4 ms·

There is a really deep philosophical question here: do people walk free of the sins of their fathers? There is no evidence Josh Green's parents actually commit

There is a really deep philosophical question here: do people walk free of the sins of their fathers? There is no evidence Josh Green's parents actually committed any sins. Is he just supposed to feel some sort of collective racial guilt? Should black people also feel collective racial guilt over the disproportionate number of murders that blacks commit even nowadays? (Note: I only bring up the latter fact to illustrate the unpleasant and nonsensical consequences of collective and ancestral guilt. I think the whole idea is nonsense.) As for the problems you bring up, if low prices are the problem, he's contributing to the solution by increasing demand. I segregation is the problem, he's bringing his nordic white family into the neighborhood and reducing segregation. This seems like one of those wonderful situations where greed, self interest and capitalism make everyone's lives better and solve all the problems. Why should he feel guilt? The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics? https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

rayiner 11y ago
> Is he just supposed to feel some sort of collective racial guilt? Should black people also feel collective racial guilt over the disproportionate number of murders that blacks commit even nowadays? Josh Green is entitled to feel guilty not because he's white, but because he's a member of a group that unjustly voted itself privileges in the area of housing, to the detriment of non-members of that group. Race is relevant only to the extent that race was the legal criteria used to distinguish group members from non-members. > As for the problems you bring up, if low prices are the problem, he's contributing to the solution by increasing demand. I segregation is the problem, he's bringing his nordic white family into the neighborhood and reducing segregation. The residents of the neighborhood may be incrementally better off as a result of gentrification. But are they as well off as they would have been but for segregation? The Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics captures an intuitive concept: making things a little better at the margin doesn't relive you of the responsibility for having made things bad in the first place. Consider the criminal justice reform. Right now, we're tweaking the laws to help those who received draconian sentences under "three strikes" type laws. But that doesn't undo the sin of a generation that lost its collective minds and put those laws into place to begin with. And it's totally valid to criticize those dickering around at the edges of the issue by pointing out how little it does to right the original injustice.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Anyone is entitled to feel guilt if they want - Catholics are famous for it. I'm also entitled to mock an article expressing catholic guilt if it showed up here. Josh Green is entitled to feel guilty not because he's white, but because he's a member of a group that unjustly voted itself privileges in the area of housing, to the detriment of non-members of that group. He was definitively not a member of white people in Georgia during the 50's and 60's. He wasn't even born at the time this group lost their special privileges, as noted in the article ("your one-sixth-acre slice of Atlanta had actually belonged to the family next door for longer than you’ve been alive"). Now it might be right for him to feel guilty about not doing enough. But he should certainly feel less guilty than most of us; he's done something, I've done nothing. Never even been to Atlanta. I have many friends who've never been to the US. Should they also feel guilty? In any case, that's not Copenhagen. Copenhagen says that Josh Green should feel guilty since he observed the situation, but Igor Muscovite (a Russian who never left Moscow) doesn't need to feel guilty since he's didn't make the observation. I guess the best way to avoid guilt is to bury our heads in the sand?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    > He was definitively not a member of white people in Georgia during the 50's and 60's. It didn't just happen in Georgia, it happened all over the country. And it's reasonable to believe some of Josh Green's ancestors were in the group that voted special privileges for itself. So the question comes back to: do you carry around the guilt of your ancestors? I think you do, especially when you benefit from the ramifications of their actions. And Green is benefiting from segregation: that neighborhood would've been a lot more expensive for him to buy into had it not been for segregation.
    - tpallarino 11y ago
      Ok, so let's all go trace back our family trees. If you find one of your relatives, even 400 years ago, committed a crime, you better go to everyone that was affected (which could be millions of people by now!!!!!) and give them back what was rightfully theirs. Maybe your great great great grandfather broke into their house and stole their life savings, which caused the patriarch of the house to go into debtors prison. So the young boy of the house didn't have a father for much of his life. As such, he turned to pickpocketing, robbing hundreds of people over the course of his career. Eventually he went too far and robbed someone who fought back and killed him. But none of this would have happened if your great great great grandfather hadn't been a thief. But YOU'RE responsible. Your group was responsible for the death of this kid, who knew no better than to steal. Should you be guilty? Should you go to jail? Should you live worse to repent? Don't be silly. You're not responsible for any actions other than your own.
SilasX 11y ago
Yeah, I've felt there's a sort of "damned if you do" dynamic to this. If upper class people stay away from traditionally-minority neighborhoods, that's evil "[neo-]segregation". If they move in, that's evil gentrification. You can't win!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

