Agreed, that is why I used it as an example of arbitrary classifications. When I applied to law firms they asked me to submit a list of grades. I was good at making exams so I became a legal theoretician at uni ;) Though being good at law exams says nothing about being successful at writing a PhD either... — Tobias

I started clerking at a law firm after my first year in law school. I enjoyed that far more than my time in the lecture halls. Oddly, my grades got better, but I think that's because the first year was devoted to the effort of trying to cram property, criminal, tort and other basic law into my bewildered mind. I remember one professor who taught labor law did so by reading to us a textbook he had authored. To be fair, things got better.

The arguments as to why this is a good thing are still lost on me. Far from being any concrete progression towards a better state of affairs for anyone besides Joe Biden's political career, every argument in favor of a race-based nomination to the supreme court seeks to satisfy problems that are purely symbolic in nature. Therefor, in utilitarian terms, every good thing that may come of it is unable to manifest beyond anyone's brain matter. In ethical terms, it is morally bankrupt.

“Representation”—a single judge, by virtue of her skin-color alone, will represent all who happen to fall within these racialist distinctions—fits perfectly well in the Western tradition of superficiality versus depth, but serves as little more than a fig leaf in practice. To put to the side for now the argument that these distinctions were created and enforced by the enemy in the first place, to further enforce them on the implication that someone can only represent another so long as her pigment is similar (and as a corollary, that one is unable to represent another if her pigment is different) is as sinister as it is false. It is not true, in any case, but is also bound to set up everyone who believes in it for failure and disappointment.

The notion that race-based nominations can be used to "redress past wrongs" is of the same symbolic character. It redresses nothing. It neither brings to justice those who perpetrate such wrongs or seeks retribution for those who were wronged by them. And because it utilizes exactly what was wrong about these past wrongs—the prohibition of other races in favor of one—it is itself a wrong.

The irony of entrenching vast swaths of individuals under the false taxonomies and superstitions of white supremacy shouldn't be lost on us, but this is where collectivism allied with racism necessarily leads, as it always has. For my own tastes, wherever it is unethical to lobby against someone on the grounds of race, it is unethical to lobby in favor of someone on the grounds of race, and for the same reason. It seems to me that violating this principle is the problem to begin with.

The arguments as to why this is a good thing are still lost on me. — NOS4A2

Imagine a society that is 99% white and 1% black, but which has an all-black Supreme Court. What would you infer about that society?

I could infer nothing from such facts. What would you infer?

You're not being honest.

But you never mentioned the motivations of those who appointed them nor any other circumstance. If you do not want to know what I would infer from such facts, how about you argue what I ought to infer.

wherever it is unethical to lobby against someone on the grounds of race, it is unethical to lobby in favor of someone on the grounds of race, and for the same reason. It seems to me that violating this principle is the problem to begin with. — NOS4A2

The primary fault with your reasoning here is that you speak as though 'race' exists in a vacuum. It is clear to everyone who takes this case seriously that race represents more than mere skin pigmentation. Generally speaking, it represents a marginalized segment of society. So you seem to be saying that you feel it is unethical to lobby for or against those in a disadvantaged position.

I also feel it is unethical to take advantage of those with a disadvantage, but I don't see how it's unethical to give advantage to those with a disadvantage. I can only assume that you do not value the principle of fairness, even though you fully understand the concept.

I also feel it is unethical to take advantage of those with a disadvantage, but I don't see how it's unethical to give advantage to those with a disadvantage. — praxis

:up:

I speak of race as pseudoscience and superstition. The history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented. The assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle are the direct result of the same thinking, and immediately falsified upon evidence to the contrary.

It cannot be confirmed from the mere sight of someone that he is disadvantaged or advantaged by virtue of these taxonomies. Your guesswork, premised on pseudoscience and superstition, sets you right on track to make the very unethical activities you claim to oppose.

