Majority Vote, Natural Law, and the Poor
Majority Vote
Majority vote is a democratic principle that alludes to the rule of “one person, one vote,” which implies that the will of the society is the alternative voted by more than half. The vote is a key element of citizen participation. According to Rousseau, agreement on the majority vote is the only necessary concordant vote; otherwise, we cannot explain why, almost always and everywhere, the majority vote is considered fair and valid.
However, it has a limit, as individuals can be easily sacrificed to universal reason. Majority vote can easily eclipse the rights and opinions of the minority. Nowadays, in every modern democratic system, there is a principle called “Protection of the Minority.” Essentially, this principle exists to ensure that the majority can’t vote to further their own causes at the expense of a minority.
In conclusion, we can say that the majority vote for social interaction can be effective, ethically acceptable, and the fairest procedure if it reflects the needs of most of the society. Yet, in some cases, it is also ethical to override a democratic vote or a majority opinion: different procedures should be ensured in order to take into account all stakeholders’ rights and needs.
Natural Law
Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be “discovered” through the use of reason, but not “created.” It historically refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of human behavior.
In that way, according to Fuller, law’s function is to “achieve social order through subjecting people’s conduct to the guidance of general rules by which they may themselves orient their behavior.” Natural law defends the idea that there are certain moral truths that apply to all people, regardless of place or agreements they have made.
John Locke considered that the state of nature exists wherever there is no legitimate political authority able to judge disputes because, if it existed, men would not be applying natural law based on reason. The aim of natural law is to ensure coexistence through the social contract, which, according to Locke, is the instrument that guarantees universal human rights and establishes limits against the State and duties for others. Human dignity is the source of all those rights and a limit to the powers of the state, which also necessarily means that the dignity of others is the limit to my acts.
Natural law ensures social interaction and can be ethically acceptable, yet some criticisms can be drawn, too. To begin with, we can say that its nature is ambiguous. In addition, some might say that natural law is a naturalistic fallacy, meaning that it tries to decide how the world ought to be from the way it is or was in the past. Finally, we can add that in natural law, culture is forgotten, thus interfering considerably in the development and cohesion of society.
Preferential Option for the Poor
The Preferential Option for the Poor is a theological, moral, and pastoral principle that was first used by our university founder, Fr. Pedro Arrupe (Superior General of the Society of Jesus), in 1968. The approach is one of the basic principles of Catholic social teaching, as articulated in the 20th century.
According to said doctrine, through one’s words, prayers, and deeds, one must show solidarity with and compassion for the poor. According to this doctrine, we are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor. Therefore, they are the most vulnerable members of society, and the way we treat them represents the moral test of any society. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. This option is probably the most just and ethical when analyzing social interaction, yet very hard to put into practice. Unfortunately, the modern world is full of great inequalities, and the existing rules do not guarantee any safety for the poor. This idea can be redirected to the notion of distributive justice and treating unequals unequally, and it must be through these ideas and principles that an ethical system for this kind of social interaction is to be developed.