4 ms·
There's two problems with this. (1) It puts you at odds with everyone who doesn't share your moral calculus. E.g. Hitler did a great job advancing his mission,
by tomp 5y ago
There's two problems with this.
(1) It puts you at odds with everyone who doesn't share your moral calculus. E.g. Hitler did a great job advancing his mission, despite ultimately losing the war (because too many people found his mission morally revulsive). Things like "justice" and "fairness" are the minimum standard upon which we can (sometimes, to some degree) agree to as a society, so any mission that breaks those standards (as racism/affirmative action does) will rightfully experience a large push-back.
(2) Does the action actually advance the mission? Sometimes it might backfire. E.g. I know people (that live in America) that don't like going to black doctors, not because they're racist, but simply because they know that they were subject to affirmative action, so might be less skilled than non-blacks (using doctors is a good example, as it usually invokes a strong rational response "would you rather take your child to the best doctor, or to the second-best doctor?")
- alecst 5y agoI gave two historical examples on lieu of writing a much longer comment. These are real examples of institutions that made diverging decisions. I’m more interested in the reasons behind the decisions, whereas you seem to be more interested in qualifying the outcomes of those decisions. I don’t see how your comment is a rebuttal.