評論
打印
Is the opinion of the majority-in government or in any other circumstances-a poor guide?
The entire idea of democracy centers around “majority rule”， where laws and standards are put into effect if most of the citizens support it. However, if people concentrate on only the majority in each circumstance, they often forget the voices and rights of the minorities. Simply because a person is in the minority of an opinion does not mean he can be ignored, for in a true democracy all the citizens are guaranteed the same rights. Thus in some circumstances strictly following the opinions of the majority is a poor guide to determining what actions to take.
The days before America’s Civil War, when slavery was prevalent, demonstrate that following majority rule often fails to respect people’s moral rights and liberty. The majority of white people in the early 1800’s supported slavery because of the benefits they received from the suppressed blacks. Thus, the government reluctantly allowed slavery to be legal in America, despite the terrible sufferings of the slaves. The degraded slaves underwent uncountable terrifying experiences-they were beaten, separated from their families, and forced to toil laboriously in fields their entire lives. And because the government believed “majority ruled”，the slaves lived in such conditions until the Emancipation Proclamation was written during the bloody Civil War. Had the government not followed the opinions of the clamoring whites, slavery could have been abolished much sooner, and much suffering could have been avoided. Thus, in this circumstance of freedom vs. suppression, the opinion of the majority served as a poor guide
to follow by the U.S. government.
Furthermore, the effects of majority rule impact Americans today, for there are many unsolved, controversial issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and homosexual marriages. In the case of “gay rights”， the majority of Americans oppose people of the same sex marrying, and most of the states’ laws reflect this opinion. However, ignoring the wishes of gays and lesbians by enacting these laws will leave many of them unhappy because they cannot legally “tie the knot” with the person they love. The U.S. Constitution declares that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, but by banning gay marriages, some may be barred from the happiness of marriage. In addition, many oppose stem?cell research because they are angered by the fact that embryos are created and then destroyed. Once again, though, if the government passes a law banning such research, the minority may suffer. Stem?cell research may save lives by using the cells to specialize in a certain area. Those who would benefit from the discoveries of ste
micell research may die
譯文：
“多數人做主的原則”是否會是個誤導?
民主的整個觀念是基于“多數人做主的原則”。如果多數公民支持，法律和標準也就因此產生。然而，如果事事集中在多數人身上，人們就會忘記少數人的聲音和權利。不能因為持有少數人的觀點，這些人就該被忽視，因為真正的民主意味著所有的公民都有一樣的權利。所以在一些情況下，嚴格地跟隨多數人的意見行事便會誤入歧途。
美國南北戰爭前，奴隸制猖狂，就說明了多數人做主的原則常損害人們的道德權利和自由。19世紀初，多數白人支持奴隸制，因為他們受益于被壓迫的黑人。所以當時的政府不顧奴隸的悲慘遭遇，半推半就地讓奴隸制在美國合法化。被蹂躪的奴隸們慘遭無數可怕的經歷——被拷打，背井離鄉，被迫終生耕作。正是政府信奉“多數人做主的原則”。奴隸們生活在這種狀況下，直至南北戰爭中解放公告的誕生。如果當時的政府沒有順著白人的喧嚷行事，奴隸制可能會更早被廢除，許多悲慘的遭遇也可避免。在這自由與壓迫的問題上，多數人的意見誤導了美國政府。
多數人為準的原則甚至影響到當今美國人民，諸如許多尚未解決的有爭議的社會問題：墮胎、干細胞的研究及同性婚姻。在同性戀者的權利問題上，多數美國人反對同性婚姻，這反映在多數州的法律上。然而以法律來制約男女同性戀的愿望，不讓他們相愛的人結合，破壞了他們中許多人的幸福。美國憲法宣稱人人有權追求幸福，但禁止同性婚姻也就阻礙了一些人的婚姻幸福。進一步說，許多人反對干細胞的研究，因為他們不能容忍胚胎的培養而又被銷毀。如果政府又用法律的形式來禁止這些研究，一些人將會遭難。干細胞的研究把細胞運用在特殊領域里，可能拯救許多生命。那些本可受益于干細胞研究的人們可能會死去(25分鐘時間到，就此停筆，未及寫結尾)
v. 追捕，追求，繼續從事
