Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 This is a subject that's been on my mind for a couple of years, and the Dearborn thread kind of made me decide it was time to broach it with all of you. In a democratic society, the majority rules. We all know that. But, socially, does the majority have an obligation to...I don't know...make things easier for the minority? We can all agree that things like slavery and segregation are wrong. But is there a moral obligation to continue things like affirmative action? In a nation that is majority Christian, do Christians have an obligation to step aside and make it easier for Jews and Muslims to spread their message? A pure capitalist society is dog eat dog. I realize that doesn't work in a practical sense. No one -- including me, believe it or not -- wants to see white Christian males having all the money and power. No one wants to see majorities in any area having a complete monopoly, to the detriment of any given minority. My question to you is this. What is the majority's obligation when it comes to the social standing of various minorities? And how does this fit in with the democratic and capitalist systems we purport to hold dear? (I haven't done a very good job of asking the question, but I hope you guys can see what I'm getting at, and offer some good answers/discussion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Absolutely not. I will respond on more than the title when I get back from the post office. (I should read the entire post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Society and our laws of the past 50 years say the majority is responsible to maintain certain rights of the minority. The majority could crush a minority if it so wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Absolutely not. I will respond on more than the title when I get back from the post office. (I should read the entire post) Please do. As I said, the title, and heck, the post too, are not properly phrased, but I hope you can get the gist of it. I look forward to your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Americans should want to help out other Americans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I don't know about "cater", but they should certainly help out when possible. Nothing wrong with people helping people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Americans should want to help out other Americans I don't know about "cater", but they should certainly help out when possible. Nothing wrong with people helping people. I definitely agree. I just wonder to what extent, and if it's a moral obligation. Should we see it as our duty to help those who are opposed to our particular viewpoint get their message out, since their numbers are fewer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I think one of the building blocks of our nation is "All Men Created Equal". To me that means all should have as level a playing field as we can possibly create for success. This is a very hard thing in the real world to achieve. As an aside, I think the inequalities are becoming less racial and more economic. The playing field is really getting out of wack for the middle class and below today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Here is an example that I think of. Should we send disaster assistance to Florida? I mean it's a dumb state, with more dumb people than most other states, and most people that live in the state disgaree with me on a lot of issues. But I'd still feel morally obligated to support an effort to help them recover from a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 hh, I'll try to participate a bit more later, but after reading your OP and your comments about the title, might I suggest the term "sometimes defer" (or leave out the "sometimes" if you don't like that qualification---that's a bit editorial on my part), which still may not be ideal, but may create less distraction from the best possible conversation than "cater" will to the guy who reads a thread title and then "goes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 Here is an example that I think of. Should we send disaster assistance to Florida? I mean it's a dumb state, with more dumb people than most other states, and most people that live in the state disgaree with me on a lot of issues. But I'd still feel morally obligated to support an effort to help them recover from a disaster. Sure. And FWIW, I would help Vermont, California, and DC too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 hh, I'll try to participate a bit more later, but after reading your OP and your comments about the title, might I suggest the term "defer", which still may not be ideal, but may create less distraction from the best possible conversation than "cater" will to the guy who reads a thread title and then "goes." Good call. Thank ya, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Americans should want to help out other Americans That's exactly right. The word "obligation" shouldn't even enter into the conversation. If we're all fighting amongst our self created subgroups or trying to climb over each other to get ahead, we will all struggle and fall. How does it help anybody if we aren't all educated and healthy, the best way we can be. I've really tried to stop linking myself to the smallest grouping I can and just try to remember I'm just another animal on this rock and it would be a much better rock to be on, if every animal lived with that attitude. I think people want to create their little petty labels (religion, wealth status, color, etc) to make themselves feel more important in the great scheme of things, but in truth, the average person thinks they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 No, the majority should not be responsible to make it easier on the minority simply because they're in the minority. And conversely they should also not be responsible for making things harder on the minority simply because they're in the minority. