diversity

[Percivale]

In America, diversity is generally seen as important and valuable, especially by progressives. I'm wondering, is it valued as a means or as an end--do we want to collect a diverse group of peoples and cultures in order to synthesize them into a new, more homogenous culture that takes the best of each culture, or do we want to preserve that diversity for its own sake? I think both views have much to be said for them.
If diversity is viewed as an end, valuable in itself, it would seem logical that some degree of segregation would be useful in preserving that diversity--though humans naturally segregate themselves sufficiently without help, and too much segregation would get in the way of people enjoying the diversity through experiencing different cultures. People would limit judgment of other cultures, since they ought to remain different.
If diversity is seen as a means, then people would be encouraged to mingle as much as possible, and to evaluate each others' cultures more, which would produce more conflict, but could lead to greater improvements in understanding and lifestyle.

 

[Received]

I think diversity is valued to allow for a deeper, more important value to be actualized: individual freedom. Freedom isn't an end, because if it was there would be no laws at all. It's a means to an end: happiness.

 

[Percivale]

I think diversity is valued to allow for a deeper, more important value to be actualized: individual freedom. Freedom isn't an end, because if it was there would be no laws at all. It's a means to an end: happiness.

I like that.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'd say it depends on the diversity. On some things, like clothing, then it doesn't matter. So on issues of preference, diversity is perhaps an end.

On prescriptive issues, such as religion and morality, it would be good to move towards the most reasonable position.

I think diversity is valued to allow for a deeper, more important value to be actualized: individual freedom. Freedom isn't an end, because if it was there would be no laws at all. It's a means to an end: happiness.

I don't think the problem with freedom being an end is that all things would be legal. One persons freedom can impinge upon another's. So laws allow for the greatest freedom of all. Or at least they should.

I'm not sure that happiness can be an end without freedom. I don't think forcing a true happiness on someone would necessarily be right. Autonomy is valuable in itself and should be respected, regardless of what you think is best for someone.

I think the valuation of liberty recognizes that we are more than pleasure seeking machines. Living a genuine life is important too. That your life is truly yours.

 

[Received]

I don't think the problem with freedom being an end is that all things would be legal. One persons freedom can impinge upon another's. So laws allow for the greatest freedom of all. Or at least they should.

I just think that if you make freedom the ultimate end, then by extension it should be legalized for everything. Freedom isn't the ultimate end; a balance between freedom and order is, no matter how much of a libertarian you are.

I'm not sure that happiness can be an end without freedom. I don't think forcing a true happiness on someone would necessarily be right. Autonomy is valuable in itself and should be respected, regardless of what you think is best for someone.

Agree. I'd say that freedom is an ingredient in happiness, but happiness definitely isn't always an ingredient with freedom. Freedom means doing difficult things most of the time -- which lead to happiness in the long run.

I think the valuation of liberty recognizes that we are more than pleasure seeking machines. Living a genuine life is important too. That your life is truly yours.

I dunno. I don't think we seek pleasure, given that we're not intentionally going around asking ourselves what gives us pleasure (that would, IMO, negate the very possibility of pleasure, given that pleasure often happens without us thinking about pleasure). But the neurochemical stuff of pleasure -- the good feelings -- really makes everything we do worthwhile, whether we're talking about adding good feelings or negating bad ones. We're always motivated by some type of immediately pleasurable sensation, or an analog to reinforcement, i.e., the thought of it in the future.

 

[Paradoxum]

I just think that if you make freedom the ultimate end, then by extension it should be legalized for everything. Freedom isn't the ultimate end; a balance between freedom and order is, no matter how much of a libertarian you are.

It depends what you mean by freedom. You could think chaos is the greatest freedom, or you could think that creating a well functioning society, which protects people, provides the greatest freedom for all.

In the first circumstance, the freedom is only potential, and there's a good chance you'll have your choices violated by others. In the second, freedoms are more guaranteed.

Agree. I'd say that freedom is an ingredient in happiness, but happiness definitely isn't always an ingredient with freedom. Freedom means doing difficult things most of the time -- which lead to happiness in the long run.

I think I agree.

I dunno. I don't think we seek pleasure, given that we're not intentionally going around asking ourselves what gives us pleasure (that would, IMO, negate the very possibility of pleasure, given that pleasure often happens without us thinking about pleasure). But the neurochemical stuff of pleasure -- the good feelings -- really makes everything we do worthwhile, whether we're talking about adding good feelings or negating bad ones. We're always motivated by some type of immediately pleasurable sensation, or an analog to reinforcement, i.e., the thought of it in the future.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's completely true.

Say there were a machine you could get into that would make all your dreams come true for you, and feel real (virtual reality), but you could never leave it. Would choose to be happy and in pleasure in a fake world, or live in the real world.

Some people might choose the machine, but I don't know if I would. Maybe if I knew what I was missing I would.

