'Majority rule is the right response to resolving disagreements in Outline

'Majority rule is the right response to resolving disagreements in society.' Discuss - Outline Example Government is an institution majorly formed to create stable society for the people that it governs. The people are however a complex group with widely varying wishes, needs and ideas as such the government must always turn to majority rule. The government cannot in anyway please everyone all the time. It must focus on making most of the people happy in order to gain stability faster (Web, N.d). Right is conformance with justice, law or morality. It is fair and effective. Rights can also be defined as entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be certain in states or entitlements that others perform certain actions. They dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. They structure the form of governments, content of laws, and distribution of freedom and authority. Thus to accept a set of rights is same as to approve a distribution of freedom and authority and hence to endorse a certain view of what may, must and must not be done ( Wenar, 2010). Many theorists agree that A’s claim-right gives B a second order reason not to act on some first order reason. To go by this route we would need to tamper the conclusiveness of the conclusive reasons implied by assertions of rights to accommodate the fact that some rights have priority against others, and if any, few rights outweigh absolutely all non-right considerations in all circumstances (Wenar, 2010).This paper will focus mainly on the principle of majority rule and the rights of the minority. The main arguments are that majority rule is the right response to resolving agreements and supermajority rule is a better response to resolving disagreements in the society. Majority rule is right to resolving disagreements because it provides utility and fairness. Utilitarian argument The principle of utility states that in any circumstance that action ought to be done and that institution ought to obtain all the alternatives available, produces the greatest net ba lance of happiness over unhappiness when we sum up all happiness and unhappiness over all sentient beings from now in to the future (Cohen, 2002). The main feature of utilitarian political feature is that it calls for the maximization of happiness summed over all and not any particular distribution of happiness and subject to the constraint of everyone is above a certain minimum level. Thus from this emphasis on aggregation, utilitarianism requires that we trade off the burdens on some people and benefits to other people. The utility principle reduces highly contested and vague issues of right and wrong to problems that can actually be addressed through public methods of observation and calculation rather appeals to equally vague and contested intuitive ideas. Because of the gains in analytical tractability one may be able to secure greater public agreement about what is at stake in a political dispute and how to resolve it. Hence this principle represents one way to treat people as moral equals and it assigns the happiness of each affected party equal weight in determining what ought to be done. In actual sense the principle of utility represents a refinement of the intuitive idea that conduct and policy are right just in case they have the overall consequences or best results (Cohen, 2002). Egalitarian argument Egalitarian view that equality is the special sense of comparative equality but the prioritarian view that