Quote:
Originally Posted by something
In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.
The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.
In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.
And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.
|
Sorry, I was busy most of the day, then went to the game, so I didn't get a chance to see this until now but it is certainly worthy of response...
I was not implicit in my statement, I was explicit that the concept of majority rules has to be tempered by a recognition that the majority can be tyrannical if unchecked. However, that is not the same thing as saying that majority rules is not the 'superlative political determinant' to once again use your terminology. The fact is that minority rights can only override majority rules in limited circumstances where there is no rational justification for limiting minority rights. It is not a matter of dignity or liberalism, it's a matter of utility and rationality. Numerous posters have pointed out that there is no significant rational evidence of the harm of fluoridation. Instead there is anecdote, hyperbole, and bad research used to imply that there is evidence of harm. Where there is no rationality behind a minority's claims of unjust treatment, there is no duty incumbent on the majority to respect those claims or alter public policy to address them.
If it was purely a matter of dignity or liberalism then how would one ever justify a limitation of a minority's rights to engage in acts that the majority find distasteful, but which do not necessarily create an actual harm. To be a little grotesque, why should there be a law against necrophilia? No one gets hurt, and there is a minority out there who enjoy it. The fact is that there is no rational reason to permit necrophilia, and it doesn't serve a rational purpose for society as a whole to permit it to go on in the face of the social harm associated with it, even though that social harm itself is based on feelings of distaste rather than something rational. In this case, the majority rules schema dominates the field and the liberalist ideal falls by the wayside, and justifiably so in my opinion. This is the part of my argument that you failed to address. The concept that majority rules has to be informed by rationality, but it is not necessarily subservient to all minority rights that might be claimed.
In my view, the anti-fluoridators and the anti-vaccinators lump nicely together as groups whose 'minority rights' not to have their bodies interfered with are trumped by the benefit to society of the mandatory application of fluoride in water and vaccines in our bodies. The reason they are trumped is because their wish not to be interfered with is based on irrational fears and beliefs that do not rationally support their concerns about interference with their bodies.
This is my belief system and I don't necessarily expect any one else to concur whole-heartedly, but it is my view that in a society where the knowledge to make informed decisions is so specialized and so limited in its availability, that this type of thinking must inform our policy-makers. That is why I was so mad when my alderman got on television last night and said that the bio-ethical research supports that there is a benefit to fluoridation and also suggests that there is probably no harm, but that is not a ringing endorsement from science. He then used this as justification to allow a vocal minority to dictate public policy for the rest of us. By his own statement there was no rational connection between the worries these people had and the evidence available to him regarding fluoridation. The mere fear of these people, whether supported by evidence or not, was enough for council to overturn the majority. That is what is wrong with this picture in my opinion.
By the way, from my post, you can probably guess what my opinion is about whether the law should protect a Jehovah's Witness' right not to allow their child to receive blood even when the child's life is in jeopardy, for example.