Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Should we congregate people by their choice?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Should we congregate people by their choice?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

In example, I would congregate people by their nationality if they are over the legal age of their country of origin than their race which they have no choice. They knowingly chose to stay or to leave their country; they did not choose their race. In the same way, religion should be fair game for it is a belief; therefore, the believer chooses it if they are genuine in what they believe -- though childhood indoctrination may make me reconsider. Someone's gender, however, is not what I would congregate people. In essence, there may be characteristics that are for people of a certain race or gender, but, for they do not wish for those qualities, should any fair and just society hold them accountable for them? This also includes the positive qualities that are a trademark seen by society for that race.

@Earl phil,

Congregate is something people do of choice. What you seem to be proposing is to segregate. The racial overtones to your argument are troubling.

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67390 wrote:

Congregate is something people do of choice. What you seem to be proposing is to segregate. The racial overtones to your argument are troubling.

I don't necessarily comprehend your insinuations. I am suggesting that we, with choice, should recognize the congregations of people that they choose. For example, I would congregate people by their political ideologies in demographics rather than their gender. I especially stated that race isn't chosen by the one who has that race; therefore, in a fair and just society, I stated that people in general shouldn't congregate people by their race, notwithstanding that race or gender, in terms of evolution and science, might give people certain physical and mental characteristics.

@Earl phil,

I guess I don't understand your suggestion that "I would congregate people." Why ought people to be congregated at all other than according to their own choice?

@Earl phil,

There is a difference between classifying all people who actually live in France as French (something objectively determined), and whether Frenchmen, say, are argumentative to a fault. One must not confuse essential with accidental characteristics.

Gender, for example, is relatively easy to define, and it is possible to separate males from females if one wishes to do so (for a census, for example). But this does not mean that all men have certain characteristics beyond that, or that all women have others.

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67398 wrote:

I guess I don't understand your suggestion that "I would congregate people." Why ought people to be congregated at all other than according to their own choice?

You concur with me, therefore. However, you are a hypocrite if you ever group people by their race, gender, etc. which is what I am against it.

jgweed;67399 wrote:

There is a difference between classifying all people who actually live in France as French (something objectively determined), and whether Frenchmen, say, are argumentative to a fault. One must not confuse essential with accidental characteristics.

Gender, for example, is relatively easy to define, and it is possible to separate males from females if one wishes to do so (for a census, for example). But this does not mean that all men have certain characteristics beyond that, or that all women have others.

Well, France is a country and all its inhabitants, if they are over the legal age, do knowingly and willingly live there; thus, all the characteristics of France should be assigned to that person. Someone's gender, however, is not chosen. (Operations to change gender, however, are chosen -- and I support any characteristics that are assigned to the person who receives the operation if they are, of course, founded.) Now, I believe that you are attempting to separate objective congregation of people from the characteristics that we assign them with the former being an acceptable action -- that they are mutually exclusive -- but that is going against science. Of course, this example is a generalization, but we are speaking in terms of the general or of the majority here. The Asian man has smaller eyes in relation to many other races because there is a lot of sand in the Asian region.

Through cause and effect, because there is a lot of sand, the Asian man must regularly close their eyes to shield themselves from the sand; therefore, their bone structure accommodates that and their eyes, over time, become small. The reason that many of the Asian man that have escaped from these sandstorms to newer regions still continue to have small eyes is because it is inherited from their ancestors through the genes and such. Now, that isn't in and of itself discrimination, racism, etc. It is a theory to explain the facts of the Asian man's eyes. It is racism, however, to make jokes about that or to develop negative connotations about it, which I do not believe that any intelligent or fair society should do in knowing that they never chose that. Furthermore, I go on to believe that people should not congregate in race, gender, etc. but rather they should congregate themselves with people who have the same beliefs as they do. Per say, maybe people should congregate with their fellow religious people or their fellow liberals, but they should not on race, gender, natural hair color, etc.

@Earl phil,

By "congregate" do you mean associate or categorize or what? Why should people congregate with those of the same beliefs? Surely we are better served by being exposed to alternate beliefs than cloistered within our own narrow ideologies in a realm of groupthink. I can't see one advantage to be derived from the narrow sort of 'congregation' you describe.

@Earl phil,

Religion is different from politics?

Both are expressions of morality, ideology, and belief.
Both are concerned with what is the correct way to live.
The difference is that politics is merely a 'modern' form of ideology, whereas religion is an 'ancient' form of ideology.

In the old days we called someone a 'sinner', if they did something we considered wrong. And they had stones thrown at them.
Now they are labelled a 'criminal' and put in a dungeon.

Religion belives in 'God'
Politics believes in 'The Greater Good'

Deconstructed :
The right to life is the same as 'thou shalt not kill'
The right to property is the same as 'thou shalt not steal'

It bothers me, that people cannot see through the illusions that words place around us.

Religion is often maligned for causing divisions amongst people, especially polytheism; but polytheism is actually no different, essentially from democracy.

To get back to the initial question.
Birds of a feather flock together,
I would rather live near people that shared my ideological beliefs.

So yes, people should be congregated (or segregated - same damn thing) according to what they believe, but the problem is that its a logistic nightmare trying to decide who is who, and as a small minority with limited means, I sadly, have to live near neighbours whose evil damned dogs never stop bloody barking.

(please excuse me. I have a stone to throw):BRB:

@Poseidon,

Please, Poseidon, tell us who shall get to decide how we are all to be 'congregated'? Do we corral liberal Catholics with conservative Catholics because they're all Catholics? Who gets to determine our social, political and religious affinities and weigh their respective relevance? Where will we keep the cattle cars in the meantime? Can something be compulsorily inclusive without being equally or more forcibly exclusive? And what would be remotely ethical in any of this?

