Society and the Person

[RWStanding]

Society and the Person
There is a tendency today to treat ethics as a matter of individuals being ‘nice’. to each other. Reducing the debate to the personality, almost in isolation. But we are parts of society, and society itself must be considered. Where a person is born without a limb, it is a great misfortune for him and also for society. Altruist society will do all it can to provide an artificial remedy. If this were a genetic fault, then the cause would be investigated, and urgently so if it became a widespread threat to society. But none of this would diminish those involved as moral agents in altruist society. They would only be diminished in practical realisation of what they should achieve. A genetic peculiarity may at times be advantageous, but usually not. It is an advantage to society that the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and have families. Those who are born heterosexual should neither be influenced or pressured by society to behave otherwise. If a different genetic trait became widespread it would not be socially desirable, and might be extremely serious. That some people have pigmented skin and others do not, is an inheritance from ancestors living in extreme or limited sunlight. Today, it has no genuine ethical significance. It does have some cultural and aesthetic significance. It is a part of a person’s culture, and it is that cultural diversity in the world that is of significance. Whether the world should become uniform, or cultivate harmless diversity. Should we all be Sino-Afro-Eurasian.

[-1-]

Society and the Person
There is a tendency today to treat ethics as a matter of individuals being ‘nice’. to each other. Reducing the debate to the personality, almost in isolation. But we are parts of society, and society itself must be considered. Where a person is born without a limb, it is a great misfortune for him and also for society. Altruist society will do all it can to provide an artificial remedy. If this were a genetic fault, then the cause would be investigated, and urgently so if it became a widespread threat to society. But none of this would diminish those involved as moral agents in altruist society. They would only be diminished in practical realisation of what they should achieve. A genetic peculiarity may at times be advantageous, but usually not. It is an advantage to society that the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and have families. Those who are born heterosexual should neither be influenced or pressured by society to behave otherwise. If a different genetic trait became widespread it would not be socially desirable, and might be extremely serious. That some people have pigmented skin and others do not, is an inheritance from ancestors living in extreme or limited sunlight. Today, it has no genuine ethical significance. It does have some cultural and aesthetic significance. It is a part of a person’s culture, and it is that cultural diversity in the world that is of significance. Whether the world should become uniform, or cultivate harmless diversity. Should we all be Sino-Afro-Eurasian.

???

And by-the-by, pigmentation of skin and hair has very little or actually nothing on cultural influence. Pigmentation (why call it that? It's already a degrading word. They should call it "lionmentation" or "gazellementation" or something. Unicornmentation. -- Pig?) is an individual's genetic trait, while culture is a community-formed set of values and conventions. If pigmentation influenced culture, a Black person never could learn Hungarian (but they do) and a Caucasian guy could never learn how to RAP (but they do).

[Impenitent]

Santa Claus (w)raps you ho ho ho

-Imp

[-1-]

Snowhite bitch, that talli-ho,
Did sever dwarfes, count them though,
She took an apple, ate it too,
That be the end of that snow-ho.