Walking home from work, I was chatting with my good friend
tellemonn about society and the world and how there are very clear things that just aren't right, such as tens of thousands dying from malaria in Africa and yet none do in the West. We were discussing how the cause of this is not entirely clear, or rather, not remotely clear. In a perfect world, we
(
Read more... )
Comments 2
I don't think you can call inaction racist. You might be able to draw some kind of moral equivalent in an arguement --a "just as bad as" statement, but you should not change the definition of a word to fit your social ideas. Sloth, irresponsibility, selfishness are all bad things. But they are not racist. And just how big a circle of responsibility are you going to draw? Depending on how I read your entry here, I could conclude that I am racist, sexist and discriminatory against the poor and diabled--because there are people all over the world suffering, and I'm not really doing anything about it beyond the people I meet in daily life.
Reply
You are right. You probably can't call inaction racist.
But inaction can further racism.
I was thinking of the parallel case of standing by watching someone murder another person. I'm not sure what the legal responsibility of the observer is, but I think ethically that most (including Jesus, based on the Good Samaritan passage) would say that the observer is ethically in the wrong for not doing something, even if he cannot -- and I agree that he cannot be -- be called a murderer himself.And just how big a circle of responsibility are you going to draw?
That is a good question for which I have no clue as to the correct answer.Depending on how I read your entry here, I could conclude that I am racist, sexist and discriminatory against the poor and diabled--because there are people all over the world suffering, and I'm not really doing anything about it beyond the people I meet in daily life.
And I could conclude the same things. But I think it is worth ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment