Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution. That can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. Show me in the Constitution where you get a right to separate citizens based on race. I think what we've become comfortable with is thinking that there is some good discrimination, and some bad discrimination. Well, who gets to determine that? And if you look in the briefs and the race cases, the segregationists, the people who thought you should have a separate system, they said that they thought it was good for both races. So they thought it was good discrimination.
Equity is another synonym for the sort of the obverse which is racism and white supremacy I've been hearing more and my ears are more attuned to Biden's endless repetition of systemic racism and they're the same thing I mean equity is the response to systemic racism equity means quotas, it means the destruction of meritocratic standards, it means you hire and promote on the basis of race not on the basis of qualifications, and any institution which does not show a proportional number of of blacks or hispanics is thereby by the definition of systemically racist and engaged in bias.
Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”
Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.
Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong. Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).
Third, you should not bother to tell us how you feel about a topic. Tell us what you think about it. If you can’t think yet, that’s O.K.. Tell us what Aristotle thinks, or Hammurabi thinks, or H.L.A. Hart thinks. Borrow opinions from those whose opinions are worth considering. As Aristotle teaches us in the reading for today, men and women who are enslaved to the passions, who never rise above their animal natures by practicing the virtues, do not have worthwhile opinions. Only the person who exercises practical reason and attains practical wisdom knows how first to live his life, then to order his household, and finally, when he is sufficiently wise and mature, to venture opinions on how to bring order to the political community.
Disagreement is not expressing one’s disapproval of something or expressing that something makes you feel bad or icky. To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion. When Socrates tells you that a good life is better than a life in exile you can neither agree nor disagree with that claim without first understanding what he means by “good life” and why he thinks running away from Athens would be unjust. Similarly, if someone expresses a view about abortion, and you do not first take the time to understand what the view is and why the person thinks the view is true, then you cannot disagree with the view, much less reason with that person. You might take offense. You might feel bad that someone holds that view. But you are not reasoning unless you are engaging the merits of the argument, just as Socrates engaged with Crito’s argument that he should flee from Athens.
So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester. 1. The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges. 2. If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing. 3. If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.
you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.
“Of special significance to the present discussion is the egalitarians’ defiance of the Law of Causality: their demand for equal results from unequal causes – or equal rewards for unequal performance.”
While fathers and sons bear the burden of the priesthood, it was declared in the very beginning that it was not good for man to be alone. A companion, or “helpmeet,” was given him. The word meet means equal. Man and woman, together, were not to be alone. Together they constituted a fountain of life. While neither can generate life without the other, the mystery of life unfolds when these two become one.
The Lord revealed that the purpose of it all is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39.) Ordinances and covenants were ordained to protect this power to generate life. When laws are obeyed, happiness follows, for “men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Ne. 2:25.)
There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.
n contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.
An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.
Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.
Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.
...it does not follow that all men are equal in all particulars.
The pre-existent progress depended upon self effort, those who exerted their wills most, made the greatest progress; moreover, those who had led the most righteous lives, and had been most careful of their gifts, had acquired greatest strength - consequently, at the time of the great council, though the spirits were in the general, of one class, they differed greatly in the details of their attainments, in the righteousness of their lives, in the stability of their purpose, and in their consistent devotion to the great truth of their lives.
Most probably, the power acquired in the life before this is transmitted to some degree to the earthlife. We may well believe, therefore, that the differences in the quality and characteristics of men, may be traced, in part at least, to the pre-existent lives.
...since there are differences of advancement, the spirits who come on earth are placed frequently in positions for which they are best fitted.
Yet, it must be remembered that predestination can not be compelling. Man's free agency, the great indestructible gift, always remains untrammeled.
It is most likely that those who, on earth, accept the highest truth of life, find the gospel attractive, and are most faithful in the recognition of law, are those who, in the pre-existent state, were most intelligent and obedient.
Man's inequality comes chiefly from the inequality of earth effort.
