The 'ad populum' fallacy and the effects of using it to defend political causes

When I was in my third year of bachelorship, I became very interested in logic, a subject that was included in the philosophy class.

Principles versus fashions: the lesson offered by a man who folded his arms
The tendency to declare ideologies dead and what that may indicate

I don't know if this subject is still taught in Spanish education programs. I certainly believe that it's a very necessary skill because it teaches you how to reason, something we seem to be losing at an accelerated pace. Just look at the number of logical fallacies you read every day in the media and on the internet.

A very common fallacy is the so-called "ad populum" argument. This argument ignores criteria of truth to determine what is correct. Instead, it suggests that what is true and correct is what the majority supports. In these times, when populism is becoming so prevalent in different parts of the political spectrum, this fallacy is increasingly in vogue.

Obviously, this fallacy causes problems for those who use it. After all, it's common for the majority in different countries to disagree. Does that mean that both things can be true? The most absurd effects of this fallacy come when it's applied to certain social groups, for example, a party's voters. If what the majority of Party A's voters think is correct, contrary to what a minority of that party's voters say, how can this "ad populum" argument be sustained if there's a Party B that's more widely represented and defends opposing views?

Unfortunately, in democracy, majority opinion has been confused with the truth too often, even though democratic elections are not intended to establish the truth, but rather what the majority wants. Believing that majority opinion determines the truth can be very dangerous, and can lead to contradictions like those I pointed out above. If the majority is right, were the Nazis right in Germany in 1933? Let us recall that in the German elections of March 1933, the National Socialist Party won with 43.91% of the votes.

All of this should motivate democracies to establish legal barriers to prevent majorities from becoming abusive. These barriers should be aimed at protecting minorities and also at protecting truths that predate democracy. Truths like the fact that killing innocent human beings is wrong, that no one has the right to steal, that no politician can use their power to tell you what you should think and believe, or to prevent you from professing your religious beliefs, as long as they do not violate the basic principles of coexistence.

If democracy is going through difficult times in some countries, it is because these things are often forgotten, and those dikes, which should be sacred but in some cases have ceased to be so, are beginning to deteriorate, in the name of a moral relativism that seeks to erase all certainties, even those that led to the protection of human rights to protect us from abuses of power, even those committed in the name of the majority.

We need to start dusting off logic to remember that the majority does not have the authority to redefine the truth, and if it arrogates that authority, what is looming is a tyranny. Perhaps one of the worst tyrannies that can exist, because it commits its abuses disguised as democracy, while distorting it and emptying it of meaning. We must never forget this, whatever the political ideology of those who promote this fallacy, unless we do not mind them reducing democracy to rubble.

---

Image: poster for the film "Die Welle" (2008).