Should Privilege Always be Addressed?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Should privilege always be addressed?

Or does it matter how said people came by their privilege?

For example, if one group of people enjoys the lingering aftereffects of slavery, and another group benefits from the fact that their ancestors actually worked harder, is the first example of privilege an injustice while the second example is not?

To me this tracks well with the divide between how white privilege is addressed, and how Jewish or Asian privilege is addressed. If it's about whether that privilege was earned fairly, then it's fine for it to be addressed differently.

Everyone wants the best for their children and the sum of everyone pursuing that is privilege.

[Mae von H]

If there is no God, then there’s no where from which the Christian consensus comes.

I don't agree with that. I can worship Mother Goose if I want to. If a bunch of people do it with me, they get a consensus. And it doesn't matter in the slightest whether Mother Goose exists. Even you've said, people can tell right from wrong. People see the message and know it's good. They can still do all that if it's a fable.

Again, interesting thinking on your part and well expressed. The point where you err is the assumption that deciding to worship something you all know isn’t there does not generate a consensus anymore than any other common interest. Ten people deciding the rules will not happen unless some are willing to let majority rule which is not consensus. A group of 20 is even less likely. The church numbered in the 1000s in the first century. Automatic consensus would be impossible simply because they all believed in Jesus. This is much more difficult if not impossible than you project it is.

Very interesting thoughts and way of describing them. The problem you describe is complex. The inner moral compass conflicts with our strong desire to please the self. This might be why the christians, by and large, have been the ones who stood against the consensus, all alone if needs be. Again, I’m sharing a perspective I acknowledge you don’t have. Isn’t exchanging with those who don’t think like you more interesting than the ones who do?

I would say so. That's why I'm here. But it's not just that the moral compass conflicts with selfishness. There's no benefit to me in seeing an attacker punished. There's no benefit to me in seeing him forgiven. The moral compass can conflict with the moral compass of others. The morally elite will say, do not punish him, then you are just as bad as he is. The morally regressive will say, punish him, he deserves it. Nobody gets a benefit out of it either way. This is a case where it's pure moral conflict and it's not morality versus self-interest.

If the attacker is punished by removing him from future targets, there’s benefit to you. The victim can privately forgive and still be glad he’s removed from other possibilities to attack.

Anyway, I can see that when one has no infinite moral reference point, the consequence becomes the reference point. I’m not making up the phrase, “the tyranny of the majority.” You see tyranny cannot be defined by only one in charge. There are examples in history where the majority terrorized the minority. That too is tyranny. Who can know then what is just by all? Those talking to the Infinite Reference point who has justice for all on His mind.

No, morality is not defined by the one in charge. It is not about power. It seems to be about minds. So those with wealth, who leverage that into consensus, are legitimate deciders of morality. The only other alternative is that some random entity decides.

History proves you are mistaken as it’s not unusual for the rich and powerful to be caught and accused of their crimes. Their defense was never, “I am rich so I determine morality.” Power means they might avoid capture by pay offs or intimidation, but never by claiming they decide morality.

Now, what if I became omnipotent and God lost his omnipotence? I hope you would see me as a tyrant and still worship your God. And I think you would do this (you've said) because you agree with his morality. See? It's consensus. If you didn't agree, and lots of other people didn't, God can exist all he wants and he'd still be a tyrant.

That would never happen. Omnipotent is who He his, not an ability one gains or the other loses.

We don't call it "the tyranny of the majority" when criminals are placed in jail, even though we are many, they are few, and they would like to be free. The difference is, the majority, when it becomes tyrannical, knows what it's doing. And in this case it legitimately thinks it is right. With slavery, though, people knew what they were doing. They knew from the start. So they acted for their own benefit, they were many, but they did not have consensus because enough of them knew that what they were doing was wrong.

Slavery is an interesting point. They often decided slaves weren’t human and so skirted around the moral point.

Do you mean you’ve ruled out the God of the Bible? There even are bullies and tyrants among those spiritual beings superior to us. I don’t see how consensus is the difference. Can you please expand on that one?

I have not ruled out the God of the Bible existing, but I think if he does, he's a bully and a supervillain.

What has He done to give you this thought?

Are you referring to the conflict in Gaza? You realize that those supposedly undergoing genocide are receiving aim from the Chosen People, right? And we need to keep in mind that the militarily weaker committed war crimes and boldly proclaim that the entire region needs to be freed from the any of the Chosen. They boldly tell all that the Chosen need to entirely wiped out. Which side proposes genocide?

Both sides want genocide. Yet one is considered moral, the other, not.

The Palestinians have grown massively in numbers under Israel governing. That doesn’t demonstrate that the Israels want genocide. Genocide by definition is the eliminating expansion of a people. The Palestinians expanded.

What you’re describing is personal vengeance. We Christians and the Jews are forbidden to engage in personal vengeance. The whole senecio above is wrong for us. We not only don’t expect the above, we dislike it.

Then why not fall over and die instead of killing Palestinians? That's what would be expected of me. Imagine some random white guy in a really bad neighbourhood that is all-Black, except him. They don't like him, because he's white. He suffers attacks constantly. His child is beaten repeatedly, eventually killed? Is he allowed to strike back, even if only to protect himself? Of course not. But are the Chosen People allowed to protect themselves? Of course they are and it's not vengeance.

Because they have the right to live and defend their defenseless against evil. If all good men laid down and died, then evil men and women who love torturing others for their own pleasure would rule.

Its probably difficult to understand how a christian thinks for those who aren’t. No devout Christian would say the above. We have learned and are learning right and wrong. That’s how ML King judged segregation as wrong, how a British Noble judged slavery wrong, the list is long. This is why communist persecutes christians. They have the moral fiber to judge its wrongs. Jesus drove out the money changers who were cheating people. He doesn’t think justice is wrong.

He doesn't think it's wrong when he's dishing it out, arguably because he's God. Justice requires judgment, and non-meekness. I think Jesus opposes these things.

Where do you see this? When God “dishes it out” it’s always and very much just.

Like what? What have you observed God doing wrong in?

Whenever he kills a bunch of people. I even acknowledge that it might not be wrong for him to turn people into salt for looking in the wrong direction, genocide Amalekites, or flood the world and kill everyone but his precious favourite. But even if it isn't wrong, a being that has such great morality that it is incomprehensible to me, cannot help me be moral. I must treat it as if it is immoral, because that's what I see when I look.

We can discuss these but you will need to be willing to drop accusing language and accept neutral terms. If you’ve already judged Him in your words, you’ll never see the justice.

Again, that’s a nation where there is NO freedom of speech right. If your life is over when you speak your mind, that’s a nation where speech is not a right (anymore.)

That's not what the supporters of corporate speech quashing (it's technically only censorship when the government does it) say. They say you have the right to speak freely, just not freedom from consequences.

It’s removing the right of free speech clear. That they disguise their deeds with other words ought not to fool us. My sister told me once that Texas is a “right to work state.”. This means that they get one week vacation a year.