News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Bases to Judge

Started by chuff, March 25, 2009, 03:48:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

chuff

Certainly this isn't a new idea. But almost no one thinks this way.

But I could use some help in defining and laying out this system I'm thinking of... if it hasn't been already. What I have are the ideas. What I need are a sufficient way of expressing them and quality proof.

I'll try to be terse.

It is wrong to make a prejudicial decision about someone based merely on one or a combination of these facts:

   1. a certain race
   2. a certain gender
   3. a certain age
   4. in a certain family



For example, a person does not deserve to be thrown in jail or ostracized as already a criminal merely because he is, say, black.
A person's job application does not deserve to be disregarded simply because the applicant is, say, a woman.
A person does not deserve to be derided or criticized just because he or she is over 65.
And Romeo does not deserve to be scorned or thought less of because he is a Montague.

So, in short, what I'm saying is nothing new: that what people cannot change about themselves holds no moral content/no content that can be judged. Thus other examples would be a person born with a physical or mental handicap, or born in Latvia as opposed to somewhere else (being specific to birthplace and not place of living).

It is not right to hold against someone an attribute they cannot change, or, It is not right to hold contempt for someone due to an attribute he cannot change.

What I propose and attempt with all my focus to practice is, neither is it right to hold regard for someone due to an attribute he cannot change!

So for the same reason that it is wrong to act or speak detrimentally toward someone due to one of these traits, it is wrong to honor them for any of them.

So the examples for the other side of this (which no one seems to care about practicing) could go something like this:

For example, a person does not deserve to be elected to office or given better chances at a job or a college scholarship merely because he is, say, black.
A person's job application does not deserve to be regarded especially simply because the applicant is, say, a woman. Neither does an individual deserve special treatment, such as preferential treatment in company, or holding a door for someone, or caring for their well-being, simply because the individual happens to be female.
A person does not deserve to be praised or respected just because he or she is over 65.
And your uncle does not deserve your defense or your love because he is your uncle.

In essence, what I'm saying is, no human is anything (bad OR good) because he is:

   1. a certain race
   2. a certain gender
   3. a certain age
   4. in a certain family
   5. born in a certain place
   6. born in a certain status



Even shorter, my proposition is that nothing in the above list is ever a good reason for anything about a person.

Why is only half of this practiced or considered true, and how can I describe my views on this?

Is anyone with me on this one?
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."

And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."

-Stephen Crane

A Toad

AlP

In a sense, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Not completely. I disagree with many of the things you said. But there are some aspects of your argument I would like for you to address them before I get into what I agree and disagree with.


Philosophically:

You cannot directly infer what ought from what is. Perhaps someone cannot change some attribute of themselves. I cannot infer what I ought to do from that fact alone. Look up Hume's guillotine on wikipedia if you're interested.

Ethically:

For no particular reason, I like fairness. It's arbitrary and unjustifiable. I just like being fair. Because I like being fair, usually I choose not to discriminate against people because of attributes they cannot change. If I were to interview someone of a different race for a job, I would try hard to identify any prejudices I might have regarding their race and not take them into account when making a decision. I would not do it for any philosophical reason. I just like to behave that way. But that's not always the case. Here's an example. I'm looking for a girlfriend. I'm heterosexual. Men can't help being male. And I'm male and I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with being male. And there's nothing we can do about it. Should I ask a man out on a date? I would ask a woman out instead.

If I were interviewing a woman for a job and women were underrepresented in my workplace would I positively discriminate? I would do whatever appealed to my sense of fairness.

I see no justification for negative discrimination, no justification for not discriminating and no justification for positive discrimination anywhere. Not sound justifications anyway. I don't need justification for my ethics. I do what I like and generally I find people like what I do. Change me  :P.
"I rebel -- therefore we exist." - Camus

Lilbeth

I agree...I look at each person as an indivudual and take it from there. i never base anything on color, age, sex, etc.......And I will take it one step further....is it an animal's fault that he/she is born to be a farm animal for slaughter? They are just born, too.......

curiosityandthecat

I usually look at people and use race/age/sex/nationality/etc as a means to determine how much I could possibly learn from that person. The more aspects of their existence that differ from mine, the more likely I am to want them in my life. I try to never judge someone based on aspects and attributes about which they have no control or were "born into."

So, I tend to not have a lot of White/young/male/American/etc friends.
-Curio

Tanker

To paraphrase MLK I believe a man should be judged on the content of his character not on the color of his skin, or any other arbitrary diferences.
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

Hitsumei

I admit to some gender bias. All things being equal, I prefer the company of women.
"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ~Timothy Leary
"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution." ~Bertrand Russell
"[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their

Sophus

:hail: I agree. All should be viewed as equals.

I would like to add "or a certain sexuality" to your list.

I also notice children often are treated unfairly by adults who assume themselves superior. We should learn to play roles of authority but equal ourselves with them at the same time.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver