4 ms·
Bosses are under increasing pressure to take stances on social issues
- api 9y agoThis is a sign that the polarization of society is increasing. I imagine during the run-up to the first US civil war there were similar pressures. I'm struggling with identifying the root issue behind this polarization. My best try so far is: "Is the natural human condition just?" Pro: "Nature and/or God made us a certain way and that's the way we should be. We should embrace our nature. If there are differences in outcomes by gender, race, etc. then these are ordained by nature and/or God and are therefore intended and just. Fighting nature on these issues is a losing battle." Con: "Sentient beings should endeavor to change nature both social and physical to improve their quality of life. We should not accept intrinsic limitations or large scale differences in outcome but search for ways to address the root causes of these and change them to our benefit." On the pro side would be: fundamentalist religious conservatives (of any religion), secular "alt-right", advocates of "human biodiversity" or other Neo-racist and biological determinist ideas, nativists, Neo-reactionaries, and certain very reactionary elements of the green movement. On the con side would be: humanists, socialists, liberal-leaning or humanistic libertarians, transhumanists, progressive religious theologies, and other liberal or enlightenment schools of thought. Edit: on a deeper level this is the is/ought issue in philosophy. To what extent is "is" synonymous with "ought" and how does one arrive at the latter from the former? This is a very fundamental issue in ethics, epistemology, and even metaphysics.