It has been argued that the majority rule would lead to a maximised efficiency in output of a society intrinsic from the concept is the maximisation of the best outcome. With this distinction established, this essay argues that a government’s purpose is to serve the best interests of those living in its community, and with different people requiring different needs, it is impossible for a government to satisfy every individual’s demands.
We must first make a clear distinction that ‘to outweigh’ a need does not necessarily imply ‘to ignore’ a need, and prioritising a collective’s needs still does not mean that another collective’s needs will not and cannot be tended to above a minimum threshold. It is important to not assume that prioritising the needs of the many means that the needs of the few go untended to. This essay assumes that social stability is a desirable trait of society to be pursued. This essay draws on philosophical theories such as utilitarianism to support this argument. I argue that if the needs of the many are not prioritised, then chaos and social unrest on a large scale will likely entail, and this essay assumes that allowing this to happen should be considered immoral. This is because it is morally right to keep society functioning as a whole and prioritising the needs of the many is the way to achieve this. By Charles Sin – The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few.
0 kommentar(er)
