>>20
Well, there's the problem. My argument is against purely utilitarian principles. If the answer is insufficient to the point of unintentional harm, and the minority has no say, then the whole should not be bound by it except through incorporation by individual choice (if the said "whole" or an individual of the "whole" is incapable of making a choice, for lack of sentience, then this obviously does not apply). That is the definition of cruelty. Dissent is a matter of debate; concern of harm and consequence is a matter of debate.
If the point
is intentional cruelty, then there are bigger problems with this hypothetical system.