<p>Prompt:</p>
<p>We do not take the time to determine right from wrong. Reflecting on the difference between right and wrong is hard work. It is so much easier to follow the crowd, going along with what is popular rather than risking the disapproval of others by voicing an objection of any kind. </p>
<p>Is it always best to determine one's own views of right and wrong, or can we benefit from following the crowd?</p>
<p>Response:
One must always decide right from wrong in isolation from the "crowd". History tells of innumerable cases where morality has been undermined due to individuals following the moral compass of a group, which in turn follows that of a few corrupted leaders. As the Rwandan genocide and the Indian caste issue show, a person must discriminate right and wrong independently to prevent catastrophe. </p>
<p>The Rwandan Genocide consisted of the murder of more than 100,000 Tutsi Rwandans. The issue stemmed from a split the inherent dichotomy within Rwanda: the races of Tutsi and Hutu. Though both races had grown from the same root, the Tutsi dominated over the Hutu during rule by European powers. The Hutu wanted vengeance, which they attained by orchestrating an attack on the Tutsi population of Rwanda. After the incident, many of those who killed and raped in the name of racial purification and revenge noted that their actions were immoral and unjust, yet because they followed the moral decisions of "the crowd" rather than their own, they committed these horrendous acts. The genocide was lead by a full influential members of the Hutu diaspora, but, because individuals failed to separate right from wrong on their own, what could have been a small incident was turned into a horrifying catastrophe at a national level. </p>
<p>A similar situation existed within the Indian Parliament a few years after India had been granted its independence from Great Britain. Many politicians were opposed to allowing those of the "untouchable" caste to have a place in politics. However, a few individuals, who were able to separate themselves from the crowd, took a stand. Many of these officials were of high castes, meaning that they would have been benefitted if "untouchables" were barred from holding public office. Yet, these individuals made the distinction between right and wrong independently of the group and with adroit political maneuvering, were able to prevent the passage of legislation meant to harm the lower castes. Through only their independent thinking was the terrible moral calamity of caste-based discrimination evaded. As the world grew to frown upon racism, India was placed upon a pedestal for its inclusiveness rather than shamed for its discrimination. All this was possible only through a few individuals separating good from bad without simply adopting the group's ideas. </p>
<p>Inherently, a group has no greater moral capacity than an individual. In fact, a group may make the same errors in selecting the right from wrong as an individual. Thus, if individuals may make their own decisions regarding good and bad, the chance of failure is greatly decreased. History provides evidence galore, both of the successes of independent moral reasoning as well as the failures of following the crowd.</p>