The history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented. The assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle are the direct result of the same thinking, and immediately falsified upon evidence to the contrary. — NOS4A2

These two sentences seem to contradict each other. Can you rephrase?

The superstition as it has been used leads one to false conclusions and unjust actions, such as the assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle.

The superstition as it has been used leads one to false conclusions and unjust actions, ... — NOS4A2

Yes, as you say, "I speak of race as pseudoscience and superstition. The history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented."

... such as the assumption that any member of such taxonomies are either victim or perpetrator in some all-purveying race struggle. — NOS4A2

This appears to contradict your statement that the history of how this superstition was used to malign, exclude, and murder human beings is well documented. Murder, for instance, requires a perpetrator and a victim. Are you saying that your own belief in history causes you to have false conclusions and unjust actions?

I don't understand the contention. A murderer has killed someone. How can others of the same taxonomy be perpetrators of murder if they did not kill anyone? A victim of murder is deceased. How can others of the same taxonomy be victims of murder if they are still alive? To confer guilt or victimhood to others beyond perpetrator and victim is a false conclusion and leads to unjust actions, in any case, but to confer them to one race or another is an absurdity.

A murderer has killed someone. How can others of the same taxonomy be perpetrators of murder if they did not kill anyone? A victim of murder is deceased. How can others of the same taxonomy be victims of murder if they are still alive? To confer guilt or victimhood to others beyond perpetrator and victim is a false conclusion and leads to unjust actions, in any case, but to confer them to one race or another is an absurdity. — NOS4A2

In a nutshell, the word you used to describe this is superstition. False beliefs and biases that are advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others.

Do you want to claim that superstitions don't exist? Go ahead, I won't object.

None of this distracts from the principle of fairness though. I know that you know what fairness is. I know that you have a sense of fairness. You seem to have the superstition that you don't value fairness.

You’ve lost me.

I’ve misinterpreted what you mean by superstition? What exactly do you mean with that term in this context if not false beliefs and biases?

No, that’s fair. I don’t understand what you mean when you say I have a superstition that I don’t value fairness.

Do you believe that the false beliefs and biases that we’re talking about are advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others?

Well, yes.

Then wouldn’t it be fair to try rectifying the situation?

It would be fair.

Assuming there's a 'superstition' that black women are low status and being low status in America is disadvantageous, lobbying in favor of someone on the basis of gender/race could be seen as moral, specifically in the moral sense of fairness.

Keep in mind that this would be an effort to counteract superstition (and its associated disadvantages) and if there's a superstition that women of color are low status, this false belief would be counteracted by them occupying high-status positions in society, such as a Supreme Court justice.

If Biden’s pick is given advantage by eliminating an entire gender and other races from the process, it doesn’t follow that members of the another gender and other races should be given the same advantage.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Biden's picks will be strategically planned to primarily benefit his political career. I hope he nominates a black woman for the reasons that I've mentioned.

Sorry for the late reply, I got Covid.

:point: Are you for more power-sharing or less? — 180 Proof

It depends on how the power is obtained. The ends don’t justify the means.

No it is not. Say you are robbed of your money by a gang of thieves. That is harmful. Every year that same sum of money is being taxed by the state. You are losing the same amount of money. Equally harmful? Of course not. So motives matter. — Tobias

The difference in harm in this case is due to whatever trauma was inflicted by being robbed. So the examples aren’t comparable, imo. Maybe say a hacker takes money from your account and makes it seem like it’s legitimate taxation. In this case the harm is equal, because it’s the same amount of money you’re missing, right?

But there is no reason for it to go on idenfinately — Tobias

If the act were “good” then no harm would come from doing it indefinitely.

But on other criteria it is somehow miraculously fine? — Tobias

Yeah, criteria that actually makes a difference like education, skill level, competence, etc.

