Is universalism a contradictory concept?

Question

"Universalism is supposed to embrace the concept of liberalism and democracy. Yet, in order to be able to define the set of rules which would define democracy, the procedure would be to take what the majority believes, and thus the minority would be left behind...thus universalism is contradictory as it implies prejudice against the minority"

I thought this was an interesting idea, brought forward by a friend of mine in a debate.yet, i feel that her statement is somewhat flawed.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I don't entirely agree. But it's a valid point.

Democracy is rule by the majority -- might makes right in one of its purest forms.

Liberalism requires a respect for diversity, and not having the majority override the minority.

It is possible, if people act with respect, to have a majority-rule model where the minority is not compelled to adhere to restrictions placed by the majority.

For example, the majority can vote to put their community resources towards a project, and not take money from the minority who doesn't participate -- leaving those who did not approve the project to fend for themself. That's still allowing diversity, since the minority is not compelled to support what they didn't approve.

Answer 2

Democracy, like communism, looks good on paper but is impractical. To have a true democracy would be to allow each member of an entity to have full voice and influence in the political forum and perhaps have their interests preserved in conjunction with others. This obviously doesn't work which is why a republic is the closest practical application of democratic ideals (or so we've seen). Universalism and Liberalism sound to me like ideological democracy. Perhaps another good question to get folks really riled up would be "does everyone's vote really count/matter?". And if they do or do not, what rubric would one use to gauge that criteria? Education? Personal economic stability? Political involvement?

Answer 3

God's Omibenevolence - Universalism is usually based on the notion that a God of Love would NEVER allow any of His creatures to perish {see annihilationism link above}. Nut as C. S. Lewis demonstrates in his book "The Great Divorce", just the opposite is the case. For while God "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son {John 3: 16} & "does not desire that any should perish" {2 Peter 3:9}, he does not FORCE his love on anyone. Forced love is a self - contradictory concept - for this we need to look at Free Will also.

Answer 4

I think it is not, in the widest concept it means for me not only liberalism, but the ownership of the knowledge and wisdom, and that doesn't have any nationality. Sir Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton and other bright thinkers along history were universal men because their mind were liberal and free of dogmas. Universalists and universalism belong to the human nature worldwide, and is not a contradictory concept, that is one of the reasons Universities are called so.

Answer 5

No, Universalism while upholding "democratic" principles, does not exclude those in the minority. Rather they celebrate diversity and individuality so that the group never supersedes the rights of individuals. Groups do not have any rights only individuals have rights.
Power to the People!