The Majority Fallacy is a subtle one - pursued on many different levels. However on all levels it has to do with elevating the Group over the Individual. It has to do with following the majority. The logic is based in the following statement. If everyone in the Group is doing it, then it must be right. The mechanism is the same one we’ve previously explored. This is the tendency for every Cell whether biological, human or otherwise, to sublimate for the sake of the Group.
Summarizing previous discussions: The humans were the first animals that were able to choose their group. While humans are able to choose their group, they have a tendency to sublimate personal goals to the goals of the group they had chosen. Indeed this has been elevated to be part of group morality. It is a virtue to sacrifice oneself for the Group. Indeed it is considered immoral and selfish to not sacrifice oneself for the good of the Group.
However the ‘good of the group’ is one of those nebulous concepts that needs defining. It is normally presupposed that everyone has a consensus as to the ‘good of the group’. In reality many times there exists a major divergence between individual members as to what the ‘good of the group’ means. While a leader may convince his whole country that attacking another country is for the overall good of the country, many in the country might feel that ‘not attacking’ is better for the ‘good of the country.’ Thus those fighting against a war may be equally patriotic to those fighting for the war.
Conversely, when the Leader and his friends are not pursuing war for the good of the country, but are instead seeking to further their own selfish ends, this is not considered patriotic. When personal enrichment and power occurs at the expense of the Group, the Leader loves the Group, as a wolf loves chickens, but is not patriotic. Alternately, when the individual is frustrated with the direction of the Group, and breaks off to chooose another Group, this is also not an act of patriotism.
Summarizing:
1. We have a patriot who is pro war for the ‘good of the country’.
2. Vice versa, we have a patriot who is anti war for the ‘good of the country’.
3. We also have a non-patriot who is pro war for his own Personal Good,
Without any regard for the good of the country.
4. Vice versa, we have a non-patriot who is anti war for his own Personal Good,
Without any regard for the good of the country.
It is easy to see there is no correlation between the war and patriotism.
However, a Propaganda technique of the leadership is to imply that everyone who is pro war is a patriot, while everyone who is anti war is unpatriotic. In actuality, the attitude towards war doesn’t determine patriotism. Patriotism has to do with love of the country, which is considering its best interests. If a Citizen is pro war because he considers it in the best interests of the country, he would be considered a patriot. Similarly, if a Citizen is anti-war because she considers it in the worst interests of the country, she would be equally patriotic. Alternately, the Leader who is pro war for his own interests at the expense of the country would be considered just as unpatriotic, if not more so, than the Citizen who is anti war because he is afraid to risk his life, even though he considers the war in the best interests of the country.
Differentiating these different motivations is essential, if the Citizen does not want to end up being a victim of an unpatriotic Leader, who is asking the Group to sacrifice their lives for his gain. A few questions can be asked that clarify intentionality.
For instance: if Leaders were forbidden from making any profit on a war, would they continue? If the Leader and all his friends, i.e. anyone connected with him, were disallowed any war time profit, would they still persist in aggression? If the Leader and his children had to risk their lives in battle, daily - or if the Leader’s friends had to send their children up to the front line to prove their commitment to the war, would they still persist in their bellicose behavior? Theoretically, if the war were for the good of the country as a whole, they would certainly be willing to sacrifice their personal profits and children to this noble ideal.
But no. The Leader sacrifices none of these things. In fact, loved ones are protected at home, while their personal fortune accumulates.
But we are getting carried away. (However it did feel good.)
The point is simple. Frequently a Leader is not making decisions for the ‘good of the group’, but for his own Personal Good. At this point is the Group still morally obligated to follow the Leader? At the point that the individual begins to perceive that the Leader is pursuing Personal Interest over the Group Interest is he still bound to obey the whims of the Leader?
Of course, the Leader will claim that his good is the group good.
As you the Reader can easily see, the issues dividing personal good from group good are incredibly complicated with no real objective resolution. Hence, in the end we are thrown back upon ourselves and our personal perceptions.
Unlike most animals each person has the ability to choose the groups they belong to. Because of this they can join a group out of self-interest. Because of this potential for choice it is important to pose some questions about the group that one is considering joining. For instance: “Is this group out to protect my interests or do they just want me to sacrifice my personal desires to satisfy their personal desires?”
If the answer to the second question is ‘Yes’, then it might not be such a good idea to join such a group. If one is tricked into joining a Group on the pretext that it is out for your good and then you find otherwise, is it mandatory to continue with the Group?
It is only mandatory if you participate in the Group Morality, which states that Individual sacrifice for the greater Group is always justified. This morality is exactly opposite the Individual Morality, which states that Group participation is predicated upon it being good for the Individual.
Of course, as mentioned previously, these two logic systems, Individual and Group, must both be taken into account when making Intuitive decisions. Remember Intuitive decisions are based upon a combination of all the Logic systems with the Instincts. Ultimately the Individual must make an Intuitive Decision based upon input from his opposing Logic Boxes plus his Instincts. The Individual must balance his inner voices to make the decision whether to join, continue or quit the Group in question. One must step outside all these Boxes and make an executive decision, whether to follow the Group and the Leader, or whether to find another Group. Frequently, this is not an easy or clearcut decision.
However there exists no absolute morality that can determine this decision. It could be easily asserted that a leader is selfish, i.e. promoting self-interests over Group interest. Arguments could be given back and forth - Debating pros and cons - defining and redefining terms - questioning what does the Group consist of and who is the Leader representing. Ultimately each Individual must make decisions for themselves.
Remember that the Group morality is disembodied while personal morality is embodied inside of you! It is the only one you’re really in touch with.
Thru Quietude and directing attention inward - Listen to your Inner Voice. This consists of balancing Reason, Instinct, and Intuition.
Home The Firing Process IV. Self & Will Previous Next Comments