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.

Ex iusticia

I had kind of an insight earlier this week. One reason why I believe in God, and why so many other people have believed in God in this world, has to do with the notion of justice. I know, I've said before that we can't prove that God exists, but I'd like to think that there must be one.
I guess the main reason for this goes back to my last post. We, as humans, tend to be so corrupt. We shamelessly attack each other and often have no apparent sense of dignity. I wonder why we are like this, and many an atheist has used the evil world we live in as direct evidence of there not being a God.
However, many disciplines, chief amongst which are physics and philosophy, have taught us that every action has an equal recourse for it. Why is it, then, that there seems to be no real justice in the world? A thief breaks into a family's home and in the ensuing process kills a family member. All the rehabilitation or prison time, or community service won't bring that family member back.
Then I think of all the other atrocities we have seen in this world. We have so many people who commit so much injustice that seem to get away with so much of it. It is, needless to say, discouraging. But what is there to make up for it?
In Jewish theology, there is often times an apocalyptic motif. In fact, the entire Jewish view of history is one of a corrupt and fallen world being restored to a glorious and heavenly place. After being conquered by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, I don't blame the Jews one bit for thinking that their God must grant a just future to them.
Christians have latched onto this idea as well. The Apocalypse of John is full of imagery of the wicked being punished and the righteous being saved. The rapture is supposedly the saving of all the righteous Christians on the earth and their delivery from the hands of the wicked. The Millenium is supposed to be a time of peace following the greatest battle in the history of the world.
I don't know that I would necessarily plan on some kind of glorious end of the world. However, it helps me sleep better at night trusting that there will be some kind of justice for the oppressed, food for the hungry, haven for the persecuted, clothing for the naked, reward for the meek, blessing for the poor in spirit, etc. It doesn't have to come in this lifetime. In fact, if history shows us anything, it's that the big things only happen after long and toilsome efforts. However, i do hope and fully believe that in the end, God will take care of those who had no one to take care of themselves.
I'm reminded of the power of the Church in the Middle Ages. A lot of people wonder why it is that Christianity had such great control over all of Europe during the Medieval Era. The truth of the matter is that the Church was able to procure the favor of feudal lords. But the reason why it was so successful among the peasantry is simply this: because of the nature of the lives the peasants lived, having a glorious hope to look forward to after they die was, essentially, the only thing they really had to look forward to.
Similarly, African slaves in America became very spiritual, singing songs of deliverance as they longed for nothing more than the freedom that all human beings deserve.
I am of a similar mindset. I see the world as an unjust place with the redeeming qualities being overshadowed by its vices. However, two atheists I have spoken to recently voiced the opinion that it is only those redeeming values that we have to live for. I would then surmise that perhaps we should seek the qualities that some people express, such as philanthropism, charity, selfless giving, environmental awareness, justice and others. However, even as we pursue these options, it seems like Nietzsche's Will to Power still proves true for most humans. And it is in this case that I am forced to think the only true happiness or justice that we'll ever find does not come from this world or in this life.