Random Thread

[Vijay]

Okay, so it goes back to this "the whole group isn't guilty!" idea. This is an idea I don't really get. I don't see what the point of this idea is when it doesn't do any favors for people who are marginalized. In fact, I'm not sure it does anything for anyone in the long run.

For example, one of my relatives (like my dad's great-great-uncle or something) owned low-caste people as slaves while my dad was growing up. (This type of slavery was pretty common in India until around that time). My dad did not own slaves, but these slaves did do at least some small favors for my dad (because said relative told them to), and he knows at least some of them personally. I would not even have known about these slaves if my dad hadn't told me (let alone owned slaves or whatever).

But here's the thing: Our family made money off of these slaves' forced labor. That relative of ours who owned slaves didn't just keep all his money to himself for all time. I inherit money from this system, so it's upon me to decide what to do with it. I've seen some of what low-caste people in Kerala have to go through, and I know that many of my other relatives are very casteist, so I seriously doubt that the former slaves have been (or feel they have been) adequately compensated for what our family has put them through. Now, we could adopt the "well, it's not our fault! It's my relative's!" line, but what would that do for anyone? The relative is long dead, so obviously, he can't do anything. The former slaves' families would continue to live under a system that neither acknowledges the enslavement nor provides them with the material support, security, etc. to overcome its effects, so they would just seethe with resentment. This is dangerous for any society; it is the sort of thing that can result in war. The only workable solution as far as I see is for me at least to acknowledge what our family did, try to figure out what sort of compensation these families need, and then compensate them. The fact that I personally didn't own slaves is irrelevant.

[Travis B.]

In that case, one personally is blameless, but probably the right thing to do would be to give the money you inherited back to the people (or if not alive, their descendants) whose labor was used to generate said money, and if that is not possible, donate it to charity.

[Vijay]

In that case, one personally is blameless, but probably the right thing to do would be to give the money you inherited back to the people (or if not alive, their descendants) whose labor was used to generate said money, and if that is not possible, donate it to charity.

This to me sounds like splitting hairs. "You're not guilty because of your relative's actions, but you should probably do things to compensate for them anyway."

What does it matter whether I am blameless or not, if not for the purpose of compensation?

[Moose-tache]

Wait, so creating a better world is a form of punishment? TIL...

[Vijay]

Who said anything about punishment?

[Travis B.]

In that case, one personally is blameless, but probably the right thing to do would be to give the money you inherited back to the people (or if not alive, their descendants) whose labor was used to generate said money, and if that is not possible, donate it to charity.

This to me sounds like splitting hairs. "You're not guilty because of your relative's actions, but you should probably do things to compensate for them anyway."

What does it matter whether I am blameless or not, if not for the purpose of compensation?

It is not a matter of whether one is blameless but rather that one would be accepting money that is the product of others' unfree labor; it is not your fault that you inherit such money - except through whom one marries one does not choose one's family ties - but it is your choice as to how you dispose of such money.

[KathTheDragon]

In that case, one personally is blameless, but probably the right thing to do would be to give the money you inherited back to the people (or if not alive, their descendants) whose labor was used to generate said money, and if that is not possible, donate it to charity.

This to me sounds like splitting hairs. "You're not guilty because of your relative's actions, but you should probably do things to compensate for them anyway."

What does it matter whether I am blameless or not, if not for the purpose of compensation?

The logic sounds to me like it's treating this money as stolen property. You're not responsible for stealing it, but it's still stolen and should be returned to the people it was stolen from.

[Vijay]

Okay, so I think this sort of thing is pretty much the most that people are usually asking for when they talk about privilege. Usually FWICT, when we talk about privilege, we just want people who are more privileged than us (in certain ways) to at least acknowledge that the privilege exists and/or that certain things are historical fact. For example, it should surely be accepted as historical fact that there existed some set of white people who enslaved black people for many years in countries where the government failed to stop said enslavement.

[Linguoboy]

In general though my objections are based on applying some sort of responsibility to groups of any sort based upon some attribute not of their choosing who have taken no particular actions on their own part.

I’m confused. Do you just not recognise a moral obligation on the part of people with more resources and influence to take care of people with less of each? Or do you see this responsibility as entirely contingent on how the former came to command those resources and influence?

