I generally agree, but the term “group unfairness” bothers me if by it you mean unfairness by a group. Collectives are theoretical groupings by arbitrary characteristics. Theoretical groupings can’t act, only individuals can. When individuals are unfair, that should be reported, condemned, and, if illegal, prosecuted. But the sins of one person are not the sins of the groups to which he belongs.
I generally agree, but the term “group unfairness” bothers me if by it you mean unfairness by a group. Collectives are theoretical groupings by arbitrary characteristics. Theoretical groupings can’t act, only individuals can. When individuals are unfair, that should be reported, condemned, and, if illegal, prosecuted. But the sins of one person are not the sins of the groups to which he belongs.
There is nothing “arbitrary” about “black people” as a group. That’s a very obvious shelling point for coordinated political, social, and cultural action. They don’t all vote 90% democrat because all of thy ‘em decided as individuals that it was best for the country. They asked “what’s the best party for us blacks” and that was the answer most coordinated on.
You may wish that black and bridge player are both equally arbitrary groupings, but you know it’s not true.
This is an empirical question not a philosophical one.
It sort of circles back to the age old (and as I said earlier, mostly absurd) philosophical debate about universals. You have to be careful not to treat them too concretely, but you also can’t just reject them. As far as I can tell a purely rational treatment of the question always ends unsatisfactorily, but from a practical standpoint it works just fine.
I generally agree, but the term “group unfairness” bothers me if by it you mean unfairness by a group. Collectives are theoretical groupings by arbitrary characteristics. Theoretical groupings can’t act, only individuals can. When individuals are unfair, that should be reported, condemned, and, if illegal, prosecuted. But the sins of one person are not the sins of the groups to which he belongs.
There is nothing “arbitrary” about “black people” as a group. That’s a very obvious shelling point for coordinated political, social, and cultural action. They don’t all vote 90% democrat because all of thy ‘em decided as individuals that it was best for the country. They asked “what’s the best party for us blacks” and that was the answer most coordinated on.
You may wish that black and bridge player are both equally arbitrary groupings, but you know it’s not true.
This is an empirical question not a philosophical one.
It sort of circles back to the age old (and as I said earlier, mostly absurd) philosophical debate about universals. You have to be careful not to treat them too concretely, but you also can’t just reject them. As far as I can tell a purely rational treatment of the question always ends unsatisfactorily, but from a practical standpoint it works just fine.