We used to make decisions based on ‘the greater good’. The idea behind this approach is an acceptance that you are not going to be able to please all the people, all the time. As such, you make decisions that will benefit the greater majority of people. It’s an approach that parallels the cost benefit analyses that drive business decisions. If the amount of good – aka ‘benefit’ – brought about by this decision hugely outweighs the amount of harm – ie ‘cost – then the decision is a good one: the decision is for the greater good.
However, recently a schism has been rent across the common-sense continuum. More and more examples are cropping up whereby decisions are made based on the lesser good. The modus operandi of this approach are that a decision is beneficial if a small number of people derive a benefit.
An example of this approach in practise relates to the ever-growing influence of transgenderism on our society.
Toilets and changing rooms becoming unisex which makes tiny numbers of people slightly happier whilst making huge numbers of people uneasy, uncomfortable, vulnerable and slightly resentful that rules that have been fixed in our society for hundreds of years are being changed to appeal to such small numbers.
And does this change really make transgenders feel less oppressed? I would guess that the simmering resentment that the majority would have at this upheaval of custom and tradition would be more than enough to make transgenders feel oppressed all over again.
It seems like a political decision that is more about virtue-signalling.
Atticus Fox 