Not so long ago I read Singer's 'Practical Ethics', I was already familiar with lots of his positions, but there was one section that made me change one of my long-held views: that was in how universities should admit students, and in particular, if universities may discriminate against some groups (Asian's for example) who would otherwise be over-represented if decided on academic merit alone. I assumed that universities should select on academic merit - like Aristotle may say, those who are the best students should get the position - however, Singer argues that there is more to being a student than good grades, and the university should select those students that will produce the best student experience for all students, as a whole, which may include exposing students to other students from a diverse range of backgrounds. I came around to Singer's position, but this illustrates the complex notion of justice, and how there can be more than one seemingly plausible just outcome from the same set of circumstances.
That's why I talk about "models" rather than "theories" of justice. I think all the models I'm going to be talking about are useful in certain settings; the question is which apply to which settings, and how we decide.
What does he mean by saying there is more to being a student than good grades? Who decided that? Who is the best judge? If you've applied yourself to getting good grades who decided that that's not good enough? And why? Is it just luck to get good grades: where opportunity meets preparation? Or is there effort? Who decides how much effort is required from whom: how can any judge evaluate individual merit? They can't. Any suggestion that they attempt to do so is asking them to play god. Therefore the criteria must be general and subject to verification. The idea that schools know what can make individual student experiences more "enriching" is unverifiable. A claim that can't be falsified cannot be judged by anyone, and therefore should not be used as a criterion for judgement.
@@kallianpublico7517 I don't think you need get as technical as that. The university can decide it's own ends, and it may simply decide that it believes the goal is x and the best way to get there is y. And then implement that policy (they could be falsified in practice and thus change policy). My main point is that it does not follow from the mere fact that a university is in the business of providing education that the highest grades represent the best education.
@@neoepicurean3772 Society is not where diversity is decided. Society is where popularity is decided. Popularity is antithetical to diversity, whether in nature or human endeavor. Nature is diverse because it has millions if not billions of years of time and who knows how many of creativity. Darwin realized that humans created evolutionary change. He called it artificial selection and differentiated it from "natural" selection. If you want a college full of pugs, corgies and lhaso apsos keep it up. The falsifiability will be verified when our society collapses. Don't piss on people's legs and then tell them it's raining. This policy is just that. A capitulation to the globalists running economic policy by using Christian compassion against common sense. Compassion without intelligence is foolish. After all we don't include the best physics players on the football field, why isn't there "diversity" there?
@@kallianpublico7517 I wouldn't read that much into it. If I wanted to make an interesting dinner party I might not pick everyone by one standard, it's as simple as that. Like I said, before I read the Singer argument I was outraged that a university would not pick those candidates with the best grades; but that was just my assumption that a university ought to do that. The law has also taken the opinion that, as long as there is not a predetermined quota - say, x amount of blacks, y whites and z Asians - then it is not 'racist' to take race and background into consideration. I now think this is a reasonable position. I've had my mind changed.
Dr. Bonevac, I am assuming that you believe in objective truth. If you do, how do you do it in the presence of philosophy which denies it? Is it merely a process of deciding, with whatever considerations help make this decision, what you will believe in? And if so, how exactly do you choose what you will believe in?
I do believe in objective truth, and I think philosophers who deny it are wrong. How you decide what is objectively true is a question belonging to the theory of knowledge, and depends on the kind of truth it is.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Can you lead me to literature that will help me understand the theory of knowledge better? For the past three years I’ve continually fallen into a nihilistic perspective about existence. A couple days ago, I began to see that I actually do have the opportunity to believe in objective truth. Although I can form an argument that will help me reason why I should believe in objective truth, I can’t help but think that there is a lot that I don’t fully understand yet. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to respond. Thank you.
I dunno. Many prominent 20th-century thinkers were born in modest circumstances, though a few, such as Russell and Wittgenstein, grew up in wealthy families. Arguably, however, society has become more stratified than it was in most of the 20th century, when social mobility was greater.
@@PhiloofAlexandria That's the basis of meritocracy. Comes to my mind Losurdo's analysis on colonialism and the conditions throughout History that black people and/or natives had faced and the difference between a child born in different condition of race of the dominant class (whites), for instance. We must remember that the Aristotelian concept of οἶκοι (Oikos) don't include foreigners or slaves (considered as things not humans of merit). Aristotle grounds his logic from a very delimited conception of capability, even humanity. My argument is that the '20th-century thinkers that were born in modest circumstances' are in a different pattern of inequality from a black or woman thinker or inventor born in modest circumstances too. Therefore, the inequality is the main condition to start a analysis of Justice and merit. Of course, not only a social circumstance is on the board. This is a complex net of historical and cultural conditions, but always unequal. By the way, Daniel, great exposure, debates are always important!
@@daveeee5057 Opposite of equality in a sense of a historical condition (with facts, studies and data about that worldwide issue, mainly in the south border of the map) and contrary of a idealistic conception of equality, which is more close to a oligarchy, or the modern ideia of a "Nation".
Thanks for your help!
