Law in Contemporary Society

View   r9  >  r8  ...
JeffreySchatzSecondPaper 9 - 08 Jun 2010 - Main.DavidGarfinkel
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="SecondPaper"
Line: 86 to 86
 P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.

Value Groups

Changed:
<
<
The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.
>
>
The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.
 
Changed:
<
<
Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other appears to be inconsistent.
>
>
Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? Both racism and familyism involve prioritizing those within your group over those outside of it for no reason other than the simple fact that they are in your group. However, we view racism as "bad" and familyism as "good." While the effects of racism are arguably more detrimental to society, the underlying principles of both are similar, and praising one while condemning the other is fundamentally inconsistent.
 

Effects

Changed:
<
<
Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism. Family feuds are largely a thing of the past, and aside from the rare "hockey Dad" brawl, familyism generally manifests itself in a non-violent way. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them any special treatment. More importantly, the love of, and interaction with, family members is a source of great joy for many people. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or provides people with a significant source of happiness.
>
>
Racism has served as a motivation for violence, genocide and war. This is not true for familyism, which generally manifests itself in non-confrontational and non-violent ways. Additionally, familyism arguably has some benefits. It could be difficult for children to survive to adulthood if their parents didn’t give them special treatment. More importantly, the interaction between different family members and expressions of love is a source of great joy. It would be difficult to argue that racism either saves lives or creates happiness for the vast majority.
 
Changed:
<
<
But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. However, it may be that families don’t cause inequality, but mitigate it, as without the family unit individuals would keep their resources to themselves rather than spread them around their families.
>
>
But, familyism carries some negative consequences too. Families devote more resources to their members than to other individuals, leading to a disparity of wealth between different family units. Parents may, and often do, use their income to help their own child go to college or buy a car rather than help another’s child eat. While there is some distribution of wealth within the family unit and beyond to extended family members that would not be gained in a more individualistic society, the mitigatory effect is still limited.
 
Deleted:
<
<
Nevertheless, it appears that, in terms of effects, familyism has fewer negative consequences than racism, and arguably has some positive consequences which racism lacks.
 

Principles

Changed:
<
<
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle isn’t correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does.
>
>
However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative effects. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be fundamentally wrong within themselves. When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. This principle is not correct just because Dr. King said it, but because it actually makes sense. To judge someone by the group they were accidentally born into cannot be logically justified, and it hinders the development of a united society by slicing it up into differentiated sections. Avoiding these kind of value judgments is a good idea, but the familyist engages in them just as much as the racist does.
 \ No newline at end of file

Revision 9r9 - 08 Jun 2010 - 04:19:30 - DavidGarfinkel
Revision 8r8 - 27 May 2010 - 20:55:53 - JeffreySchatz
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM