We...Society...Them

Speaking to Ms Emo was scary...geez I was sweating so badly... but it pulled off in the end. Easier than I expected. Now onto my spasm...

Being a Legal Studies student, we speak a lot about the society. So I wish to comment on...the society.

Society. Society decides the laws that are enforced. Society decides what is in their general interest. Society decides what is usually in the media. Society votes on the government. Society is dominant. However, we do not always agree with society, yet we are the society so in other words...paradox.

Ok. Let's begin.

Let's take hypothetically the entire population and say that every single individual agrees to a concept or issue. That decision agreed upon would be considered to be the "dominant" or the "correct" way of thinking, acting or response by all individuals in that society. Let's now take a society of 100 people and 100 of them agree that theft is good. This would then trigger the belief that theft is acceptable in that society and all laws would revolve around allowing theft. But if in the same society, one person realises that theft is in fact bad, and now places the vote of 99 in favour of theft is good and 1 in favour of theft is bad, the fact and truth is that, theft will still be considered good, and is in the interest of the general community. That one person who is actually "correct" will be regarded wrong until a majority vote on his side. This then leads me to saying that the majority of people in society believe one thing while many people and other groups believe in the opposite or perhaps something different. So is the general majority right in their way of thinking or perhaps they could be wrong in the example given, where something bad is considered to be good? For example, using insanity as a defence for getting out of sentence when they are in fact not insane in the slightest? What if they are using that "good" defence and taking advantage of it? So is the minority correct in saying that insanity cannot be relied on being used as a defence? Sure it could be, with beyond reasonable doubt and proving it, but there are more people who will take advantage of this defence and get away with it, making something that is meant to do "good" to the society, actually has backfired and gone bad.

Society usually decides on issues, as well as their government. But the minority of the population actually understand what happens in politics, the economy, the legal system, the reason for the financial crisis, the reason behind trade, the reason why fares and interest rates go up. The minority actually specialise in certain areas and the majority, won't. Take for example, political voting between Person A and Person B. Person A was in power and they ruled for a long time with great prospects and great deeds and has served the society well. So they stayed in power. But then something in the world happens, which might cause many, many people to lose their jobs, or lose their money that they have invested or have to pay extra on loans, and the society shows unrest and instability. So in the next election, Person B prevails Person A and the roles change. Society (or the majority) expects Person B to fix the problem in the shortest amount of time possible, hopefully next morning, but it is quite impossible. So then the society becomes even unhappier and blames Person B for not fixing the problem when it is even totally beyond anyone's control. So then Person B gets kicked out and in comes Person C, who society again trusts and relies on to fix the problem. This cycle will continue until eventually the problem is fixed itself. So I ponder, since the majority of the society usually will not always understand or get the details and specifications of the problems in the world, are they making the wrong decisions, jumping the gun and rushing into conclusions and assumptions too early without stopping to think about the problem, ask questions and seek professional information? If that is so, then society is definitely flawed in its way of thinking and decision making. So is the society correct or "correct"?

Society is the people. The people make up the society. The society believes in one thing while the people may not. Individuals have unique ways of thinking but sometimes the minority is correct instead of the majority but are overwhelmed and their opinions are not usually considered. So is what society says correct based on what the majority believe? Or is the society simply flawed and do not understand the complications of thinking behind certain issues and are just making the wrong, incorrect decisions?