Why do we all feel like we are part of the minority when it comes to "protecting the interests of the majority"? "Protecting the interests of the majority" is a noble character of "selflessness," as it is said, "Among the loyal, there is utmost fairness and selflessness," thinking entirely of the public interest without any selfish motives. "Protecting the interests of the majority" tells people that for the benefit of the majority, one should sacrifice oneself and selflessly contribute. Therefore, they often say to you: "You must consider the bigger picture."
The question is, who decides who the "majority" is and who the "minority" is when it comes to protecting the interests of the majority? What exactly constitutes the interests of the majority? What is the bigger picture? It is not hard to find that often it is a very small number of people who decide who the "majority" is and who the "minority" is. Whether you belong to the "majority" or the "minority" is not determined by yourself, but by a few powerful individuals who often classify you as part of the minority without any discussion.
Clearly, we cannot explain the overused slogan "protecting the interests of the majority" from a benevolent perspective, let alone discuss any lofty values. "Protecting the interests of the majority" itself is a definition that contradicts fairness and justice; it is merely a form of moral coercion imposed by some on others.
If it were not moral coercion, would the "majority" also be noble once and willing to make some sacrifices for the "minority"? Would those who shout "protecting the interests of the majority" and "considering the bigger picture" selflessly stand on the same front as those "minorities" who sacrifice themselves for the "majority"? Obviously, this is unlikely; there is no such implication in this slogan. What is more likely to happen is that after shouting the slogan, those who shout it will strive to join the ranks of the majority, transforming their originally "minority" role into that of the "majority," and begin to justifiably sacrifice others to ensure their own interests.
In fact, in the social and ethical environment of "protecting the interests of the majority," no one's interests can be effectively protected. Because "protecting the interests of the majority" must come at the expense of the minority's suffering; one person's gain must rely on another person's loss. The real message conveyed by "protecting the interests of the majority" is: there is no choice, rob others or be robbed, destroy others or be destroyed. Those who infringe on the interests of others today may be harmed by even greater powers tomorrow. Those who use violence to infringe on others' interests may themselves be harmed by stronger violence tomorrow.
If we endorse such a doctrine, believing that a person's existence is only for others, then every bit of joy or food they enjoy is sinful and immoral, because it is entirely possible that another person also wants to obtain their joy and food. According to such a theory, people cannot eat or breathe. Because all of this is selfish, people cannot live harmoniously together, and the ultimate result can only be mutual slaughter.
Only by respecting individual rights can we define and achieve true benefits—whether private or public. Only when everyone can live freely for themselves—without having to sacrifice others for themselves, and without having to sacrifice themselves for others—can people possibly realize the greatest benefits through their own efforts and choices. Only by merging these individual efforts can people achieve widespread collective and social benefits.
Do not think that what opposes the notion of "the greatest benefit of the majority" is "the greatest benefit of the very few"; what we should advocate is: the maximum benefit that each person can obtain through their own free efforts. Among the various schools of thought, there was a person named Yang Zhu who advocated "valuing oneself," "for myself," and "prioritizing life," stating, "I will not sacrifice even a hair for the benefit of the world, nor will I accept the world's benefits for myself."
Yang Zhu also opposed "infringing on property" and "indulging in desires." "What is valuable in wisdom is to preserve oneself; what is cheap in strength is to infringe on property." It is commendable to use wisdom to serve oneself, while it is shameful to use violence to infringe on others' property. While maintaining personal rights, one must also respect the rights of others and oppose the infringement of "rights" by "power." People must rationally choose their values and actions; individuals have the absolute right to live for their own interests without having to sacrifice their own interests for others, nor can they force others to sacrifice for themselves.
No one has the right to seize another's property through violence or fraud, or to impose their own values on others through violence. Do not think that "protecting the interests of the majority" is noble, while striving for "personal interests" is immoral; under the incitement of collective sentiment, "personal interests" become taboo, ultimately failing to clarify the boundaries between individual and collective, and society. Without sound moral principles regarding individual rights, and without social systems naming individual interests, extreme individualistic behavior will become the norm.