Is "majority rule" morally right?

Not always. Democracy can take the form of mob rule at times.

If you're strict with the meaning of the word "morally" (look it up in the online cambridge dictionary) it goes for two things: either those you as an individual consider "correct" or what most people will agree in is correct.

When you trust most people to have the same notions on what's right and what's wrong you're deep down believing in the idea that there's some form of a universal "right" and a universal "wrong". If there are such universals, then whatever we think of when trying to picture "right" and "wrong" should somehow be close to those, and therefore close to one another. That's the idea behind the declaration of human rights.

However, the decisions made by the majority under a "majority rule", as you call it, aren't perfect and we're all aware of that. If there's a universal right, we can only get close to it, and we'll never get it perfect. If there's no such thing, then we can only hope that we'll harm as few people as possible when taking decisions, or benefit as many as possible (that's where democracy comes from).

(This kind of question requires a long answer, if you're trying to give a good one... I'd write more, but I don't think it's a good idea, this is better for conversation than it is to bore people reading this).
Individuals in a minority will disagree, and they'll be right to disagree, but you can't trust a few to know what all want and/or need because you'll have a lot of people to disagree with them. Problem here is, the difference between opinions is usually huge, and opposite. So again you're faced with a dilemma: help most people, or try helping a few (and usually, each stands for his own, few try to stand together for all mankind).

That being said, it's evident that this "majority rule" is morally wrong by many individuals' standards, so it's hard to draw a line and make the difference, where the definition for "morally right" is so ambiguous.

By "majority rule" I assume you mean democracy. It works well in the UK, but only because the majority is mindful of the needs of the minority.

The system itself is morally neutral...just another system of government. If you do away with government, you have anarchy...morally justifiable but a nightmare to live in!

Not at all...think of all the people in history that actually made positive advances and changes for our country. Each great historian figure stood for something that the majority did not agree on; that created some sort of change.

Majority rules 'As Is', not 'As Should Be'!

NO.

absolutely not

uh i don't know

Proportional representation is more "moral".

It has never been majority rule because there is one or a couple of people who runs the majority and the rest of the people don't have the balls to speak up and just go with the flow.

No, it isn't.

Best example of this is to picture a lynch mob. This is an example of "majority rule" where the only dissenting vote is the one at the end of the rope.

Its Politicaly right..... Politics are no wear near Morallity!!

If you are in a group of MURDERERS.....Is Majority rules


okay?.........I Do Not THINK SO!!

Never underestimate the "power" of stupid people in large groups.