. It is ironic that both logic and emotion are self-perpetuating. The argument for being logical is itself based in logic, whereas the argument for listening to emotion is based on feeling.

What people must understand is that logic is the trustworthy option of the two. It is based on fact. It will not lie or mislead. A decision or action taken from a logical approach will, with the exception of situations with unforeseen variables, play out exactly as it was planned, assuming all parties involved also rely on logic. Emotion, conversely, is fluid. It can change without warning because it does not depend on known variables at all. It is only the result of its own existence. Emotion and logic can inspire the same action, for example in a situation where a person faces death. Logic will inspire that person to attempt to survive. Emotion will inspire him to want to survive. In this situation, logic and emotion then work in tandem. In other cases, for example the previously mentioned situation of battle, the two can work against each other. A person might logically know that the completion of the mission is the goal, but might feel like fleeing.

The question is then which force should be obeyed. The logical answer is logic; the emotional answer is emotion. But the right answer is that a person cannot expect to separate the two. Without logic, we risk descending into chaos. Without emotion, we lose the things that make us human; love, happiness, and fulfillment. Therefore, a happy medium must be reached.

As a logical person, my personal belief is that logic should be used as the primary decision making tool and emotion as a system of checks and balances. Normally, the logical choice is the right one and emotion should not be allowed to trump it automatically. However, emotion cannot be ignored and in rare situations, can be allowed to change the decision. To use an extreme example, in a situation where a person's life may be in danger, but attempting to save that person may put the lives of two willing people in danger and does not guarantee success, the logical choice is to abandon the rescue attempt. However, the emotional consequences are guilt, possibly for a very long time. The feeling means that emotion should be allowed to win out. For some, the guilt of the logical choice will outweigh the possibility of failure and possibly the loss of one's life. Again, emotion itself dictates that it cannot be totally ignored by its own existence.

Every person must balance these two concepts but every person's personality will balance on a different point on the fulcrum that is the separation between the concepts. It is up to each individual to find the place where logic and emotion mix to form an acceptable life approach, and this decision is based only on emotion. The only way to find the balance is to find what feels right. And it is here that the ultimate irony becomes apparent.

As stated, emotion cannot be totally ignored no matter how much effort is made. Therefore, logic reveals that emotion must be incorporated into a person's life approach. Conversely, it is possible to totally abandon logic. Whereas allowing emotion into the decision making process adds humanity, using it as the only guide is more akin to an animal existence, living purely on instinct and the desires of the moment. If decisions are made only based on emotion, than emotion decides to follow only emotion. But emotion for most people will also make them feel bad for not making the right choice, thus emotion makes people want to make the right choice, and the right choice is often the logical choice, so emotion cause us to desire logic. Conclusively, each concept perpetuates itself AND each concept perpetuates the other.

The perception and reality of Control

The concept of control at its most basic level is that the individual can influence his environment. This is a human concept which most likely results from the natural desire to strive for and attain what one desires and to believe that it will always be possible, or in other words "hope." One's perception of control over one's environment is the result of the strength of one's hope. The truth is, people control very little. Like other organisms, humans are exclusively reactionary. A person's every movement and every choice is made in response to something. You eat because you are hungry. You walk because you want to be in the sun. You watch a movie because you want to be entertained. You think about existence because you don't understand it and the chemicals in your brain mix to tell you that you will feel more secure about yourself if you do understand it, and the logical response is that to understand something you must ponder it. This truth can be applied to any and all situations and is fairly obvious when you think about it.

But what does this mean for control? Well, it means that we are controlled by our environments, not the other way around. The actual control that an individual has is very limited. First, an individual has absolutely zero control over anything outside said individual's own mind. An individual can influence, often strongly, the actions of others, but this should not be mistaken for control. Control implies understanding but one person can not truly understand the workings of another, one can only assume what another is thinking based on their words and actions. Therefore, you control what you know but only influence what you assume to know. This is best illustrated by a metaphor: a man enters a bank to rob it. He produces a gun, assuming the presence of the gun will instill fear in the minds of those around him, making them docile and giving him control over them. However, he has made an assumption. Nine times out of ten, that assumption is probably accurate and he either escapes with the money or at least avoids conflict until police arrive. But one time out of ten, this man enters a bank where the customer standing closest to him is a former special forces operative. He quickly disarms the criminal, illustrating that the criminal was not, in fact, in control of his situation but merely influencing it. The hero is not in control either; in the scenario where he intervenes, there is also an outcome where he is too slow and is accidentally shot by the startled criminal and killed. He too only assumed his physical aggression would give him control of the situation.

Control of other people is an illusion that is supported by human interaction in which people tend to naturally try to please each other and strive for peace. Control of one's environment is different because you are not interacting with another organism but with inanimate matter. Turning on a light, eating a sandwich, taking a shower, etc. But this too is not true control. This is because all of these actions are taken for reasons. You turn the light on to see, eat the sandwich to quell hunger, take the shower to remain clean. In all of these cases, it is actually the environment that has controlled you and forced you to make a choice to adapt to said environment.

However, what sets humans apart from other organisms that are not self-aware is that they do control a small amount of choice. Most animals act solely from instinct, reacting only to environmental stimuli. Humans, who are able to ask themselves why they act the way they do, are also able to choose to act differently. While all choices arise because of the environment, the human still makes the choice. For example, the human may choose to not turn on the light, not eat the sandwich or not take the shower. However, these choices are still made due to external stimuli. Perhaps the light stays off because the human instead chooses to enter a different room or go to sleep. Perhaps the human does not eat because he is fasting for religious or social reasons. Perhaps the human skips the shower because he intends to take one later anyway. This does present a modicum of control, but not as much as it seems because the incentive to make each choice is inspired by environmentally stimuli again. The human would not choose to not eat unless he had a reason and a reason is a result of external stimuli.