[alynnidalar]

It's probably useful to differentiate between personal responsibility (things I actively and directly am responsible for) and general responsibility (things I am not directly responsible for, yet still benefit from). No, of course I'm not personally responsible for the existence of slavery in the US (given that I was not alive at the time, and indeed even the majority of my ancestors only came to the US after slavery was abolished), but whether I intended to benefit from its existence, I do benefit from the lingering results of slavery/segregation/oppression/etc. And I can't stop benefiting by simply declaring that I don't want to.

I didn't choose to be born with privileges that other people don't have. I didn't choose to be born white, or American, or straight, or cis. (I didn't choose the "unprivileged" bits either--I didn't choose to be a woman or to be born into a lower working class family) But that doesn't mean I'm somehow free from responsibility to use my privilege for the benefit of others. If I may digress into religion, which I know is a touchy topic, a major part of my Christian beliefs is that when God gives us (or allows us to have) blessings and privileges, it's because He intends us to use them for His glory--i.e. for others, not for ourselves. When we end up with money, it's not so we can hoard it and buy expensive yachts; it's so we can give it away and build up others. When we're in a position of social privilege, it's not so we can live comfortably on the backs of others, it's so we can use that position to lift others up and take a stand against people who are abusing their privilege.

So... yes, I do actually believe we have responsibilities based on attributes not of our choosing. Don't like it? Tough. People without privilege don't like their disadvantages either, but they've still got to live with them.

[Travis B.]

In general though my objections are based on applying some sort of responsibility to groups of any sort based upon some attribute not of their choosing who have taken no particular actions on their own part.

I’m confused. Do you just not recognise a moral obligation on the part of people with more resources and influence to take care of people with less of each? Or do you see this responsibility as entirely contingent on how the former came to command those resources and influence?

When I speak of collective responsibility I speak of guilt being applied to a group as a whole based on the actions of some subset or of their ancestors. This is what I object to. That does not mean that we should not recognize and help those with less privilege than ourselves, but that is a function of that being the right thing to do as opposed to paying back any guilt on our own parts. (Vijay's example was a special case because it involved coming into money directly derived from slavery rather than far more abstract cases involving privilege.)

[Travis B.]

It's probably useful to differentiate between personal responsibility (things I actively and directly am responsible for) and general responsibility (things I am not directly responsible for, yet still benefit from). No, of course I'm not personally responsible for the existence of slavery in the US (given that I was not alive at the time, and indeed even the majority of my ancestors only came to the US after slavery was abolished), but whether I intended to benefit from its existence, I do benefit from the lingering results of slavery/segregation/oppression/etc. And I can't stop benefiting by simply declaring that I don't want to.

To me responsibility, i.e. guilt, is always personal and takes forms such as committing an action, ordering an action, requesting an action, abetting an action, ignoring an action when one has the power to prevent it, directly profiting from an action, and so on. I do not recognize longer-range responsibility, whether across large groups or across multiple generations, except in particular cases such as Vijay's, and in his case he still is not responsible for the slavery itself.

At the same time, I recognize how one can profit from past injustices, injustices which should be rectified regardless of one's personal guilt. For instance, my ancestors likewise came to this country after the abolition of slavery, but there is a long history of racism and segregation here in Wisconsin, and I certainly have benefited from being white here in ways I cannot measure, and much needs to be done to improve the position of black people here in Wisconsin. One could say similar things about the land taken from the native peoples here in Wisconsin.

[Travis B.]

I didn't choose to be born with privileges that other people don't have. I didn't choose to be born white, or American, or straight, or cis. (I didn't choose the "unprivileged" bits either--I didn't choose to be a woman or to be born into a lower working class family) But that doesn't mean I'm somehow free from responsibility to use my privilege for the benefit of others. If I may digress into religion, which I know is a touchy topic, a major part of my Christian beliefs is that when God gives us (or allows us to have) blessings and privileges, it's because He intends us to use them for His glory--i.e. for others, not for ourselves. When we end up with money, it's not so we can hoard it and buy expensive yachts; it's so we can give it away and build up others. When we're in a position of social privilege, it's not so we can live comfortably on the backs of others, it's so we can use that position to lift others up and take a stand against people who are abusing their privilege.

So... yes, I do actually believe we have responsibilities based on attributes not of our choosing. Don't like it? Tough. People without privilege don't like their disadvantages either, but they've still got to live with them.