We live only as our bodies allow; and, since our bodies differ greatly, there is in them another source of man's inequality. In fact, the inequality of man comes largely from inequality of body, through which the eternal spirit tries in vain to speak.
The equality of man on earth must be the equal opportunity to progress.
In fundamental principles, in gifts and blessings, in spiritual opportunities, as required or offered by the church, men are stripped of all differences, and stand as if they were equal before God. This is equality of opportunity.
The great problem of every age is how to keep together, as one body, the many who, because of their differing wills, have become different in their powers and attainments.
Men must not be judged, wholly, by their attainments, or by their gifts, but largely by the degree to which they give themselves to the great cause represented by the plan of the major intelligent Being, for the minor beings of the universe.
“No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society.”
“Among the essential features of this situation [original position] is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.”
“Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle.”
When speaking about the Council of Fifty in Nauvoo, which had members who were not members of the church, In the council men were not consulted about their religious opinions, no matter what they were. “We act upon the broad and liberal principle that all men have equal rights and ought to be respected,” he said. “Every man has a privilege in this organization of choosing for himself voluntarily his God and what he please for religion.”
This echoed the words of Elder M. Russell Ballard who has taught that “men and women are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of the Church, but equal does not mean the same. The responsibilities and divine gifts of men and women differ in their nature but not in their importance or influence. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other”
The different gifts and roles of men and women are intended to complement each other. “The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other, and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation” (Elder David A. Bednar, Ensign Feb. 2006). It was never intended that man or woman be alone. As President Boyd K. Packer taught, “At first, Adam was alone. He held the priesthood, but alone, he could not fulfill the purposes of his creation. No other man would do. … Except Adam and Eve by nature be different from one another, they could not multiply and fill the earth. The complementing differences are the very key to the plan of happiness”
No one really wants total equality, just that which favors them.
No. It’s not fair that we have so much wealth when billions of others have so little. And it’s not fair that our wealth opens doors that are closed to most people. ... But there is nothing secret about our objectives as a foundation. We are committed to being open about what we fund and what the results have been. ... We do this work, and use whatever influence we have, to help as many people as possible and to advance equity around the world.
“By being human we are equal - equal as persons, equal in our humanity. One individual cannot be more or less human than another, more or less of a person. The dignity we attribute to being a person rather than a thing is not subject to difference in degree. … The factual basis for the correct view is biological. All members of any biological species, human or otherwise, are alike in possessing the properties or powers that are genetically determined attributes of that species of living organism.”
“The truth of the proposition that all human beings are by nature equal is confined to the one respect in which that equality can be truly affirmed [equality of kind] … their having species specific properties … There is no other respect in which all human beings are equal.”
“Individual members of a species differ from one another either by innate endowment, genetically determined, or by voluntary attainment, individually acquired. From the individual differences arise the inequalities in degree that make one individual superior or inferior to another in some particular respect.”
“These differences come, first of all, from differences in native endowment. … Another explanation of the different degrees of ability looks to what use individuals make of their inborn talents and aptitudes – the degree to which, by their own efforts, they fulfill their innate capacities. … Still another explanation lies in the favorable or unfavorable circumstances under which individuals make the effort to develop themselves.”
“They seek to maximize an equality of conditions, even if to do so requires many infringements upon individual liberty, which is the lesser value in their view. … Should [society] ignore the fact that human beings are unequal as well as equal, in both their endowments and attainments, and that they make unequal contributions to the welfare of the community?”
“They appear to forget that the specific equality of kind of all members of the human species is also accompanied by individual inequalities of all sorts … in what individuals make of their own endowments, efforts, and attainments. Human individuals are not all equal in the way so many precision-made ball bearings are alike…all having the same properties without any difference in degree.”
The leveling of age and social dissolution respects no rank.
Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn't be that women are the exception.
We are at last beginning to relegate to the history books the idea of the token woman.
