Two Worlds Colliding

Topic: Human Rights v. Majority Rule

True love is an emotion that most human beings experience at some point in their lives. It is like finding a million dollars. Love itself comes in many different forms, some of which are experienced at different stages of life than others. Different people acquire the ability to experience true love at different times in their lives. Who has the right to love and find love? Who is the majority? Should the majority rules who and were you are to love? According to Wikipedia human rights refers to the concept of human beings having worldwide natural rights, or status, regardless of legal jurisdiction or other localize factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, and sex. When these two worlds collide; humans rights verse majority: we have a major problem. For instance, breasting feeding mothers decided they do not want to cover there baby or there breast while feeding. The majority say, “No.” That baby has the right to feed and not suffocate in the process. Did the majority include the baby in the decision process? However, I feel if majority is going to rule then the principles of human rights must be enforce. The majority need to consist of a diverse group, make decisions in a timely manner, and look at the big picture of the issue at hand.

When a topic is presented before what is called the majority, the topic or subject should include someone who is directly impacted by the issue. For example, if breastfeeding is to prohibited in public, then a breastfeeding women should be part of the majority processing team. This women can describe reason that breastfeeding should not be banned. A male that does not have a child that they must breastfeed can not relate. What if the woman that is breastfeed has no money to buy milk and the three month old baby just happen to get hungry on the public bus. The mother has neither blanket nor any covering for her chest. Does the mother let the baby cry to the top of their lungs or does she whip out the milk and feed the child? Many people on the public bus would rather hear silence than a crying baby. When decisions like these are to be made by the majority, having a person that can relate can help with an achieved agreement that can bring balance to the final approval. This decision should not only be made my opinion but looking at human rights that say, “Individual Freedom is the right that a person should be allowed to do what they would like to do as long as if does not harm, hurt, or injury another person.”

When the majority is making a decision it should be made in a timely manner. Sometime making a simple decision can be madness. In the grand scheme of things making a decision like picking a restaurant is not that hard. The difficulty arises when you include too many opinions. Making decisions about family and children, money, work, relationships, education, church, faith and spirituality, rules, laws, ethics, morality: that is another account. Depending on what is at stake, making these types of decisions can be both time consuming and stressful. Making a decision needs to be placed on a calendar, given a specific date/time, and then following through. The decision should be made before a society member has committed a horrific crime. Time is of the essences when making a decision for society.

Not just having the right diverse group and making a timely decision is important, but looking at the big picture. Who will be affected by this decision? Why will this better society as a whole. Part of this process is being aware of whom you are, how you make this decision will affect people, and the factors which influence the decisions you are making. The first part of looking at the whole picture is becoming objective not subjective. If you do not directly relate to the topic for which the majority is voting, look at facts not your personal opinion. This could cause delay in the process time and develop animosity. Examine every part of the issue, just like dissecting a frog and viewing all pieces under a microscope.

Majority rule never requires approval for consensus for a group action. These decisions are made my voting with a preponderance group making decision for the entire group. This process has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of having a group make decisions for the majority is generating a prompt and clear decision. It is very difficult to have your children to decide which restaurant they want to eat after Sunday Morning Service. Imagine having the consensus make a decision for you. It could be a year or two before they reach and agreement on a decision - if they can agree at all. The disadvantage is once a winning decision has been made, the parties are at will to ignore the interest of other participants. I feel if one key controls the lock, what happen if that lock is changed. In society thing are going to change. Having one majority ruling everything can cause hatred, bitterness, violence, and a divided country.

It has been stated that we have individual freedom, equal protection, voting rights, freedom of speech, individual property and due process. What good is having this freedom if the large majority is going to tell us how to define these items? There has to be a balance between human rights and majority ruling without these two worlds colliding.