Minority or Majority...

[Fifoo]

Question about sociology.

 

Are you the type to put you on the side of the weaker and minority or more strong and majority, even if the majority are not more in line with your principles?

 

The majority does it always right?

[Aurielius]

I would have to answer that if the minority and I shared the same moral principles I would have no problem taking their side regardless of the possibility of a successful outcome. I believe that you are posing an ethical question and my point of view would be that honor is something only you can take away from yourself and therefor as long as I saw that upholding or defending the minority as the honorable course it would be an simple choice. The only caveat I would add is that not all minorities fall under those terms, the world is many shades of gray.

[grannywils]

It is simply a matter of the issue under discussion. I would always have to go with my principles and/or beliefs. If they stood with the minority, so be it. If they were on the side of the majority then they would have my vote or support or whatever. As Aurielius said above, there are so many shades of gray, one has to make choices based on all sorts of parameters. My decisions are always made by me and not by the group ethic. I'm the only one I have to live with when you come right down to it.

[hoshi23]

Democratic system we live in is the worse kind of system as the founding fathers rightly said.

 

Poeple are enslaved and have no courage.

 

Soldier are so enslaved they have been made to believe to search terrorist in some cave while all they do is protect heroin production.

 

need proof? kasai brother is heroin head honcho and they both work with cia since the cold war. this is kown fact likewise that is is known fact that since we moved into afghanistan heroin produtcion skyrocketed.

 

whoever does not see the disgrace involved with this is a tool that i could order to do all this things for a hunger loan and worse but then i could not live with myself.

 

it would mean to abolish all good for practicly no gain.

 

poeple think money has value.

 

 

.....

 

......

 

i believe a cow standing on the field is smarter then that. she atleast knows

what is good to her.

 

human being is an individual that is to realise full potencial here now and what could that be?

 

 

ps: lastly the world is very simple if you understand it in you

[Aurielius]

Question about sociology.

Are you the type to put you on the side of the weaker and minority or more strong and majority, even if the majority are not more in line with your principles?

The majority does it always right?

 

 

Democratic system we live in is the worse kind of system as the founding fathers said.

Poeple are enslaved and have no courage.

Soldier are so enslaved they have been made to believe to search terrorist in some cave while all they do is protect heroin production.

need proof? kasai brother is heropin head honcho and they both work with cia since the cold war. this is kown facts of history likewise that is is known fact that since we moved into afghanistan heroin produtcion skyrocketed.

whoever does not see the disgrace involved with this is a tool that i could order to do all this things for a hunger loan and worse but then i could not live with myself.it would mean to abolish all good.

I've read Fifoo's initial question and if I understand it correctly it's an ethical one about individuals. So I am a little at a loss to understand what Democratic systems, enslavement, heroin or Afghanistan have to do with it. Lets not digress into thread derailment, this topic has possibilities. Now my response is a perfect example of subjectivity of perception, another individual might see the logic that I do not.

[hoshi23]

i dont have any distinctions in that like you may born with them but i dont have them.

 

yes and i want to say again war whatfor all this war and how it conditions the individual? the american eagle is looking to peace not war. this is not what founding fathers envisioned. yet what happens.

 

so a system like we have it now where everything is owned by private banks is a big fail. highly unstable and arrogant.

 

this is very on topic.

 

if you dont get the subtle part and are blind on one eye i cannot force you to magicly open it.

 

and on that poeple are still trapped into the dogma are they not?

 

so here is the individual reflected.

 

do you have the courage to see or not.

love or fear.

 

big round for somethign so very small.

yes.

 

not the intention to derail at all.

Regardless of intention, your response does not seem to address or answer the question which is being asked. Instead it merely trails on about other things which would be the subject of a different debate. If you were making a point somewhere in there, you seem to have totally failed. You may wish to review your posts before submitting them to ensure that they actually say anything in regard to what is being discussed in that thread. You will not receive another warning.

 

- Vagrant0

Edited June 5, 2010 by Vagrant0

[myrmaad]

Seriously, I don't understand the point of the question. It's way too ambiguous. I'm tempted to see it as a question of whether you tend to side with the underdog vs the favored, but it doesn't work because the minority is not necessarily the underprivileged. The elite is a minority of privileged in any class, for example.

[Aurielius]

Seriously, I don't understand the point of the question. It's way too ambiguous. I'm tempted to see it as a question of whether you tend to side with the underdog vs the favored, but it doesn't work because the minority is not necessarily the underprivileged. The elite is a minority of privileged in any class, for example.

 

I had the same problem but assumed that the "weaker" and "minority" were powerless in some fashion, so I framed a response in terms of personal ethics. There are always powerful groups that are also the minority but I couldn't see that they would need any intercession.

 

@Fifoo

Are we on the right track? If not clarify please.

[Fifoo]

Very true as reasoning, Aurielius but myrmaad has right to raise the issue because everyone can interpret the concept of weak differently, so here are some details.

 

The question is very simple, are you ready to defend (the) minority (s) or will you choose for your store to benefit the majority, even if it is contrary to your principles, but in this case understand that you might want to bear the consequences, this is a matter of choice to do...

 

Obviously the answer to give is less clear because of its ambiguous nature, and the term "weak" could confuse you. One must understand the word low in its proper sense, as figuratively, where that person does not represent the majority and could be in conflict with it, or need help ... I leave you to think.

[slygothmog]

Are you talking about Peer pressure?....Should i follow the Majority, just cause they 'appear' to be correct?

A little synopsis of my way of thinking.

I have never followed the 'majority'....not through bloody minded stubborness....i just dont follow blindly like a sheep.

I see an injustice against a fellow man/woman...i strive to correct that injustice.

I dont care about the consequence....my conscience tells me what is right and what is wrong....if the laws of society differ from mine...Then i just grin and bear it.....at the end of the day i have done what is right.....and that's all that counts.

This could open a floodgate against me so i must stress....I am not talking about things like being a suicide bomber...or a rapist...or a murderer...or anything of that ilk..

I am talking about normal everyday stuff that just happens....i see a guy pinch a womans purse....he gets it!....i see a guy beating on his wife/girlfriend....he gets it!

I dont look the other way like most will.....i will stand up for those that for whatever reason cannot stand up for themselves.

It is our duty as humans to look after each other.

We wont survive if we dont.