Inclusion
Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 7:24 am
Inclusion
“Inclusion is seen as a universal human right. The aim of inclusion is to embrace all people irrespective of race, gender, disability, medical or other need. It is about giving equal access and opportunities and getting rid of discrimination and intolerance (removal of barriers). It affects all aspects of public life.”
That as a basis for what is ‘included’ is clearly circular and is not ethically holistic. There is no basis indicated for what is included other than personal whimsy.
Inclusion is a perfectly sensible value in combination with others. But it barely says anything useful, since it can only mean that all things are included according to their virtue. And that virtue must be defined holistically. If we live in or espouse an altruist society, which brings people together in community, then we include all people and natural life, treating each according to its nature and benefit to the whole.
There are no intrinsic rights, only rights accorded by society for the purpose of that society, but with duties also accorded according to the right. We cannot expect a cat to perform any duty, other than imposed by nature and instinct. Therefore, if we accord it a right to life, that can only be a limited right. We cannot be overrun by breeding cats!
People are accorded rights in balance with duties accorded that they can perform. A person who is or becomes disabled, in all other respects has the rights and duties of a whole man. He also has his own peculiar rights, in altruist society, in that he should be made whole again so far as society can sensibly make him so. He does not have a right to any remedy that arises if it is limited in supply and takes vast resources to supply. He has the duty to act as a citizen in all things, within his abilities.
Altruist woman has the same rights as a man, in all matters not related to her sexuality. In that respect she has rights and duties peculiar to a woman.
Altruism implicitly has a vision of the ideal person as an ethical agent.
“Inclusion is seen as a universal human right. The aim of inclusion is to embrace all people irrespective of race, gender, disability, medical or other need. It is about giving equal access and opportunities and getting rid of discrimination and intolerance (removal of barriers). It affects all aspects of public life.”
That as a basis for what is ‘included’ is clearly circular and is not ethically holistic. There is no basis indicated for what is included other than personal whimsy.
Inclusion is a perfectly sensible value in combination with others. But it barely says anything useful, since it can only mean that all things are included according to their virtue. And that virtue must be defined holistically. If we live in or espouse an altruist society, which brings people together in community, then we include all people and natural life, treating each according to its nature and benefit to the whole.
There are no intrinsic rights, only rights accorded by society for the purpose of that society, but with duties also accorded according to the right. We cannot expect a cat to perform any duty, other than imposed by nature and instinct. Therefore, if we accord it a right to life, that can only be a limited right. We cannot be overrun by breeding cats!
People are accorded rights in balance with duties accorded that they can perform. A person who is or becomes disabled, in all other respects has the rights and duties of a whole man. He also has his own peculiar rights, in altruist society, in that he should be made whole again so far as society can sensibly make him so. He does not have a right to any remedy that arises if it is limited in supply and takes vast resources to supply. He has the duty to act as a citizen in all things, within his abilities.
Altruist woman has the same rights as a man, in all matters not related to her sexuality. In that respect she has rights and duties peculiar to a woman.
Altruism implicitly has a vision of the ideal person as an ethical agent.