I have opinions, some of them quite strong, about a wide variety of topics. I have never felt the need for my friends or family to share those opinions, possibly because I am generally acutely aware of the possibility that I might be WRONG. Many of my friends and family have opinions quite different from mine.
As I was growing up, I had one particular friend who had opinions pretty much opposite from me on most topics, yet we had very enjoyable, non-rancorous discussions on these topics. I look back on those discussions quite fondly. The thing that made our discussions so enjoyable, and possibly productive, was honesty, and the absence of "spin". Truth remains truth, whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Marxist, Vegan, or Philatelist. When one of us made a good point, the other would acknowledge that it was a good point. When one of us had a glaring weakness in our position, we would both acknowledge that it was a glaring weakness. When there were facts beyond reasonable dispute, we would both acknowledge that they were facts beyond reasonable dispute.
These characteristics are absent from too many discussions today, especially discussions regarding politics. In politics, both parties commonly mask the truth, and do everything possible to avoid acknowledging that anyone from "the other side" can ever be right about ANYTHING. In fact, people are sometimes reluctant to voice an opinion on an idea before learning the source of that idea -- if it came from someone on "our side", then it can be labeled a good idea; if it came from someone on "the other side", then it must be labeled a bad idea, or at least ignored.
I have strong opinions about politics, but am sometimes reluctant to state them, for fear that those who disagree with me on any one statement will feel compelled to automatically discount my ideas on every statement that follows.
Another problem in discussions is jumping from one topic to another, in an effort to "win" the discussion. For example, if I criticize a particular politician, the politician's defender may respond by criticizing a completely different politician, rather than defending the politician to which I am referring. BOTH politicians may be worthy of criticism, but this approach does little to advance communication. We should both discuss either politician "A" or politician "B". There is little to be gained by one of us talking about apples while the other is talking about oranges.
Then there is the fact that even the best idea may have flaws, or the worst idea may have positive points. There is little to be gained by denying this. Truth is complicated. Few things in life are one hundred percent good or one hundred percent bad, and to argue otherwise impedes true communication, and casts suspicion upon ALL our statements and beliefs.
Finally, there is the fact that for some people, in some circumstances, the goal of discourse is "victory" rather than communication. While this may occasionally be necessary, I find it to be very sad, and I personally have little use for such discourse.
I am not sure I have stated anything here that I have not stated elsewhere in this blog. Truth is complicated.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Repetition
I once heard a stand-up comic (unfortunately, I do not recall who it was) doing a very funny routine about the Disney “It’s a Small World” ride. On the actual ride, visitors are carried past animated figures representing children from all over the world, all singing the “It’s a Small World” song. The ride is offers no particular thrills; I would say it is intended to be pleasant or even joyful. The stand-up comic, since he was, after all, a stand-up comic, offered an alternate view, describing it as frightening and demonic, with all those animated children, “all completely different, yet ALL EXACTLY THE SAME.”
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Anyone viewing the world philosophically often faces the paradox of things that are different, yet the same. Generally, it’s not so much the paradoxical nature of the things themselves, but instead of our point of view, or what we are choosing to focus on.
I had a group of friends who had a standing joke regarding the idea that there are only a very limited number of different personalities, and everyone you encounter has one of these personalities. I think the number was something like “seventeen”, but I don’t recall the precise number. While this was said as a joke, I believe there is a kernel of truth in the idea. I suspect the total number is far greater, but still finite. To clarify: I suspect if you had every person answer a large number of questions about themselves (say, a thousand questions) and then matched them up with other people who had answered all or most of the questions in the same way, then you could successfully predict how one person would respond to a situation by looking at the response of another who had provided the very same answers. This would be an interesting experiment. I suppose this idea is already being used by people like guidance counselors and criminal profilers. However, even if this idea is useful, it does not contradict the idea that everyone is unique.
Then there is the realm of ideas. My favorite college instructor, Marty Shichtman, liked to focus on the similarities between ideas. A discussion of “Beowulf” could include a discussion of “Star Wars”, or a discussion of Dante’s Inferno could lead to a discussion of The Wizard of Oz. These stories can also be considered “different, yet the same.”
I first encountered the idea that “There are no original thoughts” while in middle school. Some may debate this concept, but it seems to have merit. Anyone wishing to disprove it must somehow establish that a certain thought is indeed “original” -- and I do not know how this could ever be established. Central to the debate would be the question of what constitutes “original” and what constitutes “the same as previous thoughts.”
