We discussed this topic in Deviance today.
Basically we discussed what problems should the law address and the criteria that has been suggested:
1. the law should target behavior that represents harm to others
2. the law should highlight behavior that violates the moral beliefs of a large number or people
3. legal prohibitions should target acts for which the state can enforce its laws
The second one was the one that caught my eye. It brought up the question of the idea that the majority should rule.
With political correctness and affirmative action in full force today in this country, it brings up the question of just how many people truly believe in the idea of majority rules?
Because in the instance of the law, what the majority rules as deviant or criminal could be seen by others, though while a minority, as not deviant. And since there are examples of deviant acts not actually doing harm or infringing on other people's rights, should we let the majority force their morals on everyone? If we do not let them do this, then should we even let them decide anything in this nation? Should there be exceptions to the rule? Should there be a balance of some sort?
I have some idea of what I believe, but I feel I am not educated enough on the subject in order to make a statement. So I am wondering what others think in order to help me to better assess my own opinion.
Should the United States be a nation that caters to the majority and what they deem the acceptable course of action?
Should this nation cater to the minority if only to avoid feelings of under-representation and inferiority?
Should there be a balance? If so, how?
For the record, this has nothing to do necessarily with majority/minority of race, religion, etc.
I just mean majority/minority in general as it relates to a population of human beings.
However, all examples are accepted.