Diversity (The Ethical Side)

Diversity =df differences between people that yield political or social groupings Primary Dimensions: Physical Health Mental Health Age Gender Sexual Orientation Ethnicity Secondary Dimensions: Income Marital Status Geographic Location Education Religion Include some elements of choice, self-determination ? ? ? ?

If you are clumsy or insulting when talking about diverse groups of people your language will be identified by some –ism term (see p199): Ableism Adultism Ageism Sizism Egocentrism or the more familiar, Sexism Racism Ethnocentrism Elitism, etc. Objects of ridicule exhibit some elements of choice, self-determination in fitting description

The Condition of Control says that it makes no sense to praise or blame someone for what is outside their control Ultimately then, moral evaluation of persons based on things outside their control is a logical error, and perhaps a moral error too (if you make the logical error through neglect, or even intentional thoughtlessness, say) (We called this same principle the “Ought Implies Can” principle before … but let’s not use that term!)

What’s wrong with preferring some people over others? We do it all the time It’s how we choose friends Our preferences are predetermined, Impossible to change Difficult to change Some people are annoying, bad, disturbing, etc. What’s wrong with preferring some people over others?

Diversity as a political or social issue is mainly about … not preferring groups of people over other groups, or, not preferring one individual over another based on group membership What if the group is an immoral group, like the KKK, Nazis, or Unitarians? Society is to varying degrees forgiving of personal preferences when they are grounded in moral preferences

It is not always easy to tell whether you are morally obliged (this is the Ethics section, not Law) to respect a group whose characteristics or behavior you find offensive Are folks morally wrong for heckling … milk drinkers? Wiccans (Witches)? Satanists? ‘Gangsta’ rappers? those who wear fur? meatitarians (omnivores)? pet owners? SUV drivers?

So, what does it mean to respect diversity? In obvious cases, such as  age,  sex,  race it is relatively easy to see evaluation of persons based on those characteristics as bad Recall Martin Luther King’s injunction to judge people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin

But clearly  affirming diversity or  welcoming multiculturalism is not that simple The book treats the term diversity as  good in all cases  a matter of rejecting prejudice  Kum Ba Yah (read Diversity and Values, p203) That seems very political, rather than thoughtful, academic, or honest

If diversity includes groups whose practices are plainly immoral on your worldview, what counts as respecting diversity for you? Have you rejected multiculturalism if you  reject conservative versions of Islam that endorse killing of homosexuals?  reject the treatment of women among some Mormon groups?  reject the actions of Baptists who torment women seeking abortions?

You can seemingly reduce concerns about being on the wrong side of an –ism term by simply basing your judgments about persons based on their individual traits If prejudice is a key concept in diversity issues, then simply waiting to know an individual’s stance on individual moral matters is a good guide