I think we are confusing the term responsibility. I am used to the terms collective responsibility and collective guilt being used largely synonymously, and thus in that context responsibility and guilt themselves are largely synonyms, whereas you use responsibility to mean duty, such that it is not synonymous with guilt.

About duty arising from one's privilege, I see this as a matter of doing the right thing because it is the right thing, because one can, as opposed to doing something simply because one is obligated by past wrongs. If it were merely recompense for past wrongs, then one would have no reason to help people whom members of one's group have not oppressed, and one would have no reason to help people beyond whatever amount one benefited from their oppression.

[Vijay]

Vijay's example was a special case

I don't think that's true at all. It's just one of many, many examples of slavery and exploitation, not to mention many other kinds of abuse. My relative owned and mistreated slaves, but so did many other Indians, Americans, Brazilians, Jamaicans, Surinamese...and in many countries, slavery is still very much a reality, with sex slavery being perhaps the most well-known example.

[Nerulent]

[...]

So... yes, I do actually believe we have responsibilities based on attributes not of our choosing. Don't like it? Tough. People without privilege don't like their disadvantages either, but they've still got to live with them.

Very well said!

I think we are confusing the term responsibility. I am used to the terms collective responsibility and collective guilt being used largely synonymously, and thus in that context responsibility and guilt themselves are largely synonyms, whereas you use responsibility to mean duty, such that it is not synonymous with guilt.

About duty arising from one's privilege, I see this as a matter of doing the right thing because it is the right thing, because one can, as opposed to doing something simply because one is obligated by past wrongs. If it were merely recompense for past wrongs, then one would have no reason to help people whom members of one's group have not oppressed, and one would have no reason to help people beyond whatever amount one benefited from their oppression.

How do you decide what the right thing is? By looking at historic injustices and their lasting effects. Or are we supposed to just completely divorce the past from the present? Of course the past has bearing on the present, so it seems like splitting hairs at this point - replace guilt or responsibility with the word duty and the word privilege with societal advantages, and do you still have a problem with it?

(Although I'll agree that the terms 'white female privilege' and 'white gay privilege' aren't useful)

[Travis B.]

How do you decide what the right thing is? By looking at historic injustices and their lasting effects. Or are we supposed to just completely divorce the past from the present? Of course the past has bearing on the present, so it seems like splitting hairs at this point - replace guilt or responsibility with the word duty and the word privilege with societal advantages, and do you still have a problem with it?

In this case the right thing is using the means that one has to help those less fortunate than oneself. The reason why I said it that way that is that not all injustices are ones that one personally benefited from somehow (e.g. I doubt anyone here has benefited from what has been done to the Rohingya), yet if one is able to help those who have been impacted by said injustices then one should help them if one can regardless of whether one personally benefited from them.

That said, oftentimes it is easier to help people closer to home rather than those far away, e.g. I doubt anyone here can make a direct impact on the Rohingya's plight.

[Vijay]

Maybe this is going on a tangent, but it's kind of interesting to me that you mention the Rohingya. The amount of help anyone can offer the Rohingya is limited at best until the Burmese military stops targeting them. That being said, I think there is something that at least some non-Burmese politicians could do to help the Rohingya but won't, and that is to support Buddhist monks in Burma who do support the Rohingya, perhaps with more money than Wirathu can afford to raise. I think it might be a good idea for them to do this not because they should feel guilty or whatever but because I think that they would like to help the Rohingya at least on some level but don't really know how to, either.

[Xwtek]

Is there any human disability where human cannot recognize himself on the mirror, just like how animal treat someone behind the mirror as someone else?

[zompist]

Is there any human disability where human cannot recognize himself on the mirror, just like how animal treat someone behind the mirror as someone else?

Yes, prosopagnosia.

(And some animals can do it, notably chimps, dolphins, and magpies.)

[alynnidalar]

People with severe face blindness (prosopagnosia) can be unable to recognize themselves. However, I don't think it's that they don't recognize/understand mirrors, they simply don't recognize faces. (and would probably realize the person in the mirror was them based on simple deduction--apparently people with face blindness tend to be really good at using other factors to identify people, like clothing)

I also came across this Wikipedia article which suggests people with dementia, strokes, or traumatic brain injuries may believe the person in a mirror is a separate person.

Probably not what you're thinking of, but babies aren't born passing the mirror test either.