‘Tyranny of the majority’ is a powerful invocation when discussing trade-offs and policy. Using that power well demands careful attention to the meaning of the phrase. There are, in fact, a couple different kinds of majoritarian tyrannies. Invidious tyrannies occur when the majority’s whims overrule the minority’s vital interests to detriment of society as a whole. Innocuous tyrannies occur when the majority’s whims overrule the minority to the benefit of society.
\[
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\lvert #1 \rvert}
\]
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.
It seems that, in common use, the term ‘tyranny of the majority’ conflates two importantly distinct concepts.
Invidious
The first sense in which one can mean tyranny of the majority is the one highlighted in the epigraph. In this form, some passing whim of the majority overrules and outweighs the critical interest of the minority. The wolves’ purely gustatory (pretending that wolves aren’t obligate carnivores) interest in the lamb trumps the lamb’s literally vital interest in living. Real world examples in this category include: Jim Crow laws; marriage for same-sex couples; often Nimbyism.
A shift in perspective
Tyranny of the majority is often framed as a majority violating the political and moral rights of the minority. Once we permit ourselves the ontological spookiness that is ‘rights’, it seems only fair to allow ourselves cardinal utility and interpersonal utility comparison. With these tools, we can reframe and make precise the tyranny of the majority described above.
Invidious tyranny of the majority occurs when the weak preferences of many outweigh the strong preferences of the few such that the actual outcome doesn’t maximize utility/satisfaction of preferences.
Full post