“Just Savings Principle”: “[Rawls] argues that the main duty owed to our successors is the saving of sufficient material capital to maintain just institutions over time. Rawls calls this duty the “just savings principle”… it has been widely discussed and criticized because of its significance with regard to intergenerational justice.”
America was built on the eternal principle that all men are created equal and they have certain rights given to them by God. Because these rights are God-given, they cannot be taken away by man. This was a completely new concept in the world at that time. In every other society, the citizens’ rights came from men, such as a king or dictator.
America’s founding has always been about its ambitions. The founders did not claim the country would be perfect, only that through freedom it may encourage greatness among its citizens. Yes, ugly things took place in our history by flawed and dishonest men. But if one looks at history fairly we see that the great leaders of our founding succeeded in creating a nation in which individual freedom became the pathway for unparalleled levels of achievement by its citizens.
American exceptionalism does not mean that people here are better than in other countries. It means our Constitution is exceptional. It gives all who live here the opportunity to succeed or fail in what they choose to do in life. This enlightened document inspires, uplifts, and encourages American citizens, both native-born and immigrant, to live better lives, dream bigger dreams, and work hard for themselves, their families, and their fellow citizens.
Equity, is just unfair fairness.
Times have changed once more. The thesis of this essay is that looking ahead, the Church may need once more to establish a banking system that can be utilized by its members. Unlike in 1873, the reason is not because there are no banking and financial institutions available: there are plenty in this day and age. No, the reason is because the signs of the times are such that it may come to pass in the not-too-distant future that orthodox Christians of all denominations may be discriminated against in the financial marketplace. There may come a day when someone who hews to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ (CoJC) may find that no bank will have them as a customer, and that no bank will offer them credit in any form, from a credit card to a mortgage. Other financial services, such as the use of PayPal and Venmo, may also be denied them. Now, while it is still possible to do so, and while the Church has immense financial assets allowing it to stabilize such a system, it is advisable to consider the issue.
It is not difficult to assert that a social credit system is coming into existence in the United States; it is not unlike that pioneered by China, but instead of being enforced by the state, it is being enforced by our largest and most powerful businesses and corporations. In China, one’s every move and purchase is tracked, and vast databases of facial recognition, financial transactions (including late bill-paying), geo-location information, online social media activity (such as how long you play a video game online, or whether you have spread “misinformation”), and behavior resulting in a brush with the law (even smoking in a non-smoking area) are collated each and every day to assign each citizen a “social credit score.” Your score then determines what privileges you have in society. If your score is quite low, you may be barred from purchasing a bus or train or airline ticket, for example, or from buying property or taking out a loan. Your social credit score will be shown to potential employers, and their own social credit scores may fall if they choose to hire you nonetheless. Your children may even be punished for your own low social credit score by being denied entry to certain schools.
However, you don’t need to have a totalitarian government to pull off a social credit score. All you need are the largest, richest corporate gatekeepers to police the boundaries of social credit—and that is what we see happening in the United States now. While we are all familiar with big technology corporations like Facebook and Twitter coming under fire for suspending social media accounts because they disfavor the views expressed by the account holder, the bigger cudgel is wielded by those further upstream—those who hold the levers of finance and commerce.