 

[Received]

It depends what you mean by freedom. You could think chaos is the greatest freedom, or you could think that creating a well functioning society, which protects people, provides the greatest freedom for all.

In the first circumstance, the freedom is only potential, and there's a good chance you'll have your choices violated by others. In the second, freedoms are more guaranteed.

Good point. I'd say there's psychological freedom, or freedom from restrictions, and volitional freedom, or the freedom to choose something using your own will.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's completely true.

Say there were a machine you could get into that would make all your dreams come true for you, and feel real (virtual reality), but you could never leave it. Would choose to be happy and in pleasure in a fake world, or live in the real world.

Some people might choose the machine, but I don't know if I would. Maybe if I knew what I was missing I would.

A lot of people would choose the machine. But the people who are refined enough to prefer truth at all costs also are neurochemically rewarded for choosing the truth. For me, realizing I've stumbled across a truth usually involves positive feelings (unless, of course, it's bad news).

 

[Kalevalatar]

In America, diversity is generally seen as important and valuable, especially by progressives. I'm wondering, is it valued as a means or as an end--do we want to collect a diverse group of peoples and cultures in order to synthesize them into a new, more homogenous culture that takes the best of each culture, or do we want to preserve that diversity for its own sake? I think both views have much to be said for them.
If diversity is viewed as an end, valuable in itself, it would seem logical that some degree of segregation would be useful in preserving that diversity--though humans naturally segregate themselves sufficiently without help, and too much segregation would get in the way of people enjoying the diversity through experiencing different cultures. People would limit judgment of other cultures, since they ought to remain different.
If diversity is seen as a means, then people would be encouraged to mingle as much as possible, and to evaluate each others' cultures more, which would produce more conflict, but could lead to greater improvements in understanding and lifestyle.

What you describe are the Canadian multicultural country model where different cultural identities are celebrated, conserved and encouraged for their own sake and for diversity's sake, and the US melting pot model where the goal is a common uniform American identity and single culture "in America we speak American".

 

[Lollerskates]

Hmm...

In the Ststes, diversity is golden until the minority population is nearly on par with the majority population. Then, it becomes entitlement.

Politically, your first sentence in the OP works because there is money to be made in diersity - not necessarily because it is a philosophical beacon of hope for equality.

 

[Received]

What you describe are the Canadian multicultural country model where different cultural identities are celebrated, conserved and encouraged for their own sake and for diversity's sake, and the US melting pot model where the goal is a common uniform American identity and single culture "in America we speak American".

Which will never happen. This would mean having a single telos for 330 million people. I can't even get my wife to agree with me half the time.

 

[Paradoxum]

Good point. I'd say there's psychological freedom, or freedom from restrictions, and volitional freedom, or the freedom to choose something using your own will.

A lot of people would choose the machine. But the people who are refined enough to prefer truth at all costs also are neurochemically rewarded for choosing the truth. For me, realizing I've stumbled across a truth usually involves positive feelings (unless, of course, it's bad news).

True.

 

[Albion]

What you describe are the Canadian multicultural country model where different cultural identities are celebrated, conserved and encouraged for their own sake and for diversity's sake, and the US melting pot model where the goal is a common uniform American identity and single culture "in America we speak American".

I don't believe that that's a correct rendering of the American idea of the melting pot. It never has been seen as intending that there be a "uniform...identity and single culture" or for everyone to be a clone of everyone else. Even when the melting pot was celebrated, as it is not these days, it did not envision such uniformity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This would mean having a single telos for 330 million people.

You beat me to this point. As I see it, emphasizing freedom and diversity opens up the widest range of possible personal excellences, and these excellences may complement each other in synergistic ways. A society in which everyone was expected to develop towards a single vision of human excellence (a single telos) would inevitably miss out on the bounty that human self-actualization can provide.

For this reason, I tend to favor pluralistic societies along libertarian or classically liberal lines, instead of monocultural plans, such as what the ancient Spartans had. Even if I were to be impressed with their achievements at producing professional warriors, I would still see their political efforts at soulcraft as squelching a great deal of human potential.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

You beat me to this point. As I see it, emphasizing freedom and diversity opens up the widest range of possible personal excellences, and these excellences may complement each other in synergistic ways. A society in which everyone was expected to develop towards a single vision of human excellence (a single telos) would inevitably miss out on the bounty that human self-actualization can provide.

For this reason, I tend to favor pluralistic societies along libertarian or classically liberal lines, instead of monocultural plans, such as what the ancient Spartans had. Even if I were to be impressed with their achievements at producing professional warriors, I would still see their political efforts at soulcraft as squelching a great deal of human potential.


eudaimonia,

Mark

See, I'm not a pluralist, but I think it's necessary to behave as if you were a pluralist society in order for any hope of the good that you believe is fit for people in general to prosper. I don't think all cultures are created equal; at the same time, there can be multiple cultural expressions of the same single good. But you're not going to get to this point if you limit individual freedom to attain this good, even if it's by ways you think aren't good.