Democracy and Truth

A common mistake people make these days is to suppose if the majority supposes X, then X must be true. A more common mistake people make is that since the majority has supported various different things over the years, then there is no truth.
The first of these two mistaken positions is what some, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, have called "The Tyranny of the Majority." This is a complex issue that ought to be fleshed out to a certain extent. To begin with, there are times when the most vocal become the easiest to follow. Those who are not settled upon a position are the easiest to sway and often strong rhetoric and heavy appeal to the ethos of people helps win over favor. This is precisely how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Other times, the majority can be steered in a certain way. For example, in the last election, the majority of Americans were unhappy with the way politics had been decided two years ago. With a little crafty rhetoric, the Republican Party was able to win over Americans who two years ago had been won over by the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Finally, the majority can be swayed to support something that honestly resonates with their emotions, but may not be completely right. Post World War I Germans were unhappy because of the terrible way in which the Wiemar Republic had handled the economic disaster, but their support for the National Socialist Party was very misplaced.
Because of this sociological phenomenon, repeated through history, the reigning voice of the majority cannot be viewed as fully true. Very few rationally-minded people today would support NAZIs, chattel slavery, female genital manipulation or witch hunts. Yet at some point in history, each of these had been the opinion of the majority, or at least, a certain stratus construed to be the majority.
It might be tempting to take an historical view and suggest that if these realities were morally true, morally right, options at the time, then perhaps all morality is is a relative function of the people. Thus, there is no "moral truth" or "moral rectitude." This is a very appealing approach and many contemporary philosophers and many more intellectually advanced persons have supported this notion. The problem is that in the most extreme form, this supports all manner of atrocities. If the moral laws we support are mere conventions, what is there to prevent me from killing people, or conning elderly ladies out of their money, or vandalizing property?
Let me quickly demonstrate an irony of this position. Many people, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins among them, support the claim of relativism. However, they both are quick to point the accusing finger at the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. While I myself support the claim that having sexual relations with small children is absolutely egregious, I could never consider myself relativist because of that. If it is egregious, on what grounds is it? The fact that we find it disgusting suggests either that we have been culturally conditioned to think this, or that it is objectively wrong. If we are conditioned, we cannot honestly say this is wrong. We say that cultures who practice cannibalism or clitoridectomies are in error, not because we think that our cultures are completely different, but because we think they share similar core values. If child sex abuse is objectively wrong, we cannot maintain a strictly relativistic standpoint.
Here is the point. As we become more enlightened (a word I am hesitant to use), we find more and more things to be objectively wrong. Genocide, sexual abuse, discrimination, torture and other acts we consider to be wrong. Yet our own culture has supported some of these, and some cultures still do. The fact is that we consider our views to be superior because of the long debates, philosophical treatises, theological teachings, and emotions to be correct. We still claim that bad things happen in our own culture, that we have more work to do and that there is still much we don't understand, but practically speaking, we don't support a relativist standpoint. Cultures evolve, and we hope, they evolve in such a way that they grow closer to the truth.
Consider the following: a hundred years ago, women were fighting for voting rights in the United States. Fifty years ago, African Americans were. Today, homosexual couples are fighting for the right to marry. Our culture is growing to a more perfect understanding of what it is to be human, and, we hope, growing into truth. Truth is not changing. Few would say that chattel slavery in early American history was morally upright. Few else would say that what the NAZIs did was permissible.
So we have to understand two things: One is that there is truth, and we're hopefully getting nearer and nearer to it. The second is that we must be careful to learn what truth is rather than necessarily supporting the voice of the majority. If we ignore the first principle, we cannot grow into a better society. If we ignore the second, we might be deceived into growing into a worse society.

Intelligent debate

Though I claim to be no expert, I have recently concluded that there is a rather high percentage of internet users have no sense of reality.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.