Aand C

In, The Tyranny of the Majority, Guinier attacks the all powerful majority rule on certain decisions that pertain to society. She warns that an overbearing majority that has no consideration for the minorities can become tyrannical if not kept in check. She cites the fear of President Madison that his people could become a tyrannical government if all powers rested in one hand, “Whether one or few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
In, The Case for Torture, the Michael Levin also brings up the subject of the benefits of a majority as opposed to the benefits of a minority. However he takes a different approach to the argument and supports a different idea of tyranny that still benefits the majority.
Assuming that the majority of society would be opposed torture; Levin goes against the opinions of the people in the majority. He does this by favoring the opinions of the presumed minority (which is by the way also looking out for the society’s safety as a whole) by supporting the torture of only the blatantly guilty under extreme circumstances. By favoring the minority’s dreadful idea of torture, he is also favoring the well being of the majority.
Levin tries to convince his reader that when it comes to the safety of a vast majority, the safety of a miniscule minority (the terrorist who is in turn trying to hurt the majority) is worthless. The overall message being, “Who cares about the terrorist’s well being when we have hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives to save?” Levin suggests that torturing someone (considered by many a tyrannical act) is justified if it has the best interest of the majority at hand.
The way in which Levin complements Guinier’s argument is that it shows how tyranny can be present in a society through somewhat different ways, it can be hidden behind the majorities need to survive or through the majorities simple wants.