Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

token-black-dude t1_j5qf987 wrote

Reply to comment by Ill_Department_2055 in On Whether “Personhood” is a Normative or Descriptive Concept by ADefiniteDescription

It seems that people perceive their surroundings in concentric circles, family is closest, friends and colleagues close, the "in-group" also quite close and strangers are far away and not considered important. It is not racism to fail to place significant value on the lives of strangers, unless one arbitrarily places value on certain strangers because of the color of their skin. So I don't want to legitimize racism, and racism is probably not relevant to the fact that "distant" strangers are automatically given a lower value than close relatives.

I think it's pointless to make an elaborate philosophical system, if it is likely to be ignored by ordinary people, I think that is the case with deontology and utilitarism, both are really far from the way people make decisions in reality.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qgz8y wrote

"Ordinary people" are quite capable of understanding that racism is bad.

And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles. Even the "ordinary person" would be able to understand that both of these persons are equally deserving of basic human rights and decency.

In fact the "ordinary person" can even understand that their own child and a complete stranger have equal rights.

What you're perhaps more importantly speaking to is personal responsibility: I have a personal responsibility toward my family that I do not have toward a stranger. That has nothing to do with how the law should deal with my family vs. strangers to me however. The law and philosophy need to treat all persons equally. "Ordinary people" do understand that.

1

token-black-dude t1_j5qicmx wrote

>And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles.

Of course it does. If I am french I have every reason to expect to be able to enjoy the rights of a french person in the french society which provides a reasonably amount of protection from illness and crime and so on. Obviously that is contingent on me also recognizing that every other member of that community enjoys the same rights. We are in a reciprocal relationship, even if we are strangers. That same community does not include people in Australia, I can demand nothing from them and they nothing from me.

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qinad wrote

You're missing the point. I hope.

You cannot possibly actually believe an Australian deserves fewer human rights than a French person simply because you happen to be French.

2

token-black-dude t1_j5qjiul wrote

No and that's not what i'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is no practical responsibility for me to ensure, that strangers who I am not in a reciprocal relationship with (even as "fictional" as nationality) have the practical ability to enjoy their rights. And I don't think people are willing to accept that there even is such a theoretical responsibility.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qk6ki wrote

You're turning into some strange sort of pretzel here.

But let me try to glean the main message here: you DO understand that Australian people have rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with your personal relationship to them.

2

token-black-dude t1_j5qkx5s wrote

Yes, that's between them and their government. They have no right to expect me to take responsibility for their wellbeing, just as I can't expect them to care for mine. We are not in a mutually reciprocal relationship

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qldxr wrote

>Yes

Cool. Then you do agree with everything I was saying in the first place. Good talk.

1