I was thinking about the concept of "tyranny of the majority", described as an evil on page 8. Mill says that we need protection against tyranny of the magistrate but also against "the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling", and "against the tendency of society to impose" (9). I agree with something brought up in discussion last time - that this can have its advantages, such as when the majority of people are against something morally wrong or scandalous committed by a public figure, and cancelling one of their speeches in the future. I think if many people individually come to the same conclusion themselves about morals, the conclusion can't be so wrong... For example, most people would agree that killing, cheating, and hurting others when you are angry are "wrong." In this case, I think that it's good that the majority's opinion can be so influential because it will promote good moral behaviours and set expectations for the community. (Though maybe these "moral rules" that we think are right or wrong are just shared opinions on how we should behave, since Mill says that "an opinion on a point of conduct not supported by reasons can only count as one person's preferences; and if the reasons, when give, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one.") Then I remembered that a few days ago my friend was telling me about an argument he had with his floor mates. He said something about how he is atheist, but doesn't like when people say that religion is stupid because a long time ago it was reversed; people very much believed in religion over science and thought that science was stupid and ridiculous which it obviously turned out not to be. The majority of people were uneducated about science, and thought of it as going against religion. So maybe it's the uneducated or irrational majority that is most dangerous and should be protected against.
Mill also says that "the practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathies, would like them to act," which seems similar to Kan'ts categorical imperative and acting on maxims that can also be universal laws. Mill says that self-government is "not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest." This reminds me of the Reformation texts we read last semester; particularly Luther who said that we are truly free because we don't do things for ourselves, we do things to serve other people - "a Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none, bound to his neighbour only in love" and "a Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all."
"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." 15
This point shows that being negligent or being a bystander is just as wrong to the victim as being the attacker. It reminds me of the quote, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
No comments:
Post a Comment