Action taken for the good of the greatest number can be Detrimental to the interests of the few

Action taken for the good of the greatest number can sometimes be detrimental to the interests of the few.
Describe a specific situation in which an action taken for the good of the greatest number might not be detrimental to the interests of the few. Discuss what you think determines whether or not action taken for the good of the greatest number will be detrimental to the interests of the few.
___

Democratic systems, such as that of the United States, take into account the will of the majority in taking government action. This is reflected by the practice of majority vote in electing representatives to the legislature. These politicians, in turn, have the responsibility to make decisions based on the interests of the majority of their constituents. However, when action is taken for the good of the greatest number, this can adversely harm the minority. Certain mechanisms, thus, are established in democratic systems to help protect individual and minority interests.

Indeed, people will usually vote for what is good for them. When a majority chooses a certain action, in general, it will best serve society as a whole. Sometimes this is not the case when people are driven by base motives, such as prejudice and fear of what they do not know. For instance, a majority might vote to suppress the rights of homosexuals because they believe that lifestyle is detrimental to their own children's well being, as well as the moral trajectory of the future. This had been realized when Colorado citizens voted in the mid-90s to restrict the rights of homosexuals to participate equally in the political process (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court). While such bills to discriminate against certain people may be for the greater good (well, at least according to majority belief), they can adversely affect minorities rights to participate as full Americans in a free society.

The majority has the potential to "tyrannize" the majority when their collective will is put into action. This has been demonstrated in the past in terms of religious, sex, and race discrimination. However, certain mechanisms in our democracy exist as a check to the majority and serve to protect individual and minority rights. The Bill of Rights of the American Constitution, for instance, is an instrument by which individuals and minorities can use courts to protect their freedoms and rights. The document outlines several freedoms, including those of speech, religion, etc. that are guaranteed for every US citizen. When a person's fundamental rights have been infringed, he or she can turn to the courts to ask for an injunction (put an end to the discrimination) and even claim reparations and damages. These paths to recourse attempt to not only protect the victim but to also discourage others in the future from infringing on those rights.

The United States also has a system of checks and balances where the government is divided into three branches and not one holds power over the other. The legislature, for example, may pass a law (driven by majority interest) that adversely affects a minority. Another branch, the judiciary, can place a check on this law by ruling it unconstitutional. Not only the judiciary serves as a check on other branches--All the branches balance each other out and can use their power to prevent action from another branch.


Indeed, there may be instances where action taken for the good of the majority may not be detrimental to the interests of the minority. This may include, for instance, decisions to provide certain basic services to the population, including education and health care. Not all actions by the majority are driven by base motives and may beneficial to the good of all--even to the minorities who disagreed with the action. It is important, however, to keep in place the mechanism that help protect minorities in cases where majority action infringes on constitutional rights and freedoms.