laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/20/84)
That a majority wills such a thing does not make it moral. If you look at history you find an impressive list of abominations (infanticide, slavery, torture and so on) which all had the sanction of the majority of the time. The difference between murder laws and any other law that the majority might propose, is that murder is going to be ethically and morally wrong (even should the majority sanction it) whereas the same can not be said for any law. It is also wise to consider that while one can talk of ``majority rule'' what one actually has is ``plurality rule'' which is not the same thing. One alternative to majority rule is to simply have a whole lot fewer rules. In any case it is important to distinguish between laws made for the convenience of citizens (such as everybody driving on the same side of the road) and laws made because certain things are immoral. The first set of laws are mutable, but the second ones had better not be because the will or the opinion of the majority is not the basis for these laws. (The situation becomes complicated when it is observed that man is fallible. You will want to ammend the second set laws to recognise that women are ``persons'', for instance. It does not follow, however that women become ``persons'' by virtue of the opinions of the majority, though -- they are ``persons'' even before given such legal status.) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura