3 ms·
Groups have responsibility. Consider the opposing argument - groups have no responsibility for anything. Does that seem like a reasonable position? Consider
by TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Groups have responsibility.
Consider the opposing argument - groups have no responsibility for anything.
Does that seem like a reasonable position?
Consider an expansion of the argument - are there still situations in which one group consistently discriminates against and abuses another?
People are already in castes, defined by their lineage and physical (and economic) characteristics.
You don't break down the walls between castes by pretending they're not real.
- notSupplied 3y agoIf groups have responsibility as you say, then Blacks as a group would have tremendous culpability for excess ratio of interracial murder committed by that group. That of course, is a racist idea, because it assigns group responsibility to the murders committed by individuals.
- cturner 3y ago> Groups have responsibility. Only those that have proxies to accountable individuals, as in the example of the corporation, and with its exceptions such as with limited liability. Or an association, which has a board and a charter. > Consider the opposing argument - groups have no responsibility for anything. Does that seem like a reasonable position? Apart from formal corporations/associations, that is the reasonable position. In the context of the case, "Asian Americans" have no moral or legal responsibility to give up opportunities to "African Americans". Westerners are not in castes.
- soundnote 3y agoSo, as an extreme case, should we jail Asian Americans because of the crimes of Unit 731? They're part of the same group, no? One quibble with the word 'group' there, too: Ethnic groups are reference categories, not groups in the sense it'd make sense to think of groups as eg. decisionmaking entities that can be responsible for something.
- rpd9803 3y agosome people just don't want to throw out the baby with the caste-water.