@Earl phil,

Earl;67384 wrote:

In example, I would congregate people by their nationality if they are over the legal age of their country of origin than their race which they have no choice. They knowingly chose to stay or to leave their country; they did not choose their race. In the same way, religion should be fair game for it is a belief; therefore, the believer chooses it if they are genuine in what they believe -- though childhood indoctrination may make me reconsider. Someone's gender, however, is not what I would congregate people. In essence, there may be characteristics that are for people of a certain race or gender, but, for they do not wish for those qualities, should any fair and just society hold them accountable for them? This also includes the positive qualities that are a trademark seen by society for that race.

Hello Earl,

Birds of a feather, no matter how we try and force them, will stay together. You cannot force two cultures together. Just as you cannot force one's morality on another, such as religion. No matter how hard you try, it will not work. It takes time to natrually joined. And that is a major problem as we try to force two togeher. We must resolve the differences that separate us (seems I have heard that somewhere before). And that is what existence is about. As we become one you will see all our problems disappear. Then we begin to understand what life is all about.

William

@Earl phil,

Maybe the problems are what life is all about.

@Earl phil,

RD,
my point precisely, its a logistical nightmare,
albeit a nice idea, in theory,
practically speaking, its chaos
which is why social-engineering on a macro-scale has always been disastrous,
but on a person-by-person micro scale, its natural for such birds to flock

but when some big cheese tries to do it all at once, then all the previous small changes become undone, and its back to square one

Wiliam :
well said

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;67503 wrote:

Maybe the problems are what life is all about.

Ha, you sure have a lot of reason to think that. I'm a little more optimistic though in I feel what you have said is what life has been so far, but I feel we don't have to get cook in that definition. IMO, life was not meant to be a problem. We cannot solve our problems if we do not understand where they originated. Every single post I have ever written is defining where all our problems began. The root of ALL our problems is coming to the realization that the EARTH IS NOT FOR SALE!!!!! It is to be shared by all and owned by none.

William

@Earl phil,

Well said, William. Your view that the earth is to be shared by all and owned by none will be tested to the extreme when world leaders convene in Geneva this year to address global warming.

It has now been determined that the maximum, tolerable CO2 capacity of the atmosphere lies between 0.9 and 1.0 tonnes. We're already halfway there. How are we, then, to allocate the remainder.

If we treat the atmosphere as 'shared by all' as you suggest, then that CO2 capacity will have to be allocated on a per capita basis. Although China has recently become the top emitter, it's per capita emissions are less than half those of we North Americans. It is a bitter irony that the nations that will suffer most from global warming tend to be among those with the lowest per capita emissions. Those of us in the developed West will be the "least and last" affected and we're certainly not willing to shut down our carbon-based economies on any arguments about sharing or other equity nonsense. You watch just how hard-nosed we're willing to get over the idea of sharing.

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;67521 wrote:

Well said, William. Your view that the earth is to be shared by all and owned by none will be tested to the extreme when world leaders convene in Geneva this year to address global warming.

It has now been determined that the maximum, tolerable CO2 capacity of the atmosphere lies between 0.9 and 1.0 tonnes. We're already halfway there. How are we, then, to allocate the remainder.

If we treat the atmosphere as 'shared by all' as you suggest, then that CO2 capacity will have to be allocated on a per capita basis. Although China has recently become the top emitter, it's per capita emissions are less than half those of we North Americans. It is a bitter irony that the nations that will suffer most from global warming tend to be among those with the lowest per capita emissions. Those of us in the developed West will be the "least and last" affected and we're certainly not willing to shut down our carbon-based economies on any arguments about sharing or other equity nonsense. You watch just how hard-nosed we're willing to get over the idea of sharing.

Yeah, once we get off this insane economic system and create on that is not limited by objective rarity, we can change all that. We can create more rain and green and develope more natrual energy and conpensate all people for there contributions and spread out rather than gather around the madhouses of "economic centers", etc, etc,etc etc, etc etc
William

@William,

William;67516 wrote:

Ha, you sure have a lot of reason to think that. I'm a little more optimistic though in I feel what you have said is what life has been so far, but I feel we don't have to get cook in that definition. IMO, life was not meant to be a problem. We cannot solve our problems if we do not understand where they originated. Every single post I have ever written is defining where all our problems began. The root of ALL our problems is coming to the realization that the EARTH IS NOT FOR SALE!!!!! It is to be shared by all and owned by none.

William

Shared by even the homosexuals? You've cited you wish they existed no longer (quote upon request). Surely "shared by all" implies all humans, no?

William, "problem" is based on perspective. Surely we don't all agree what a "problem" may be, at least not in the context I believe you're referring. Essentially what I believe you're saying is, "I wish nothing that I perceive negative to exist". And to that I ask, why not acknowledge the things you perceive as negative, instead of wishing they no longer existed? For me, the contrast is the breathe of life - the juxtoposition of those things I value, enjoy, hope for, and those things I detest, have angst against, and hope never happen. In other words, I need those bad things to conceptually appreciate the good.

Most importantly, we must acknowledge this is only our perspective. And I do know this sounds like repetitive "everything is subjective" babbling, but it's illogical to assume everyone's idea of a utopia is the same. This isn't too hard to infer, even from the examination of different personality traits.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Should we congregate people by their choice?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Should we congregate people by their choice?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know