Verified answer

We should NEVER accept numerical majorities, at least not when dealing with things that have to do with the sovereignty of other people. After two years of intense debate at dinner tables, in taverns, in town halls about how to protect this sovereignty (also called "self-ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership ) James Madison wrote the Ninth Amendment, and the nation approved it.

After the Continental Congress approved the Constitution, Ben Franklin famously answered a woman in the town square who ask him what form of government they had approved. He said, "A democratic republic, if you can keep it madam."

He meant it would take vigil not to let it slide into a monarchical sort of republic, or a despotic type of democracy. Pure democracy is that despotic form (when dealing with sovereign rights,) and is by definition "numerical majority".

But moral relativism? "...normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it." This means majority rule has no bearing, since we tolerate other people's behavior.

And so you ask why you MUST bow to it? "Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism If, then, nobody is objectively right or wrong, then majority rule doesn't even matter, because if the majority passes a law that say I cannot have a pig in my city home, I can object that you are not objectively correct to prevent me from it, and I will have a pig in my home.

You will argue that you subjectively passed a law and therefore you will subjectively put me in jail. At point, all is lost.

(There are objective reasons, however, for preventing pigs in city homes, and that is the protection of the rights of others, WHEN the keeping of pigs infringes on their sovereignty. And THAT is why most laws should be at the local/state level--because while in one city it might infringe on rights, in another city it might not.)

Is relativism acceptable where there is more than one person.If you have many people driving their cars how they want to for example it would result in chaos, so there are rules the whole base of people acting in society is the trust that each will act in a given way . When this does not happen society breaks down Are you suggesting the answer is Nihilism then say so and defend it

Have you ever heard of the wisdom of crowds?

A classic demonstration of group intelligence is the jelly-beans-in-the-jar experiment, in which invariably the group's estimate is superior to the vast majority of the individual guesses. When finance professor Jack Treynor ran the experiment in his class with a jar that held 850 beans, the group estimate was 871. Only one of the fifty-six people in the class made a better guess.

Group intelligence, at least when it comes to judging questions of fact, always outperforms individual intelligence even when the group contains "experts" in the field in question.

Yes. Because as majority rules, minority enjoys 'given' rights. The upper-hand is the one that gives. Strictly speaking, democracy is gracious.