Animal Farm and Positive Discrimination

Not sure where to put this. I am sure the mods will help.

In that iconic novel, the controlling species changed their original slogan from " All animals are equal " to add "Except some animals are more equal than others".

Do you agree?
And if so, what defines the differences in "equality"?
Finally, do these inequalities justify positive discrimination?

 

The people in control of assigning value are the ones in control of deciding who is superior.

If wealthy white men design a system where success is determined by the ability to accumulate wealth, then those who have the wealth, and their progeny will have an advantage going forward.

If tall people design a system where success is determined by height, then then their progeny will have an advantage going forward.

No people have ever designed a system that didn't give an advantage to people like themselves.

 

In reality of course those who assign values are the hive minds of general populations.
Given that we are in general agreement about what those markers are, do they justify positive discrimination?

 

Money.

Is there such a thing as positive discrimination? Could you please provide an example?

 

How are you defining positive discrimination?

Are you saying that if for example, a system designed to favor tall people was changed to ensure that shorter people got an advantage so that the outcomes of that system might be more equal between tall people and short people, that would be positive discrimination?

 

Being hired because you are considered as unequal by the general community, so that you can make money. That which you say levels up everyone.

 

Yes.

 

If a system as designed is unfair, attempting to repair that system is ok with me. Anytime there is a disparity of outcomes among particular groups, the system is unfair.

Discrimination is a relative term. If a group has benefitted from a system their entire life, they may feel like repairing that system is discrimination, even though it has not about them as individuals.

 

For me it’s the equal notion and acknowledgement of one’s humanity. That because one is human, we must ensure and negotiate the respect of those not seen as human. But this acknowledgment isn’t simply a word or statement but through repeated actions that reinforce one’s own humanity. The failure of animal farm then is the failure of everyone to acknowledge each other as fundamentally equal because of the conditions placed upon then. I don’t think Napoleon was evil by choice rather the conditions forced him to blame Snowball for his own failures because Napoleon wasn’t able to acknowledge himself and his own limitations. That failure led to the demise of the animal farm.

 

@ Who Dat
So are you saying that positive discrimination depends on how fervently the controlling group guards its power?
If so, does this not trample all over equal and active human rights?

 

So would you support positive discrimination?

 

In order to have equal and active human rights, one must first believe that all men are created equally, no?

 

Can you define that? My answer is yes but I want to double check with your meaning first before confirming.

 

Indeed so.
The problem is that they aren't.
So should those who are born lacking those things which are generally accepted as demonstrating "brownie points", be accelerated against those blessed with the "brownie points"?

 

As I explained in my post to HeyNow.

 

Strictly speaking? No. Because they already have their humanity even before they are born. All they are doing is reclaiming what was lost to them by the circumstances of an unfair world.

 

Well, equality and actual human rights are aspirational, goals if I may, a construct of "civilization" and "morality".

 

So since their inequality is set before birth, should society not give them a helping hand when necessary, so they can compete on a level playing field?

 

Perhaps but they are the reality we all have to live in (in western democracies).
Should we try to move "aspirational" to "actual"?

 

They should. But flip it. They are demanding their humanity and society should give it to them.

 

Now what would you think if you were competing for a job with someone who is part of a minority social group?

 

Its quite obvious in the libs world that the citizens (subjects) are all equal but there are a couple classes more equal. Politicals for one. Blm s another. The people who **** on city sidewalks another.

 

I would say that right now, we in western democracies continue to move aspirational to actual, in many cases it's been successful and in many cases, not so much. Regardless, we continue to change society to be more inclusive as a result of a 'civilization/moral' construct. In doing so, we are bringing traditional 'freedom' to more people. It's the balance of the many vs. the individual but it is still a balance.

 

The control group didn't have to be intentionally trying to make it harder for the other groups.

Say a group of tall people designed a system where the buttons in the voting booth were designed for people 7ft tall. Then decades later it is realized that there is a significant group of people in the community who are under 5ft tall and can't reach the buttons, and effectively can't vote. That doesn't make the 7ft tall people who set the system up malicious, they just didn't think about how it might have impacted this short group in the future, because they weren't thinking about them.

So if it was decided to give a free ladder to everyone under 5ft tall in the community so that they could reach the buttons to vote, would that be an example of positive discrimination in your opinion, since the 7ft tall people didn't get a free ladder?

 

Humans are just like birds, and birds of a feather flock together. Meaning that people just like birds tend to hang with those that look just like themselves.