While I am mentioning ideas from school, I should also acknowledge my college professors Wilmuth and Marshall. They were discussing a certain author. (I know who the author was, but I am not going to give his name, to avoid potential slander.) One of the professors casually stated that although this author had written a number of books, ALL of the books “said the same thing.” They were not implying that the books were the same, word-for-word, but that all the books made the same basic points. Incidentally, they WERE of the opinion that the author could have just as well stopped with a single book that made all his relevant points.
When I began this blog, I acknowledged that I was not necessarily going to write anything truly original. I also acknowledged that I would feel free to “plagiarize” myself (if such a thing is even possible). Now, as I continue to write entry after entry, I find myself worrying about repetition, and questioning whether the things I am writing are “different” or “all exactly the same.”
I believe there is truth in both points of view. It is logical that key ideas that are particularly important to someone will show up again and again in their writing. It is also logical that they may see subtle, crucial differences in approaching these same basic ideas from different angles, or slightly different forms of the same basic ideas. I ask that anyone reading any of these ideas bear with me, and realize that:
1) If I seem to be writing the same ideas over and over, it may be because I consider those ideas to be really important, and worthy of repetition, and
2) Rather than just dismiss something as “the same”, there might be value in looking for “the difference.”
Truth is complicated.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Global Warming
Yesterday I read an online article stating that Texas Governor Rick Perry, who recently added his name to those seeking the Republican Presidential nomination, had expressed doubts about Global Warming. The article, by Dina Cappiello, went on to say, “But Perry's opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”
Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.
The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?
The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas -- and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.
Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually -- though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.
When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.
Truth is complicated.
Like many controversial issues, Global Warming is complicated by the fact that there are thoughtful, rational, intelligent people, looking at the same data, who end up on both sides of the issue. The fact that many, especially on one side of the issue, try to insist that “the debate is over” makes me lean toward the opposite side of the issue.
The “issue” of Global Warming actually involves at least four separate-but-related questions:
1) Is global warming occurring?
2) Is global warming a bad thing?
3) Do the activities of humans have a significant effect on global warming?
4) IF global warming is occurring, AND if it is a bad thing, is there anything humans can do to significantly change the situation?
The answers to each of these questions have a dramatic impact on the other questions. However, I do not believe ANY of these four questions have been adequately answered. Number two is the least scientific of the four questions, and therefore is the hardest to answer objectively. I accept the idea that significant global warming would cause a rise in ocean levels, which would in turn lead to flooding of coastal areas -- and since these coastal areas are often densely populated by humans, perhaps this can be labeled a “bad thing” since cities would be lost and people would be driven from their homes. However, if this loss of homes were offset by, for instance, an increase in the world’s food supply, or even an increase in the amount of habitable land on earth (as regions like Siberia and Greenland became more temperate), then perhaps global warming would not be a clear-cut “bad thing”.
Global warming has become highly politicized, which interferes with finding honest, objective answers to the various questions. It has been established that on at least one occasion proponents of one side of the issue deliberately falsified data to support their position. I would not be surprised to learn that proponents of both sides had done this, and probably more than once. We SHOULD attempt to answer factual issues factually -- though the “facts” of global warming are complicated by various factors, including the slow time scale of global climate trends.
When a scientific issue become so politicized that it interferes with the scientific study of the issue, we should all be ashamed.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Karate Kid
Though it has been many years since I saw it, I enjoyed the original version of the movie “The Karate Kid”.
SPOILER ALERT: What I am about to write gives away elements of the movie that would be better experienced by viewing the movie without reading about them first. I will do my best to avoid revealing the plot of the movie, or even many details, but I cannot proceed without giving certain things away.
Many of the things I enjoy about the movie involve a student and a teacher. The student, who wishes to acquire a set of physical skills, often disagrees with the teacher, who insists on imparting wisdom along with the physical skills.
Early in their relationship, the teacher orders the student to perform various repetitive tasks, seemingly unrelated to the student’s education. Later, we learn that each of the repetitive tasks was chosen specifically to help the student acquire the physical skills he was seeking.
