Stuck at home with this irritating illness, listening to beautiful and aboslutely serene & tranquil blog songs that reminds of the pattering of Heaven’s tears against the window while sipping coffee at a cafe in New York City, a place I have every intention of calling home soon.

While my immune system attempts to liberate me from the shackles of illness, I have a lot of time to ponder over things. Words like “friendship”, “timeless”, “genuineness” are often tested against superficiality and differences, what is the significance value here before we “reject”? Where shall we draw the line that distinct ”should” and “should not”? Our perpetually wavering moral boundaries and dynamic social culture seem to propagate the self-induced lies that such triviality should be dispense but I beg to differ. All things began superficial, even the relationship between mother and her child, what more with friends around us? I speak for myself, that they anchor us to sanity and and lit the flame of joy in our life, the laugh of a bell while running the journey of life. If we allow for them, they are our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, protectors and benefactors. A premature and excessively critical and judgemental stance will, inevitable, poison the relationship and cause decay. Such is the way of the world. The moment we choose to embrace friendship with an open heart and understanding, we provide ample space, room and opportunities for it to blossom. Once we close our heart and begin to nitpick, its bound to suffocate. Your pick.

Normalization: I’m not trying to pretend I’m all emo and “lost it”, I’m simply expressing a view I cherish. And also to escape revision, theres really a hell lot to start doing. :(

“The view of the majority is always right,” Do you agree?

                When the US Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution to gradually dilute anti-racial sentiments amongst the majority white population back in the 19^th century, it was met with strong opposition by the majority for not doing what is “right”. Nonetheless, the government did not vetoed its decision and pander to the public’s outcry but sustained this monumental decision, resulting in a racially tolerant society today (save the occasional anarchist and misguided racists). This begs the question, is the prevailing sentiment of the majority always right? Or in this case, do we see the government doing what was best rather than what was “right”? When an opinion receives popular support, it takes into consideration the aggregate morality and ethics of its time and coupled with sheer numbers, a perceived link between what is ostensibly right, true and best is establish and their distinction is often blurred. Hence, what is right here is often what garners the most satisfaction out of the greatest majority and what placate their demands. However, holistic accountability is often painted over when each individual indulge in their own selfish motives, discrediting the view of the majority in such instances. While I am inclined to argue that the crowd is always right, truth be told, in some instances, it may not be the best or true.

                However, before I plunge into my argument, there are several points which I have to concede. While the view of majority may be err, that does not necessitate that the view of the government is right. A unanimous view by the majority may be engendered by harsh violation of volition and sanctity of life to overthrow the government. Such instances of majority view stands for what is right, accounted for by its reasonable justification and hence, determined that the best course is to purge this decaying administration. A parallel argument exist, in this instance, that the view of the majority is often an accurate litmus test of the stand ground of our society and thus, should be highly regarded. It reflects the current social trends and boundaries that a society is willing to accommodate. In some cases by trespassing too far out of this boundary, thereby going against the view of the majority, an eruption of turmoil and civil uprising might ensue because what is right to the government may not be what is right to the people, resulting in this friction.

                In accordance to Godwin’s law, the birth of an opinion, given time, has a propensity to digress into the realm reduction ad hitlerum, where a morally sound opinion snowball into a voice of prejudice and discrimination, discrediting the sound origins of the argument in the first place. The justification arises from human’s tendency to enforce our version of what is “right” and what we belief onto what is true in order to garner credibility and support for what we stand. In essence, the quintessence of our argument here is polluted by an array of inputs. The liberalization of sodomy culture in many societies around the world in accordance to one’s right to pursue happiness is denied by drawing absurd relevance to bestiality and incest, peddling into existing homophobia. This act of pacifying the different groups of conservative in order to gain support for their motion are met with resistance from the gay lobbyist because their argument is distorted via a conglomeration of facts and blatant fictions, making it hard for anyone to accept but the bigots themselves. While these “majority” conservative draw deeper into their shell of disillusionment, the intellectually sensible ought to question themselves, is the view of the majority always right here? The government, in order to secure political stability, pander to these group of majority and thus allow this social stigma to perpetuate. In such instances where the majority thinks it is right but not doing what is best here, they allow the vicious cycle of people who are different suffer intolerance to continue indefinitely.

                My second argument arises from the ethical point of view, whereby actions that garner the maximum happiness are sanctioned, which is essentially to yield to the demands of the people in this context. However, there exists the old adage that the worst thing God can do is answer all our prayers, which is similar under such circumstances. This begs the question, is what is right for the majority right for the whole as well? To patronize the people is to pave the way to absolute downfall by satisfying the short term wants of the people and not the long run consequence on the country as people often fail to see beyond what is right before them. Neville Chamberlain, who served as a significant stepping stone in Hitler’s rise to power, was guilty of appeasing Hitler, supported by his countrymen that led to global devastation known as World War II. Evidently, this highlights the irrefutable fact that the majority may not necessarily be always right even by ethical standards as maximum happiness is not achieved. The attribution of the 3 unalienable rights namely: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness is deserving of every mankind even if one person stands against a billion odds. Under such circumstances, the majority view is simply irrelevant as what is right is right by virtue of it being, especially in lieu of the denial of fundamental rights by the tyranny of the majority, such as the racial oppression of the black by the colonial white in the past, cannot be ethically justified even if it somehow perversely optimize majority happiness…(to be continued)