In my previous essay, I talked about consequence being the driving force behind morality. If that is true, then consider that control is nature's system of protecting itself from immoral influence. In this sense, morality is used to mean nature's method of self-preservation; so-called moral creatures go further as a species than immoral ones. In a way, an almost complete lack of control is unavoidable; its more or less a natural result of the way existence is constructed. But it does act as a handy buffer between morality and chaos as it would prevent those that stray from the path of morality from controlling others. What the lack of control guarantees above all else is that mankind as a species will never truly be united under one goal; from a strictly logical point of view, this is clearly beneficial to the growth and evolution of the species.

Morality as a result of Consequence

This is not a post about faith or atheism, but about the driving force of mankind. However, faith and the lack thereof must enter the discussion because they are inseparable from the driving force of mankind. Faiths suggest at their most basic level that the reason for man to seek a morally respectable path is god. God rewards those that seek the path of “righteousness,” root word “right,” as in the correct choice, whereas god smites those who behave in unjust ways with eternal suffering. It is the common opinion of believers that atheists would have no incentive to behave morally; there is in their mind no ultimate force driving them to make the tough decision of choosing right over wrong. This is a fundamental argument in support of the divine creator.

However, Islam lead men to fly planes into towers full of innocent people. We know killing is wrong. Christianity led men to slay non-Christians mercilessly during the Inquisition. We know killing is wrong. Ancient religions required the sacrifice of young virgins. We know killing is wrong. Abortion clinics are bombed in the name of the old testament “eye for an eye” ethos. Israel and Palestine struggle for identity through the acts of killing. In India, violence has erupted between Muslims and Hindus. It is hard to view the system as a whole when you are decidedly entrenched as a member of only one of its’ cogs, but we are all humans and we are all suffering in a battle of systems that claim to provide the one true moral compass…but which advocate the eradication of beings no different from us save for the symbol they wear around their neck.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not quarrel over deities. This is not to say atheists are the ultimate state of humanity, forever free from sin. No, an atheist is perfectly capable and willing to commit wrongdoing as well. But not all of them. And that’s the point; if atheism is a system free from moral constraint, then why are so many atheists still morally respectable members of society? The answer is because there is an overlying system of morality that encompasses all human beings. It is a system into which faiths fit like puzzle pieces of interpretation. But those pieces aren’t necessary. Morality in and of itself is accomplished not through belief in the creator but through a two-fold system of biology and consequences.

The first part of this system, biology, is nature’s way of providing for our existence. In individuals who are chemically functional (in other words, not in some way mentally or criminally insane), there is a natural desire to see members of the same species grow and prosper. This system is not unique to humans. It exists throughout the animal kingdom and presents itself in many ways. A man pulls a child from in front of a speeding care. A lioness shares her prey with her cub. An amoeba evolves to combat changing environmental characteristics. In all situations, the organism is looking out not only for itself, but for the survival of its species.

The second part of the system is consequences, a strictly human concept. Humanity is defined by our ability to act against nature. An animal is driven by instinct alone. Instinct is kill or be killed. Instinct is mate and produce offspring. Instinct is avoid danger and take advantage of weaker organisms for personal benefit. This is how an animal lives. To be human is to be able to accomplish the positive aspects in the above situations without committing the negative actions. A human can decide a disagreement without killing the person he is disagreeing with. A human can choose to mate with another human while not producing offspring, either via contraceptive or via interaction with a member of the same sex. A human can find ways to improve its situation without taking anything from another human. Humanity is, in its simplest form, the ability to defy instinct for the betterment of the self and the species.

But ability does not imply action. People lie, cheat, steal and kill every day. And it has nothing to do with faith. Just as many believers commit murder as nonbelievers would never dream of such an action. Therefore, the driving force of morality in mankind is not faith but consequence. Consequence is the one thing preventing every single person on this earth from doing whatever they please.

For those of faith, the consequence is divine; the penalty of eternal suffering. But it does not have to be divine to be effective. For many people, it is much simpler. A man sees a candy bar that he wants to eat. Why doesn’t he take it? Because that is against the law. He must pay for it or leave it. A woman gets into a fight with another woman. But she does not strike or throttle her. Why? Because that would be illegal. Instead, the argument never proceeds beyond words. Later on, guilt may set in, nature’s way of telling us actions that harm other beings are wrong. But what prevented that action in the first place? Consequences.

Thus it stands: the creation of a society which imposes consequences for immoral actions is the height of human achievement because the aiding of the growth of the species is nature’s sole intent. This is a purely scientific assessment, free from the influence of deities but which nevertheless meshes well with all faiths in its interest in the preservation of its members; the only difference is that nature considers all of mankind to be members of the species whereas faiths draw lines.

So it comes down to consequences and chemicals. The chemicals in functional human brains tell them to behave morally. Human ingenuity allows them to do so more easily by avoiding the pitfalls of animal instinct. Consequences provide a safety net of discouragement against immoral action in times during which instinct may attempt to overpower logical thought. The result of this is that mankind can exist in a state of moral harmony regardless of faith or background.

Remember, consequences do not always relate to legality, but also to emotional response and societal reaction. For example, it is not morally acceptable to cheat on your spouse, but there is no law against it. Nevertheless, there is societal outrage. It is also not morally acceptable to tell a friend that he or she is a bad person. But there is guilt and pain later as a result of doing so if the claims were unjustified. Nature expects basic morality of us but it has provided us with the tools to exceed that and achieve a level of “human” morality that is integral to our existence as a dominant, self-aware species.