In a democracy, should individuals who consistently find themselves on the losing side of elections feel obligated to comply with laws they disagree with and have no chance of altering?
The concept of minority extends beyond specific groups and includes any societal group that will never be in the majority. To illustrate this, consider the rights of smokers. In the past, smoking was widely accepted by the majority, including cigarettes, pipes, and cigars. However, increasing evidence over the last four decades has revealed the detrimental health effects of smoking. Consequently, more individuals have chosen to quit or not start smoking at all. As a result, smokers now form a minority within society.
If any government had attempted to implement a current smoking ban during the mid-20th century, they would likely have faced significant electoral consequences
...due to a large number of smoker voters. It is noteworthy that in the 1950s even doctors advocated for smoking as beneficial to one's health.
Currently, smokers believe they face discrimination due to their decision to start and continue smoking after the introduction of public place smoking bans. Despite being a minority, as fewer people begin smoking and more quit due to health concerns and limited smoking areas, attempts to reverse the ban in certain locations (like mental hospitals and prisons) have mostly failed. Although many smokers follow the law even if they disagree, they still choose to smoke when permitted.
As a former smoker, I understand how some smokers feel aggrieved about the restriction on smoking. However, most smokers have come to realize that the law will not change back. Only a persistent minority of smokers will continue to disregard the law
In his painting The Death of Socrates, David explores the tension between individual will and duty to the state through formal and compositional techniques. To understand the painting, one must consider the time it was created and who commissioned it. The Trudaine de Montigny brothers, proponents of a free market system and increased public discourse, commissioned the painting after the Assembly of Notables dissolved in 1787. The painting portrays Socrates' final moments as he faced the choice between death and exile. Despite his teaching methods arousing scepticism and impiety among his students, Socrates bravely rejected exile and accepted death by drinking hemlock. In examining the composition of the painting, we observe that Socrates continues to speak even as he reaches for the cup, illustrating his indifference towards death and his dedication to his ideals and teaching methods. Most of his followers are shown grieving around him, revealing their emotional vulnerability.
At the prison, only his wife is seen in the distance, leaving. Plato and Crito, both composed, are by Socrates' bedside. David's depiction of the removed shackles portrays Socrates as liberated to choose, no longer constrained by Athenian norms that brought him to this fate. Socrates has made his decision. Instead of persisting in defying the law to teach as he desires or going into exile, he opts to die. He values his convictions and pedagogical approach above all else, even life itself.
His wife is observed from a distance as she leaves the prison, although she does not seem to be upset about her husband's impending death. The scene, when first revealed, brought to mind the recently abandoned attempt at reform and the abundance of political
prisoners in the king's jails or in exile. David clearly meant for this painting to criticize those who easily gave in to the dissolution of the assembly in 1787. As the Revolution approached, this picture served as a call to duty and a rallying point for those who desired change and resistance against the seemingly unfair authority of the king.
In terms of shared concerns between David's portrayal of Socrates' death and the philosophical debates about persistent minorities, it appears that David is illustrating the impact of being a minority (in Socrates' case, a very small one) on society. The primary issue with persistent minorities is that they inevitably persist. As previously mentioned, these minorities often receive attention and support due to their vocal nature, while ignored minorities do not.
Historically, there have been persistent majorities with grievances, such as the suffragette movement in the past. This movement successfully sought to change the laws and address women's rights.
- Russian Empire essays
- Ancient Greece essays
- British Empire essays
- Historical Figures essays
- Nazi Germany essays
- Roman Empire essays
- War essays
- Revolution essays
- 19Th Century essays
- Historiography essays
- History of the United States essays
- 20Th Century essays
- World History essays
- Vikings essays
- Declaration of Independence essays
- Civilization essays
- Evidence essays
- Genocide essays
- Colonialism essays
- Rebellion essays
- 1960S essays
- 1920S essays
- 1950S essays
- Letter from Birmingham Jail essays
- Louisiana Purchase essays
- The Columbian Exchange essays
- World Hunger essays
- What is History essays
- Bravery essays
- Gilded Age essays
- Vladimir Lenin essays
- Alexander The Great essays
- Sparta essays
- Victorian Era essays
- Henry v essays
- Stonehenge essays
- Frederick Douglass essays
- Mahatma Gandhi essays
- Joseph Stalin essays
- Geert Hofstede essays
- George Eliot essays
- Ginevra King essays
- John Keats essays
- Siegfried Sassoon essays
- Ben jonson essays
- Billy elliot essays
- Wilkie collins essays
- John Proctor essays
- Harriet Tubman essays
- Napoleon essays