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people who say they believe the first part absolutely do not believe in the second part. But, it all depends on what th situation is. the obvious examples being race and sex, or sexuality.. the people in these minorities should not be impeded in any way by their minority status, nor should they be given help up unless there are those who do not treat them fairly, and unfortunately, there's still plenty of them. (Within common sense, the great arbiter we never use. A man should realize the business model of Hooters is not so he can be a server. I don't see that as discrimination.) But in the other use of minority i'm seeing used recently, that of a political minority... in this country majority does rule. And the minority needs to recognize that, and realize it is the basis of our entire system. The minority does not decide for the majority. Otherwise it becomes mob rule. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 "Do unto others..." ring any bells? I wrote this a long time ago, but I think it's still valid when we start talking about what we can do. After one screaming and hitting match between my kids, I had them stop for a story: Picture this in your mind. There before you stands a man in a business suit yelling and screaming at a 300 lb. pig. He is yelling at the pig to move! “Just move! You are in my way!” The pig is not moving. Is the man silly or the pig? Is the man more or less silly if the pig is comfortably rolling around in a pigpen? Can you picture it? It would seem crazy for the pig to move, right? It is being a pig. What do you expect? Now, what if the muddy pig was rolling around on a train track with a train coming towards it? Does the man look less silly for yelling at the pig instead of actually trying to do something to entice the pig off the tracks? Regardless of whether the man in the business suit is right or wrong, isn’t the picture of a man in business suit wagging his finger and giving a muddy pig a lecture rather silly? Now, let’s change this around a bit. What if we see your favorite female clown wagging her finger at the pig? I would be laughing it up right along with you. If the clown traded her clown clothes for a business suit, does she look any less the clown for arguing with a pig? I doubt she will get different results from the stubborn pig. In fact, I would say both the executive and the clown look the same, silly. For you see, there really is not a way to come across as a smart reasonable person as you sit there arguing with a pig. At some point in everyone’s life, we will be on both sides of the argument. We will be the person correctly trying to move the pig to a better place, and we will be the pig completely ignoring what the silly clown is yelling at us. The pig will always look the fool. The question is will we recognize when we are yelling at the pig, and will we be smart enough to go another direction. The other direction may be going for a treat to encourage the pig to move or just deciding we can live with what ever happens to the pig because we cannot change its mind. Please try to remember this as you find yourself wanting to yell and scream at your sister, your bother, your friend, or even your parent. We are all pig herders, and we are all pigs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So often we may find ourselves in the majority. We may find/think ourselves in the right. How much can we change for the better? What about when we are the pig? How much should that business man or clown be able to do to us? We will all be the pig. The majority has an obligation to the minority, but that obligation is really an obligation to ourselves. After all, the only normal is deviance from the norm. The Stepford Wives were creepy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I definitely agree. I just wonder to what extent, and if it's a moral obligation. Should we see it as our duty to help those who are opposed to our particular viewpoint get their message out, since their numbers are fewer? I do in a way think its a moral obligation. I don't think we would've gotten to where we are as a country without helping each other. Now as for as to what extent, I don't know. But I think any help is better than not helping at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Depends. In a truly democratic society, no. In a fee society, quite often (for example, the great majority of wealth will always be held by the minority but the majority is not necessarily justified in using direct or indirect means to steal that wealth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I think one of the building blocks of our nation is "All Men Created Equal". To me that means all should have as level a playing field as we can possibly create for success. This is a very hard thing in the real world to achieve.Many of the first European settlers were minorities fleeing persecution in England, such as Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics. And the First Amendment really reflects that nature of our country's earliest citizens, protecting their right to practice their religion, to speak and assemble. Taking those things out of the hands of the democratic majority was a very important part of what America was about from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I remember when I really wanted a big flat screen tv. I went shopping for them, I had the money saved, I was excited. I thought about the impact of the purchase to me and others and I left BestBuy and went to Petsmart and bought a bunch of Kongs and dog beds and went to the shelter and donated them. I made a lot of hurting animals happy and helped a lot of hard working volunteers jobs a little easier. 