> Is he just supposed to feel some sort of collective racial guilt? Should black people also feel collective racial guilt over the disproportionate number of murders that blacks commit even nowadays? Josh Green is entitled to feel guilty not because he's white, but because he's a member of a group that unjustly voted itself privileges in the area of housing, to the detriment of non-members of that group. Race is relevant only to the extent that race was the legal criteria used to distinguish group members from non-members. > As for the problems you bring up, if low prices are the problem, he's contributing to the solution by increasing demand. I segregation is the problem, he's bringing his nordic white family into the neighborhood and reducing segregation. The residents of the neighborhood may be incrementally better off as a result of gentrification. But are they as well off as they would have been but for segregation? The Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics captures an intuitive concept: making things a little better at the margin doesn't relive you of the responsibility for having made things bad in the first place. Consider the criminal justice reform. Right now, we're tweaking the laws to help those who received draconian sentences under "three strikes" type laws. But that doesn't undo the sin of a generation that lost its collective minds and put those laws into place to begin with. And it's totally valid to criticize those dickering around at the edges of the issue by pointing out how little it does to right the original injustice.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Anyone is entitled to feel guilt if they want - Catholics are famous for it. I'm also entitled to mock an article expressing catholic guilt if it showed up here. Josh Green is entitled to feel guilty not because he's white, but because he's a member of a group that unjustly voted itself privileges in the area of housing, to the detriment of non-members of that group. He was definitively not a member of white people in Georgia during the 50's and 60's. He wasn't even born at the time this group lost their special privileges, as noted in the article ("your one-sixth-acre slice of Atlanta had actually belonged to the family next door for longer than you’ve been alive"). Now it might be right for him to feel guilty about not doing enough. But he should certainly feel less guilty than most of us; he's done something, I've done nothing. Never even been to Atlanta. I have many friends who've never been to the US. Should they also feel guilty? In any case, that's not Copenhagen. Copenhagen says that Josh Green should feel guilty since he observed the situation, but Igor Muscovite (a Russian who never left Moscow) doesn't need to feel guilty since he's didn't make the observation. I guess the best way to avoid guilt is to bury our heads in the sand?
- rayiner 11y ago
  > He was definitively not a member of white people in Georgia during the 50's and 60's. It didn't just happen in Georgia, it happened all over the country. And it's reasonable to believe some of Josh Green's ancestors were in the group that voted special privileges for itself. So the question comes back to: do you carry around the guilt of your ancestors? I think you do, especially when you benefit from the ramifications of their actions. And Green is benefiting from segregation: that neighborhood would've been a lot more expensive for him to buy into had it not been for segregation.
  - tpallarino 11y ago
    Ok, so let's all go trace back our family trees. If you find one of your relatives, even 400 years ago, committed a crime, you better go to everyone that was affected (which could be millions of people by now!!!!!) and give them back what was rightfully theirs. Maybe your great great great grandfather broke into their house and stole their life savings, which caused the patriarch of the house to go into debtors prison. So the young boy of the house didn't have a father for much of his life. As such, he turned to pickpocketing, robbing hundreds of people over the course of his career. Eventually he went too far and robbed someone who fought back and killed him. But none of this would have happened if your great great great grandfather hadn't been a thief. But YOU'RE responsible. Your group was responsible for the death of this kid, who knew no better than to steal. Should you be guilty? Should you go to jail? Should you live worse to repent? Don't be silly. You're not responsible for any actions other than your own.

SilasX 11y ago

Yeah, I've felt there's a sort of "damned if you do" dynamic to this. If upper class people stay away from traditionally-minority neighborhoods, that's evil "[neo-]segregation". If they move in, that's evil gentrification. You can't win!

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]