This brings up the crucial point that I LOVE about the movie. The student, since he IS the “student”, does not clearly comprehend WHAT it is that he needs to learn, or how to learn it. This is a central point of great teacher/student relationships. IF the teacher knows things that the student does NOT know, then this gives the teacher extra insights that the student does not possess. For a student to assume that THEY know the things they need to learn, and the best way to learn them, contradicts the entire teacher/student notion.
I hasten to admit that I am speaking in philosophical, ideal terms, and the truth of the “real world” is more complicated. In the real world, teachers are not always wiser or more insightful than the students, and sometimes they do NOT know what it is that the student needs to learn, or the best way for the student to learn them. Still, a wise student should not rule out the possibility that the teacher possesses this extra insight.
I will close with one of my favorite quotes, not because it is particularly relevant, but because it is one of my favorite quotes -- sometimes identified as a Buddhist proverb:
“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”
Truth is complicated.
SPOILER ALERT: What I am about to write gives away elements of the movie that would be better experienced by viewing the movie without reading about them first. I will do my best to avoid revealing the plot of the movie, or even many details, but I cannot proceed without giving certain things away.
Many of the things I enjoy about the movie involve a student and a teacher. The student, who wishes to acquire a set of physical skills, often disagrees with the teacher, who insists on imparting wisdom along with the physical skills.
Early in their relationship, the teacher orders the student to perform various repetitive tasks, seemingly unrelated to the student’s education. Later, we learn that each of the repetitive tasks was chosen specifically to help the student acquire the physical skills he was seeking.
This brings up the crucial point that I LOVE about the movie. The student, since he IS the “student”, does not clearly comprehend WHAT it is that he needs to learn, or how to learn it. This is a central point of great teacher/student relationships. IF the teacher knows things that the student does NOT know, then this gives the teacher extra insights that the student does not possess. For a student to assume that THEY know the things they need to learn, and the best way to learn them, contradicts the entire teacher/student notion.
I hasten to admit that I am speaking in philosophical, ideal terms, and the truth of the “real world” is more complicated. In the real world, teachers are not always wiser or more insightful than the students, and sometimes they do NOT know what it is that the student needs to learn, or the best way for the student to learn them. Still, a wise student should not rule out the possibility that the teacher possesses this extra insight.
I will close with one of my favorite quotes, not because it is particularly relevant, but because it is one of my favorite quotes -- sometimes identified as a Buddhist proverb:
“When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”
Truth is complicated.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Activism
"Activism" is one of those terms that is commonly used but controversial to define. Several online sources cite the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) -- "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause."
It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be "big" changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.
I may seem to have strayed off topic -- I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.
Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.
Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to "do SOMETHING". Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.
There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that "Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction." While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions -- and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.
This is especially a problem when using "direct, often confrontational action". Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.
A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA's agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a "pie in the face" for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a "pork queen". Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA's agenda of having fewer people consume pork -- AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.
While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.
Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about "the big picture". Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is "women's suffrage". Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.
Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls "activism". One person may consider it to be "activism" to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this "activism", and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.
Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of "doing SOMETHING". Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.
Truth is complicated.
It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be "big" changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.
I may seem to have strayed off topic -- I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.
Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.
Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to "do SOMETHING". Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.
There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that "Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction." While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions -- and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.
This is especially a problem when using "direct, often confrontational action". Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.
A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA's agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a "pie in the face" for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a "pork queen". Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA's agenda of having fewer people consume pork -- AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.
While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.
Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about "the big picture". Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is "women's suffrage". Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.
Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls "activism". One person may consider it to be "activism" to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this "activism", and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.
Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of "doing SOMETHING". Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.
Truth is complicated.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Minority Rules
I have previously written that Democracy is often summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme. I also wrote that the real challenge for the USA (which I now realize is a “republic” rather than a “democracy”) is protecting the minority from the unbridled expression of the will of the majority.
Recently, the world has been swept with news of protests and demonstrations. Abroad, notable demonstrations have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, along with various other countries. In the United States, the most publicized demonstrations have taken place in Wisconsin and Ohio. In the United States, demonstrators are to a certain extent protected by Federal law -- though there are still limits as to what is allowed. In the rest of the world, some of these demonstrators have been killed.
