If we were to treat the notion of “colorblindness” as the animating principle of the Constitution, the law, and the very concepts of justice and quality, we would thereby concede the moral, ethical, and ideological debates to those who assert that our interpretation of the world must be based, one way or another, on race. Instead, we should regard liberty, not “colorblindness,” as our highest ideal.
You’re confusing the attributes of a person. I’m a high income, wealthy person with a high IQ and a ton of education. At the end of the day, I’m the same as the homeless guy down the street. We are both humans.
It’s why I never celebrate the death of another human like liberals do. we are all humans.
You’re confusing the attributes of a person. I’m a high income, wealthy person with a high IQ and a ton of education. At the end of the day, I’m the same as the homeless guy down the street. We are both humans.
Right, but so what? You’re both human. Great. It’s like the conservative argument is:
- We’re all equally human.
- Inequalities of attributes exists between humans.
- Therefore.
Therefore what? These two premises are contradictory and nothing can ever follow from them. That we’re all equally human doesn’t make it necessary to treat every human as equal before the law, and that we’re all unequal in our attributes doesn’t mean the law should provide preferential treatment either.
I mean, you said it yourself: you and a homeless person are both human, but he’s homeless and you’re wealthy and educated. Why is there a difference in income and wealth and education? Those are all social attributes, not innate human ones. Do you think what innate attributes you have justify the social inequalities?
I think the answer to that last question is what I’m missing.