World gone mad: People angry about "innocent until proven gulty"

[palou]

contestgamer said:

palou said:

That's a fairly arbitrary evaluation, don't you think? When do you think that we've achieved a fair playing field? Context can create inequity without there being any judicial inequality.

By any metric, equality should NEVER be a goal in itself. We must strive for collective improvemnt. It is of course logical to help the least fortunate, seeing as that is where the most progress can be made. However, permitting injustice against individuals for the sole sake of satisfying egalitarian quotias between social groups is purely absurd, and morally corrupt.

Basing justice on the treatment of *groups* of people is ALWAYS a mistake. Every person has the right to be treated as an individual on none other than his own merits. What you are suggesting is creating *further* injustice against individuals to compensate inustice within groups, something that CANNOT be accepted, in any circumsatnce.

 

For some reason you're assuming that individualism is somehow inherently superior to collectivism, which it isn't. Individualism is a modern western value that we're slowly moving way from thanks to the left.  Try to examine and remove that assumption and then reread your comment to me, because the whole thing hinges on that perspective.

I'm 100% in the support of the observation of collectivity, as a metric - I am fundementally utilitarian. A utilitarian associates no fundemental rights, but simply equivalent value to all individuals, and seeks improvment in the form of average quality of life. A collectivity has value, but the value is simply sum of it's parts, the base unit being the individual. Any moral calculations must take in account all equally, regardless. Drawing arbitrary lines between individuals simply creates inefficiency.

 

It's fully absurd to attribute rights to a concept. A conscience has rights, not a race, not a sex, not a political division.