With demonstrations, protests, and similar gatherings, there is no way to clearly know whether you are dealing with the “majority” or the “minority” -- though probably MOST demonstrations and protests, at least in the USA, involve less than half the population, or even less than half the voting population, so in some sense would be considered the “minority”. SOMETIMES there are demonstrations and protests by people specifically opposed to the outcome of a vote that has already taken place. In this case, I would say the protesters almost certainly must be labeled the “minority” (unless there are allegations of actual fraud in the vote).
In the case of people demonstrating against the outcome of a fair, valid vote that has already taken place, the demonstrators (the “minority”) can be viewed as seeking to impose THEIR will upon the “majority”, who have already voted against the demonstrators. This is complicated and troubling.
One problem lies with the fact that demonstrators often seem to believe their passion and/or their numbers and/or their volume are an indication of the correctness of their position. I see little evidence that this is true. This is not to say that loud, passionate demonstrators are incorrect -- I just fail to see any relationship between passion and “correctness” or “goodness”. Passionately-supported ideas are not necessarily “good” ideas, just as the majority is not necessarily “right”.
Still, to a certain extent, our society defines “right” and “wrong”, at least in terms of political issues, according to the will of the majority, within the limits of protecting the minority. Whatever or whomever wins the election is “right”. If I had it in my power to secretly change the results of an election, so that all of the candidates and issues favored by ME prevailed, this would be “wrong” -- no matter HOW convinced I was that my candidates and issues were better than the OTHER candidates. (In fact, this would be an interesting personality question: “If you had it in your power to secretly change the outcome of a vote, WOULD you change it?”)
We COULD change our entire system, with questions decided by an old-fashioned “applause meter”. The candidate who gets the loudest applause “wins” the election. In a way, this is what demonstrators are advocating. It is also, in a way, the opposite of our current system, in which theoretically the quietest, weakest, poorest person has exactly the same number of votes as the loudest, strongest, richest person. (Granted, this is THEORETICAL. The loud and the strong and the rich already have greater power in making decisions in our country.)
I must emphasize that this is a complicated topic, and each situation is unique. The “majority” is not necessarily truly right. Demonstrations and protests are not always geared toward subverting the will of the majority. Often their relationship to the will of the majority is unclear, and, sometimes, they serve a valuable function. Still, there is often an element of “might makes right”, which is precisely what some demonstrators claim to be arguing AGAINST.
Truth is complicated.
Recently, the world has been swept with news of protests and demonstrations. Abroad, notable demonstrations have taken place in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, along with various other countries. In the United States, the most publicized demonstrations have taken place in Wisconsin and Ohio. In the United States, demonstrators are to a certain extent protected by Federal law -- though there are still limits as to what is allowed. In the rest of the world, some of these demonstrators have been killed.
With demonstrations, protests, and similar gatherings, there is no way to clearly know whether you are dealing with the “majority” or the “minority” -- though probably MOST demonstrations and protests, at least in the USA, involve less than half the population, or even less than half the voting population, so in some sense would be considered the “minority”. SOMETIMES there are demonstrations and protests by people specifically opposed to the outcome of a vote that has already taken place. In this case, I would say the protesters almost certainly must be labeled the “minority” (unless there are allegations of actual fraud in the vote).
In the case of people demonstrating against the outcome of a fair, valid vote that has already taken place, the demonstrators (the “minority”) can be viewed as seeking to impose THEIR will upon the “majority”, who have already voted against the demonstrators. This is complicated and troubling.
One problem lies with the fact that demonstrators often seem to believe their passion and/or their numbers and/or their volume are an indication of the correctness of their position. I see little evidence that this is true. This is not to say that loud, passionate demonstrators are incorrect -- I just fail to see any relationship between passion and “correctness” or “goodness”. Passionately-supported ideas are not necessarily “good” ideas, just as the majority is not necessarily “right”.
Still, to a certain extent, our society defines “right” and “wrong”, at least in terms of political issues, according to the will of the majority, within the limits of protecting the minority. Whatever or whomever wins the election is “right”. If I had it in my power to secretly change the results of an election, so that all of the candidates and issues favored by ME prevailed, this would be “wrong” -- no matter HOW convinced I was that my candidates and issues were better than the OTHER candidates. (In fact, this would be an interesting personality question: “If you had it in your power to secretly change the outcome of a vote, WOULD you change it?”)
