Conaeolos
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,994
- Reaction score
- 416
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Q1: Is it ever morally-good to embrace the human tendency for superficial discrimination? Where are the limits?
Examples would be discrimination such as a refusal to associate based on age, class, gender, race, fashion, political identification, religion or criminal past; excluding cases where these are not superficialconsiderations such as: health decisions, qualification for assistance, employment at women’s abuse shelter, membership in cultural organization, fashion career, political party appointment, position in religious organization, and likelihood of future criminality.
Before dismissing, take a moment to confirm your not in fact advocating for some forms well crying foul on others. For example, it is common for those who decry racism to see no problem with exclusion and shaming of religious associations, opposing political affiliation and/or offensive fashions/language.
Before dismissing, consider you may have internalized these stereotypes. You don’t mind liberals/Christians as a whole; just are disgusted by many of their cultural expressions of dress, behaviour, advocation etc #notall
Try to accept the premise: our reality is that humans by nature of choices must discriminate on low information criteria including superficial factors - starting as children picking who to befriend & who to avoid. As we grow into adulthood however we also all agree that some superficial discrimination doesn’t excuse long standing patterns and aversions based solely on these superficial considerations (e.g concepts like racism, sexism, forcing religious conversions are morally wrong)
Okay, so if you can accept it exists universally & can accept it must have limits. Where if ever can it be a moral-good? If a moral-good where are the boundaries where it begins to overstep and become grey then just a force for evil? If never a moral good, how can one overcome its inherent tendency especially as one instructs children who can not be anything but low-information thus having little choice in their discrimination on solely superficial reasoning?
(If you wouldn’t mind please include somewhere in your first post your generation: boomer, gen-x, millennial, zoomer)
Examples would be discrimination such as a refusal to associate based on age, class, gender, race, fashion, political identification, religion or criminal past; excluding cases where these are not superficialconsiderations such as: health decisions, qualification for assistance, employment at women’s abuse shelter, membership in cultural organization, fashion career, political party appointment, position in religious organization, and likelihood of future criminality.
Before dismissing, take a moment to confirm your not in fact advocating for some forms well crying foul on others. For example, it is common for those who decry racism to see no problem with exclusion and shaming of religious associations, opposing political affiliation and/or offensive fashions/language.
Before dismissing, consider you may have internalized these stereotypes. You don’t mind liberals/Christians as a whole; just are disgusted by many of their cultural expressions of dress, behaviour, advocation etc #notall
Try to accept the premise: our reality is that humans by nature of choices must discriminate on low information criteria including superficial factors - starting as children picking who to befriend & who to avoid. As we grow into adulthood however we also all agree that some superficial discrimination doesn’t excuse long standing patterns and aversions based solely on these superficial considerations (e.g concepts like racism, sexism, forcing religious conversions are morally wrong)
Okay, so if you can accept it exists universally & can accept it must have limits. Where if ever can it be a moral-good? If a moral-good where are the boundaries where it begins to overstep and become grey then just a force for evil? If never a moral good, how can one overcome its inherent tendency especially as one instructs children who can not be anything but low-information thus having little choice in their discrimination on solely superficial reasoning?
(If you wouldn’t mind please include somewhere in your first post your generation: boomer, gen-x, millennial, zoomer)