2 weeks later my girlfriend bought me a 55 incher for my birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 In a democratic society, the majority rules. We all know that. But, socially, does the majority have an obligation to.. Democracies are subject to the tyranny of the majority, we don't live in a Democracy. The misunderstanding is that one of your given facts is wrong. The United States is not a democracy, we are a republic... Democracies were not something the founding fathers admired, believed in, or wished to create. Democracies are understood from antiquity as a pretty bad form of government, not just because they are inefficient, but because they are subject to Mob rule. It was a democracy which killed Socrates after all. Which is the entire reason his student Plato invented the Republic. A form of government where more mature statesmen would "represent" and filter the desires of the mob. Our founding father went one further... They not only created a republic, but also three overlapping branches of that government each with powers to cancel the other out; and then made the entire system subservient to the Constitution to ensure the rights to the minorities.. ---------- Post added July-2nd-2012 at 02:19 PM ---------- Many of the first European settlers were minorities fleeing persecution in England, such as Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics. . Uhhhh, Cathlics were the pursecutors, not the persecutee's. Which is why we faced so much prejudice once we did decide to come over here and set up shop. It's all good now that we run everything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 OK, OK. Democratic republic, if you want to get technical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I definitely agree. I just wonder to what extent, and if it's a moral obligation. Should we see it as our duty to help those who are opposed to our particular viewpoint get their message out, since their numbers are fewer? People have constitutional rights in this country... They have a right to speech, to assemble, to religion, to seek liberty and happyness. These rights trump any majorities right to exert itself. That doesn't mean the minority has the right to rule the majority, in many cases; but in some cases it absolutely does.... Indian tribes have the right to kill wales in the pacific northwest even though they are endangered and protected by federal law. Whackadoodle Baptists have the right to make specticals of themselves at the funerals of our slain service men. At one time Criminals had the right to hear their rights when they were apprehended. There are many protections in our republic for minorities and those protections are imposed upon the majority by our highest laws because one of the things the founding fathers feared most was popular rule. They feared the tyranny of the majority upon minorities. The founding fathers were classically trained, and their education taught them to fear the Democratic mob which killed Sacrates. Which is why every person sets out with a base set of rights which can not be trampled upon. ---------- Post added July-2nd-2012 at 02:32 PM ---------- OK, OK. Democratic republic, if you want to get technical. It's an important distinction which is lost on many Americans... sorry if I got up on my soap box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Here is an example that I think of. Should we send disaster assistance to Florida? I mean it's a dumb state, with more dumb people than most other states, and most people that live in the state disgaree with me on a lot of issues. But I'd still feel morally obligated to support an effort to help them recover from a disaster. I constantly amazed at the amount of disparaging and hateful remarks the mods allow people to make on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 People have constitutional rights in this country... They have a right to speech, to assemble, to religion, to seek liberty and happyness. These rights trump any majorities right to exert itself. That doesn't mean the minority has the right to rule the majority, in many cases; but in some cases it absolutely does.... Well, let's take an example. Say whatever minority religion group is assembled to spread their message. A Christian majority group has the right, under the First Amendment, to show up and shout them down. In that case, do you believe that the majority has an obligation to step aside, and let the minority have its voice? I'm not so much looking at this from a constitutional standpoint, but more from the view of our "acceptable" social interaction. In the case where the minority could easily be minimalized, if not trampled upon (legally), does the majority have an obligation to show good will? It's an important distinction which is lost on many Americans... sorry if I got up on my soap box. It is, and as usual, I oversimplified. But again, I'm not looking at this from a legal standpoint. The Constitution is pretty clear. I'm looking at it from more of a moral perspective, and what the majority's "unwritten" obligations might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Geez Jumbo, the post office was just up the road. I am here. EDIT: Were you talking about yourself there...haha. I feel like people should not have to defer or cater to other people. I respect other people until they give me reason not to. People are free to voice their opinions and I am free to respond. My greater point is regardless of race, religion, sex, orientation, physical or mental challenges, etc. Treat people as you want to be treated. When people ask me where I am from, I say the United States, they ask where my family is from, I say the United States, they the ask...you know what I mean...I say does it matter ?. Work for it and earn it. I don't care who it is. Lazy people annoy me. No free rides, no handouts, none of that crap. Helping someone in need that can't help themselves is different to me (Think kids and elderly, NOT junkies, drunks, and these folks with children they don't deserve or can't afford). ---------- Post added July-2nd-2012 at 02:50 PM ---------- I constantly amazed at the amount of disparaging and hateful remarks the mods allow people to make on this site. Are you seriously offended by that statement ? Come on... His statement is what prejudice is. What stereotypes are. There is some truth to it. You can't even be offended by it, just fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.