We COULD change our entire system, with questions decided by an old-fashioned “applause meter”. The candidate who gets the loudest applause “wins” the election. In a way, this is what demonstrators are advocating. It is also, in a way, the opposite of our current system, in which theoretically the quietest, weakest, poorest person has exactly the same number of votes as the loudest, strongest, richest person. (Granted, this is THEORETICAL. The loud and the strong and the rich already have greater power in making decisions in our country.)
I must emphasize that this is a complicated topic, and each situation is unique. The “majority” is not necessarily truly right. Demonstrations and protests are not always geared toward subverting the will of the majority. Often their relationship to the will of the majority is unclear, and, sometimes, they serve a valuable function. Still, there is often an element of “might makes right”, which is precisely what some demonstrators claim to be arguing AGAINST.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Majority Rules
Far too often, Democracy is summed up with the two-word mantra, “Majority Rules” -- meaning that a vote has been or will be taken, and all will have to abide by the outcome of the vote, the expression of the will of the majority of voters. The majority will “rule” or reign supreme.
At first glance, the phrase “Majority Rules” is not a blatantly inaccurate description of how Democracy works. Theoretically, it is the majority who elects representatives -- “elected officials” -- and often it is the majority of elected officials who pass laws, among other things.
However, the real challenge of Democracy is NOT how to determine the will of the majority (via voting), but how to protect the minority from the unbridled expression of that will. If we were truly governed only by the doctrine of “Majority Rules”, then the majority could rule over the minority in any way it wished. Laws could be passed dictating that the minority had to serve the majority as slaves, or laws could be passed that the minority shall be killed. After all, “Majority Rules.” These examples may seem extreme, but they are the logical outcome of unlimited rule of the majority.
Another example: If “Majority Rules” then the Majority can vote to take money from the Minority. Just as absurd as enslaving or killing the minority. Oh ... wait a minute ... Lots of politicians, and possibly some actual voters, talk about raising taxes on “the rich”. Since “the rich” are NOT the majority, if we (the majority) WANT to take away their money, we should be able to. Majority Rules.
This is a complicated issue. In a way, most laws involve the majority imposing their will on the minority, such as the anti-jaywalkers imposing their will on the jaywalkers. In fact, the law routinely specifies that the majority can take money from jaywalkers, in the form of “fines”. Generally, however, the majority cannot take ALL of a jaywalker’s money, nor can the majority have jaywalkers killed. I honestly don’t know precisely what prevents the majority from having jaywalkers killed, or taking all their money. Somehow, something is limiting the majority.
It is my understanding that the government of the United States of America has various procedures and rules designed to limit the rule of the majority. Interestingly, some of these rules are vehemently opposed and sometimes even ridiculed.
Presidential Elections involve the “Electoral College”. Since American Presidents are elected by a vote of the “Electoral College” rather than by a direct vote of the people, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote but lose at the Electoral College level. The Electoral College serves to partially equalize the influence of fifty different states. Since most of the population is concentrated in a relatively few states, voters from those states -- the “majority” -- could impose their will (“rule”) over the voters from less-populous states, if only we did not have the Electoral College.
The United States Senate allows “filibusters” in which a minority of Senators can effectively block the majority of Senators. This is the entire POINT of filibusters. As a consequence, Senators from the majority often attempt the have the filibuster rules changed, so that they can “rule”.
I suppose our clearest protection from the Rule of the Majority is found in the Constitution. Even if the majority of voters pass a law, if a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then the law is voided. In recent years there have been various high-profile cases in which courts decided that the will of the majority was in conflict with the Constitution, including things like gun control. I suppose the Constitution is one of the factors that keeps jaywalkers from being executed.
Though it is a complicated issue, I am personally much more comfortable with Majority Rule when it involves answering some specific question that needs to be answered. For example, when two or more candidates are vying for an office, it makes perfect sense to decide via a vote of the people. I am much less comfortable with the majority deciding on rules that everyone must live by, such as “no jaywalking” or “Eat three servings of vegetables every day.” The issue of what I eat every day is NOT a question that needs to be addressed by a vote of the people, whereas the question of who shall serve as President of the United States IS a question that needs to be addressed.
I am a big fan of Democracy, but not so much of the phrase “Majority Rules”. It’s far too easy to forget about protecting the minority from the will of the majority. Perhaps a better phrase would be “Majority decides questions that need to be decided, while protecting the minority” -- but that does not roll off the tongue very well.
Truth is complicated.