Not so long ago I read Singer's 'Practical Ethics', I was already familiar with lots of his positions, but there was one section that made me change one of my long-held views: that was in how universities should admit students, and in particular, if universities may discriminate against some groups (Asian's for example) who would otherwise be over-represented if decided on academic merit alone. I assumed that universities should select on academic merit - like Aristotle may say, those who are the best students should get the position - however, Singer argues that there is more to being a student than good grades, and the university should select those students that will produce the best student experience for all students, as a whole, which may include exposing students to other students from a diverse range of backgrounds. I came around to Singer's position, but this illustrates the complex notion of justice, and how there can be more than one seemingly plausible just outcome from the same set of circumstances.
That's why I talk about "models" rather than "theories" of justice. I think all the models I'm going to be talking about are useful in certain settings; the question is which apply to which settings, and how we decide.
What does he mean by saying there is more to being a student than good grades? Who decided that? Who is the best judge?
If you've applied yourself to getting good grades who decided that that's not good enough? And why? Is it just luck to get good grades: where opportunity meets preparation? Or is there effort? Who decides how much effort is required from whom: how can any judge evaluate individual merit? They can't. Any suggestion that they attempt to do so is asking them to play god.
Therefore the criteria must be general and subject to verification. The idea that schools know what can make individual student experiences more "enriching" is unverifiable. A claim that can't be falsified cannot be judged by anyone, and therefore should not be used as a criterion for judgement.
@@kallianpublico7517 I don't think you need get as technical as that. The university can decide it's own ends, and it may simply decide that it believes the goal is x and the best way to get there is y. And then implement that policy (they could be falsified in practice and thus change policy). My main point is that it does not follow from the mere fact that a university is in the business of providing education that the highest grades represent the best education.
@@neoepicurean3772 Society is not where diversity is decided. Society is where popularity is decided. Popularity is antithetical to diversity, whether in nature or human endeavor. Nature is diverse because it has millions if not billions of years of time and who knows how many of creativity.
Darwin realized that humans created evolutionary change. He called it artificial selection and differentiated it from "natural" selection. If you want a college full of pugs, corgies and lhaso apsos keep it up. The falsifiability will be verified when our society collapses.
Don't piss on people's legs and then tell them it's raining. This policy is just that. A capitulation to the globalists running economic policy by using Christian compassion against common sense. Compassion without intelligence is foolish. After all we don't include the best physics players on the football field, why isn't there "diversity" there?
@@kallianpublico7517 I wouldn't read that much into it. If I wanted to make an interesting dinner party I might not pick everyone by one standard, it's as simple as that. Like I said, before I read the Singer argument I was outraged that a university would not pick those candidates with the best grades; but that was just my assumption that a university ought to do that. The law has also taken the opinion that, as long as there is not a predetermined quota - say, x amount of blacks, y whites and z Asians - then it is not 'racist' to take race and background into consideration. I now think this is a reasonable position. I've had my mind changed.
Dr. Bonevac,
I am assuming that you believe in objective truth. If you do, how do you do it in the presence of philosophy which denies it?
Is it merely a process of deciding, with whatever considerations help make this decision, what you will believe in? And if so, how exactly do you choose what you will believe in?
I do believe in objective truth, and I think philosophers who deny it are wrong. How you decide what is objectively true is a question belonging to the theory of knowledge, and depends on the kind of truth it is.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Can you lead me to literature that will help me understand the theory of knowledge better?
For the past three years I’ve continually fallen into a nihilistic perspective about existence. A couple days ago, I began to see that I actually do have the opportunity to believe in objective truth. Although I can form an argument that will help me reason why I should believe in objective truth, I can’t help but think that there is a lot that I don’t fully understand yet. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to respond. Thank you.
To be the best or the worst on something depends on what inequality condition you are raised.
That too savage warriors and tribal leaders of greece 🙄 not a woman around for miles of justice
I dunno. Many prominent 20th-century thinkers were born in modest circumstances, though a few, such as Russell and Wittgenstein, grew up in wealthy families. Arguably, however, society has become more stratified than it was in most of the 20th century, when social mobility was greater.
@@PhiloofAlexandria That's the basis of meritocracy. Comes to my mind Losurdo's analysis on colonialism and the conditions throughout History that black people and/or natives had faced and the difference between a child born in different condition of race of the dominant class (whites), for instance. We must remember that the Aristotelian concept of οἶκοι (Oikos) don't include foreigners or slaves (considered as things not humans of merit). Aristotle grounds his logic from a very delimited conception of capability, even humanity. My argument is that the '20th-century thinkers that were born in modest circumstances' are in a different pattern of inequality from a black or woman thinker or inventor born in modest circumstances too. Therefore, the inequality is the main condition to start a analysis of Justice and merit. Of course, not only a social circumstance is on the board. This is a complex net of historical and cultural conditions, but always unequal. By the way, Daniel, great exposure, debates are always important!
@@ashtoffen define inequality
@@daveeee5057 Opposite of equality in a sense of a historical condition (with facts, studies and data about that worldwide issue, mainly in the south border of the map) and contrary of a idealistic conception of equality, which is more close to a oligarchy, or the modern ideia of a "Nation".