Who is more severely harmed by the apparently 'equal' traffic fines? — Tobias

Yeah, that’s a good point. At the moment I don’t have any reason to not go along with setting fines to a certain percentage of people’s wages. I’m not sure what this equates to in this context, but I’d also be fine with guaranteeing minorities/underprivileged consideration for positions. Maybe the president selects a handful of candidates that are diverse and then the senate narrows it down from there?

Because they are a marginalized group, others aren't, see above. — Tobias

Being discriminated against doesn’t only harm you if you’re part of a marginalized group.

I also feel it is unethical to take advantage of those with a disadvantage, but I don't see how it's unethical to give advantage to those with a disadvantage. — praxis

I don’t see how it’s ethical to give an advantage to someone because of their race. Isn’t that how races became disadvantaged in the first place? White people were given advantages because they were white.

It depends on how the power is obtained. The ends don’t justify the means. — Pinprick

In this case, power-sharing is being granted constitutionally. No one has invoked "ends that justify unlawful means" (i.e. "means" which undermine – delegitimize – "ends"). Maybe I miss your meaning, 'prick; if not, however, then your comment is merely another non sequitur.

Sorry for the late reply, I got Covid.

I've had it too. Quick recovery; be well.

White people were given advantages because they were white. — Pinprick

I'm pretty sure they took advantage. It's not morally good to take advantage, is it?

First of all, get well soon Pinprick.

The difference in harm in this case is due to whatever trauma was inflicted by being robbed. So the examples aren’t comparable, imo. Maybe say a hacker takes money from your account and makes it seem like it’s legitimate taxation. In this case the harm is equal, because it’s the same amount of money you’re missing, right? — Pinprick

No. The difference is in the legitimacy. The hacker steals your money and robs you.. The tax authorities tax the same amount of money as ordained by the government. The first is illegitimate, the second is because the authorities use it to fund projects for the common good and not to enricht themselves. (Of course if they do the harm is equal, but that only proves my point). What matters is the motive. It is a rebuttal of your "huh, every kind of discrimination is equal!" line. Only the most ardent anarcho capitalists and you apparently do not see the difference.

If the act were “good” then no harm would come from doing it indefinitely. — Pinprick

Hmm, do you take antibiotics when you are ill? And if you do, do you take them indefinitely? You might say 'ahh but antibiotics is not a good thing, but a necessary evil'. I would agree with you. Preferential treatment is not a good thing. but a necessary evil perhaps.

Yeah, criteria that actually makes a difference like education, skill level, competence, etc. — Pinprick

Why would that one 'actually make a difference' and the other one would not? It is all a matter of the goals you wish to attain. 'competence' may well be perspectival, bringing a dfferent perspective to the table may make the institution as a hole more competent.

Maybe the president selects a handful of candidates that are diverse and then the senate narrows it down from there? — Pinprick

Might be already how it informally takes place. I do not know how political appointment of judges actually works. We do not have it here. There might well be such procedures because the POTUS will only select a candidate acceptable to the senate majority.

Being discriminated against doesn’t only harm you if you’re part of a marginalized group. — Pinprick

It harms you more because you already have less options to begin with. That is what being marginalized means. See the point about traffic fines above.

I don’t see how it’s ethical to give an advantage to someone because of their race. Isn’t that how races became disadvantaged in the first place? White people were given advantages because they were white. — Pinprick

No. Races became disadvantaged because some people thought they were superior to others and thought up this whole classification of peoples they subjugated, based on things like skin color, facial and bodily features etc. They did not become disadvantaged because of preferential treatment policies aimed at giving everyone an equal starting position, quite the opposite actually.

Maybe I miss your meaning, 'prick; if not, however, then your comment is merely another non sequitur. — 180 Proof

I just mean power-sharing doesn’t justify racial discrimination.

Quick recovery; be well. — 180 Proof

Thank you.

I'm pretty sure they took advantage. — praxis

Same difference. White people in power gave other white people advantages due to their race.

It's not morally good to take advantage, is it? — praxis

No.