LATER: At the sister site to this blog, truthiscomplicated.wordpress.com, the blogger jonolan (from “Reflections From A Murky Pond” at blog.jonolan.net) has correctly and succinctly commented that America was created as a Republic rather than a Democracy, for the reasons stated above. The entry above will continue to be valid if future readers substitute the phrase “our American systems of government” anytime the word “Democracy” appears.
I am grateful to jonolan for pointing this out, and recommend his blog!
At first glance, the phrase “Majority Rules” is not a blatantly inaccurate description of how Democracy works. Theoretically, it is the majority who elects representatives -- “elected officials” -- and often it is the majority of elected officials who pass laws, among other things.
However, the real challenge of Democracy is NOT how to determine the will of the majority (via voting), but how to protect the minority from the unbridled expression of that will. If we were truly governed only by the doctrine of “Majority Rules”, then the majority could rule over the minority in any way it wished. Laws could be passed dictating that the minority had to serve the majority as slaves, or laws could be passed that the minority shall be killed. After all, “Majority Rules.” These examples may seem extreme, but they are the logical outcome of unlimited rule of the majority.
Another example: If “Majority Rules” then the Majority can vote to take money from the Minority. Just as absurd as enslaving or killing the minority. Oh ... wait a minute ... Lots of politicians, and possibly some actual voters, talk about raising taxes on “the rich”. Since “the rich” are NOT the majority, if we (the majority) WANT to take away their money, we should be able to. Majority Rules.
This is a complicated issue. In a way, most laws involve the majority imposing their will on the minority, such as the anti-jaywalkers imposing their will on the jaywalkers. In fact, the law routinely specifies that the majority can take money from jaywalkers, in the form of “fines”. Generally, however, the majority cannot take ALL of a jaywalker’s money, nor can the majority have jaywalkers killed. I honestly don’t know precisely what prevents the majority from having jaywalkers killed, or taking all their money. Somehow, something is limiting the majority.
It is my understanding that the government of the United States of America has various procedures and rules designed to limit the rule of the majority. Interestingly, some of these rules are vehemently opposed and sometimes even ridiculed.
Presidential Elections involve the “Electoral College”. Since American Presidents are elected by a vote of the “Electoral College” rather than by a direct vote of the people, it is possible for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote but lose at the Electoral College level. The Electoral College serves to partially equalize the influence of fifty different states. Since most of the population is concentrated in a relatively few states, voters from those states -- the “majority” -- could impose their will (“rule”) over the voters from less-populous states, if only we did not have the Electoral College.
The United States Senate allows “filibusters” in which a minority of Senators can effectively block the majority of Senators. This is the entire POINT of filibusters. As a consequence, Senators from the majority often attempt the have the filibuster rules changed, so that they can “rule”.
I suppose our clearest protection from the Rule of the Majority is found in the Constitution. Even if the majority of voters pass a law, if a court decides that the law is unconstitutional, then the law is voided. In recent years there have been various high-profile cases in which courts decided that the will of the majority was in conflict with the Constitution, including things like gun control. I suppose the Constitution is one of the factors that keeps jaywalkers from being executed.
Though it is a complicated issue, I am personally much more comfortable with Majority Rule when it involves answering some specific question that needs to be answered. For example, when two or more candidates are vying for an office, it makes perfect sense to decide via a vote of the people. I am much less comfortable with the majority deciding on rules that everyone must live by, such as “no jaywalking” or “Eat three servings of vegetables every day.” The issue of what I eat every day is NOT a question that needs to be addressed by a vote of the people, whereas the question of who shall serve as President of the United States IS a question that needs to be addressed.
I am a big fan of Democracy, but not so much of the phrase “Majority Rules”. It’s far too easy to forget about protecting the minority from the will of the majority. Perhaps a better phrase would be “Majority decides questions that need to be decided, while protecting the minority” -- but that does not roll off the tongue very well.
Truth is complicated.
LATER: At the sister site to this blog, truthiscomplicated.wordpress.com, the blogger jonolan (from “Reflections From A Murky Pond” at blog.jonolan.net) has correctly and succinctly commented that America was created as a Republic rather than a Democracy, for the reasons stated above. The entry above will continue to be valid if future readers substitute the phrase “our American systems of government” anytime the word “Democracy” appears.
I am grateful to jonolan for pointing this out, and recommend his blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)