Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Social Justice in Schools

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
I'm just giving as good as I get in this part of the forum - but I'll knock it off.
Eye for and eye and the whole world goes blind.

Which, really, is part of what we're talking about. Social justice means not seeking revenge, but seeking change. It means not holding grudges, but offering forgiveness. It means turning the other cheek. It means offering a helping hand. It means being kind to others, even when they are not kind in return. It means standing up for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the lowly, and championing them as human beings just like everyone else. You want your definition Lord Ben? There it is.

Now that does sound like a religion.
And an impossible goal at that, rather than a practical approach to living in a world of multi-billions of strangers with different moral values, which is what I was hoping for.

I have my doubts on whether I could be kind to someone who is not kind in return. At least, I wouldn't be kind more than once if I don't get anything in return. A simple thank you would do, for example. Offering a helping hand, yes. Done it many a time. If I help someone and they turn around and stab me in the back (yes, it's happened), I'll remember them, and never offer a helping hand a second time.
Offering a helping hand - that's part of being social.
Letting them sink if they've stabbed me in the back before - that's the justice part.

Social Justice is a multi-leveled thing- to illustrate I will use the above:
I do not recall questioning anyone's statements about the Taliban dumping bodies at impact sites (in fact in discussions regarding drone strikes i have generally been pretty pro-drone), but i suspect, because I have been classified as "one of those liberals" because of my positions on other subjects it would seem that "in kind" retaliation against me for other people's actions is acceptable.
However lets assume for a moment that that were not the case- the fact is that "equal" weight is a matter of perspective when it comes to malfeasance. in fact most of the Republican dirty tricks are justified by "the democrats do worse" even though at this point intime any neutral observer can see that the Republicans are certainly going the extra mile in underhanded tactics. similarly Solaris probably does think it is equivelent to say what he said above to asking for confirmation of the Taliban dumping bodies, even though one situation would be an issue (if documented) for international news and teh other wouldn't even make the local paper. Additionally slight differences in perception can produce massive changes in outcome, for example him saying (hypothetically) "The Taliban are dumping bodies at impact sites" and being questioned about evidence would be very different from "I have seen the Taliban dump bodies at impact sites", in which case his eyewitness testimony *is* the evidence, and questioning it is inherantly less honorable than questioning teh evidence of a blanket statement (though i might question how he identified them as taliban versus a different insurgency group if that issue were in any way relevant, which i doubt)

Again though I am uncertain about the background and i am using it to make a point based on hypotheticals, which is that "an eye for an eye" is not as clean cut and equal as it sounds. Because if I accidently knock out a man's tooth, and he comes after my son to knock out his tooth in revenge, and perhaps knocks out two instead, or perhaps knocks one out but thinks he failed... escalation is an inherant principle in supposedly equal retribution.

On the other claw, from the perspective of disuading those with hostile intent, sometime intentional escalation is the best way to prevent future conflict. Sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gygaxphobia View Post
Now that does sound like a religion.
And an impossible goal at that, rather than a practical approach to living in a world of multi-billions of strangers with different moral values, which is what I was hoping for.
How is treating other human beings as, well... human beings... an impossible goal? It's the heart of the golden rule - treat others as you wish to be treated. Not as they wish to be treated, but as you wish to be treated. Obviously it's not an easy goal, but nothing worth doing is easy. Kindness, respect, tolerance, empathy, these are all worthy things that we all (myself included) ca work towards making a part of our daily lives. Does it require faith? Sure, and in that respect social justice may be like a religion. Of course, many religions also preach these self-same beliefs, even if they don't always follow them.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you does not apply to masochists.

There is also a hole in the model if everyone does not subscribe. if i am a sociopath, for example, and I know that you will do unto me as you would *like8 me to do unto you that gives me free liscence to abuse you to my own benefit because i know you follow this code whereas I have a neurological deficiency such that i have trouble seeing you as a person.

Because context is always important, and easy answers generally don't work.

You can still show a sociopath empathy, reason, and justice. Just because not everyone is going to be a good person doesn't mean that people should not strive to be good, or teach children to grow up to be good adults.

You can show a psychopath empathy, and they will see something they can take advantage of. People should strive to be good, yes, but it also has to be learned within a context that realizes that not everyone will be.
For example, the stereotype of a psychopath is the serial killer or at least a cold blooded killer. Despite this most psychopaths never commit murder, not because they see an intrinsic value in letting people live, but because their cost benefit analysis shows no postive value in killing them. It is far better to rise to upper middle management and take advantage of them, or perhaps go into sales for medicare advantage plans...

Quote:
Originally Posted by silveroak View Post
You can show a psychopath empathy, and they will see something they can take advantage of. People should strive to be good, yes, but it also has to be learned within a context that realizes that not everyone will be.
For example, the stereotype of a psychopath is the serial killer or at least a cold blooded killer. Despite this most psychopaths never commit murder, not because they see an intrinsic value in letting people live, but because their cost benefit analysis shows no postive value in killing them. It is far better to rise to upper middle management and take advantage of them, or perhaps go into sales for medicare advantage plans...
I'm assuming you mean "sociopath" when you say "psychopath". The former indicates a lack of empathy, the latter indicates a certain amount of homicidality/delusion in addition to the lack of empathy.

Also, you can teach sociopaths pro-social behavior. It involves pointing out the long-term versus short-term benefits, risk/reward scenarios, and other ways that pro-social behavior benefits them.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status