The Majority Rules

Topic: Human Rights vs Majority Rule

It is very difficult to contrast human rights and the will of the majority. In many cases human rights are in fact an interpretation made by the majority. One subject matter commonly argued upon is homosexuality. Most would argue that homosexuality is a natural right that each of us are born with. Others would claim otherwise. I personally believe that homosexuality is an abomination, on the other hand I do believe it is ones right to choose their own preference.

How are we to decide between rights and will? While one might argue it is their right to roam around without clothes, the majority of our entire nation would differ in opinion. Or, that same person might state that revenge on the killer of his wife and kids is his own affair, while the laws of our land state opposingly. Who is to decide whether the will of the majority or the firm laws of our country should reign? I believe that in this situation a decision can only be based on circumstance.

I believe that human rights are derived from an interpretation of our own people. In many ways what were once established human rights, could have very well been a majorities will at the time of establishment. Now the will of our popular folk has changed, so has our rights. The more and more acceptable certain actions become, the more and more they are learned to be natural.

Free will is very well known to be perhaps the most crucial of all human rights. But how far can we stretch this? What can be allowed and what cannot? I believe that our country was built on demorcray and a foundational theory that majority rule. What other way can a sound government be maintained? Human rights are endless. A man is born with the right to do just about anything, but is it right? Is it ok to allow one to do something just because he/she is capable? No, the majority rules.

Many times our country is faced with the question of will. Where do we draw the line? Human rights are pratically limitless, but ones allowance isn't. In saying that the majority should rule I think that human rights are valid to a point, a point to which they harm or upset the majority. I am not the judge the validity of this theory, but I am one to say that since I live in the nation, I will follow this theory.