"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."- John Stuart Mill.
usually, i see quotes like newspaper headlines.......they are just words. but this.....this triggered something in my head. if you were in my shoes, you would probably realise that after a few days of nothingness, my brain is rotting away and the empty void in my head is full of spider web. so, in my attempt to utilize those webs to replace neurons, let's see how deep can i go from just one quote.
based from that quote, it's obvious it is about rights and equality. i truly advocate that...well, maybe i did, maybe i still do. so one man has the right to speak his mind as the whole of humanity minus him to speak theirs. in the same way, the whole of humanity minus him has the rights to give him suggestion as much as he has the rights to reject all of them. so, should one man's thoughts be put under consideration against the society's general perception.
before you say yes......just wait, and listen......ok, read further. now, that's pretty easy in a simple situation. in general election, the idea is that each individual of the same nationality has the right to cast his vote for his choice of government. be it voting for the current government or the worst party in the country, it is his right to do so. regardless of his decision, he will not be denied his social right to vote. his right as a voter is acknowledged, be it as a good or bad one....he is a voter and his vote counts. thus, his vote is equally important as anyone else.
is that fair? i say........no, not really. democracy is a primitive method of decision making. democracy is just one step ahead of "the strongest shall live and the weak shall die" ideology. democracy is just for the majority. the majority justifies the minority. the majority silenced the minority even. surely both voted, but what of the outcome? did everyone get what the wanted?
but, regardless of the results, each person had the rights to vote......in the same way one has, to speak his mind whether for or agaisnt the world's point of view. really? let's see, should my opinion as an agnostic be heard the same way the pope speak of the holy spirit? both of us are, afterall human beings. under democracy, his vote and mine are of equal importance. but not here. under democracy, we both stand as equals.....but what of other aspects? should my opinion on black holes as a student be talked in the same breath as of that of a renowned astronomer? should my idea of evolution be compared agaisnt darwin's?
in democracy, it takes at least two to silence one. but other than that, i believe a single individual can silence more than one. this is two very contradicting issues. one is a political practise in many countries around the globe, and the other is basically for everything else. so which one is the best? and how do we decide that? well, take a look at that quote.....and i guess it's on the fence on this one.
first of all, there are questions to be answered, provided all these are against their will;
is one man, regardless of any status, equal to another?
is a saint equal to a murderer?
if men are equal, are two men more equal than one?
if men are not equal, is one more equal than two?
here's what i learn from movies;
should one man be killed to save another?
should a thief die so that a saint may live?
should a stranger die so that you may live?
should anyone die so that two can live?
should two men, regardless of their status or actions, die so that another may live?
should two thieves be killed to save a prime minister?
does a second of a saint in a church worth more than that of a thief in prison?
i believe, things are always divided into two. its not good and bad....thats kindergarden stuff. it is the right thing and the best thing. by that, i would say, it is simply not right for a man to die so that another may live. it is not right for a man to die so that a nation can live. but it is best to sarifice one to save millions. it is for the best when a nation justifies one man.
ahh, now i know where this is coming from....damn, its from The Day The Earth Stood Still. i havent watch the movie, but the line from klaatu " if the earth dies, you die. if you die, the earth survives" is fun to play with. hmm, who's better, john or klaatu?
2 comments:
Hmm, in a mathematical comparison, democracy is like central tenadancy-based statistics.
When considering the big picture, an amount of small data is eliminated (like when grouping into classes). That would be the same in a situation where there's a majority and minority. And although once a measure of central tendancy (like the mean) is introduced, there's always a measure of deviation to account for it (variance, error, standard deviation). We can't ignore deviation the same way a leader can't ignore the minority.
And yes, I do agree in what is 'right' or 'best'. But what's right is never the same for anyone. And what's best is not always right for everyone. Good luck living with everyone then.
When it comes to equality when making a mass decision, it all depends on human nature and institution. In science, the opinion of a layman is just as good as that of an expert, provided that his opinion is scientific and knowledgable. In other human institutions, that is not always the case. Quite a number of the scientists that have shaped the way we live were not scientists by profession (Mendel, Faraday, Ohm, Huygens). More 'human and humanity-based' institutions are subject to contradicting opinions, such as that of people like you and people against you.
thats not a comment, thats half of a post la dude. we cant ignore deviation, but still a deviation remains a deviation. priority will still go to the majority.
what's right and what's best varies. that i know, but then, what are laws for? what are social obligations? what about cultural and religious rules? all these are basically the same for everyone in a certain group, but are they the for the right thing or the best thing?
the last thing, all im asking is that, why cant different people of different background be heard the same way and their thoughts be treated equally?
Post a Comment