2) In the US, JP Morgan abruptly cancelled the bank accounts of the leaders of the Proud Boys and other right-wing figures such as Laura Loomer: “Loomer styles herself as the ‘most banned woman in the world.’ In addition to Chase, she is banned from PayPal, from Venmo, from The Cash App, Airbnb and Instagram, from Lyft, Uber and UberEats, from the blogging monetisation platform WordAds and the t-shirt print-to-order site TeeSpring, from Twitter and Facebook — obviously — and from any one of a half dozen other platforms for digital congress . . . But many of those bans are mere cascade effects. TeeSpring works with PayPal. PayPal had already declared Loomer an unperson, and thus they informed TeeSpring that they would have to stop supplying her. Ditto Venmo and The Cash App.” Even more troubling, Loomer won the Republican primary to run for Congress in her home state, but even then could not reverse these summary judgments:
In sum, an individual’s right to conduct financial business in the marketplace is now under clear attack. While most of us would not espouse the views of, say, a Laura Loomer, that is not the point. There should be a basic human right to have a bank account and conduct business. Not even former felons can be denied bank accounts (unless they have written bad checks or engaged in money laundering). Up to this point in time, an individual had to be officially designated a terrorist for such rights to be taken away. No longer; now you merely have to be designated a “hate group” or “member of a hate group” by an entity such as the Southern Poverty Law Center in order for there to be justification for your financial de-personing. I remember when the Southern Poverty Law Center was a reputable institution; those days are gone. When Christian-based advocacy groups such as the Center for Family and Human Rights can be designated a “hate group,” we’ve moved beyond the pale into censorship. But organizations like the SPLC offer “cover” for big corporations to persecute those who do not conform to whatever thinking is currently considered acceptable. Orthodox Christian beliefs are increasingly deemed “unacceptable.” Persecution is coming.
“A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which the author addresses the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society). The theory utilizes an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory.”
“Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an artificial device he calls the original position; in which, everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves so they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage. According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles that are fair to all.”
Is anyone protesting for income equality in professional sports?
Half of half of the boards of directors must of publicly held companies must be female. That's equality, but it's not Liberty. I am not free to choose whom I want on my own board.
Liberty is a big value. We have the Liberty Bell. Not the Equality Bell
NATURE = EQUALITY OF KIND = NATURAL EQUALITY: The involuntary native endowment given to all members of the species. The first definition of equality could be called metaphysical equality…This is the unchosen, unalterable, equality that is metaphysically given. Yourself and others are both equally human with the same life requirements, and same basic natural human rights.
NURTURE = EQUALITY OF CONDITION = CIRCUMSTANTIAL EQUALITY: The voluntary equality or inequality of individual attainment. The second definition of equality is that which is ethically and politically alterable.
Failing to differentiate between Equality of Kind and Equality of Condition leads to conflicts of justice. This leads to a destructive philosophy of Egalitarianism which arises from a particular proposal on how one proposes to deal with inequality of condition.
His argument is that if society dropped the context of these natural, unmerited advantages by ignoring them behind a "veil of ignorance" then fairness for the greater society as a whole would ensue. Here is where corrupt primacy issues from lower branches of philosophy, bubble up into politics….Walking the tree from politics back down to the lower branches reveals the problem: Q: What did we learn in Ethics about the primacy issues of Self-Others, and altruism? Q: What did we learn in Epistemology about selective context dropping of facts of reality? Q: What did we learn in Epistemology about the logical fallacies? Can anyone identify this one?
Recognize the some old Primacy of Consciousness attacks on reason, and the false Kantian ideal of Right over Good…The obvious question becomes: Q: By what means do you choose the principles of justice after you have willfully chosen ignorance and abandoned all knowledge?
The theory is to rearrange the economy to benefit those with the least natural or environmental advantages according to what they call the "just savings principle". The question then becomes: Q: Who will be the authority doing this re-arranging? The one who is most ignorant and has abandoned knowledge the most?
As you would expect from a Kant based philosophy, Justice is no longer at the individual level based on natural rights, but is now out of Duty to larger society (others).
My favorite one is, "Socialism has never been done right before", which means, "We are a better breed of equal, and are better than our comrades who have failed so miserably before."
Racial discrimination is not a permissible solution. That can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. Show me in the Constitution where you get a right to separate citizens based on race. I think what we've become comfortable with is thinking that there is some good discrimination, and some bad discrimination. Well, who gets to determine that? And if you look in the briefs and the race cases, the segregationists, the people who thought you should have a separate system, they said that they thought it was good for both races. So they thought it was good discrimination.
Missing ReferenceMissing ReferenceMissing ReferenceMissing Reference
Missing ReferenceMissing ReferenceMissing ReferenceMissing Reference