*".....The focus of DEI gradually seemed less about opposing stereotyping and reducing the importance of race and gender in who gets ahead and more about introducing new stereotypes, and increasing the importance of race and gender in who gets ahead. ....."*
That is such a good way of putting it. I was trying to summarise the same thing last year and didn't do nearly such a good job!
“…impact matters more than intent”. This observation you made about the wrongheadedness of some of our culture’s approaches to correct perceived wrongs reminds me of a spiritual teaching I heard which is that “wrong means never lead to right ends”. In that sense, it puts paid to the notion that the means justify the end, reminding us that such concepts as trying to achieve peace through war, or angry protests against things we don’t want to continue instead simply hold those things firmly in place. The means are not just everything, they are the only thing.
I think there are a couple of different threads here that are important. One is pragmatic: if you care about ends, but you haven't thought through realistically how the means will or won't get you to the ends, then your theory of change is bad. That's the story of defund the police and education failures harming disadvantaged communities in blue cities. The second thread is moral: I believe (and our legal system agrees) that intent *does matter*. For example, attempted murder is a crime even if no one is hurt. Accidental manslaughter is a much less serious crime than intentional murder even though the impact is the same. So, even though the "impact matters more than intent" crowd are hypocrites, as I point out in the essay, they're also wrong on the moral principle. The third thread, which I think lies at the heart of your comment, is both moral and pragmatic: it is very unlikely that a set of means that violate deep moral principles will end up achieving an end that does not (as a matter of fact), and it's also very unlikely that choosing it would be a sound moral choice, even if the ends worked out the way you wanted (as a matter of ethics). There are some edge cases where this second point is contested (e.g. was dropping the A-bomb on Japan ok if it saved many more lives by shortening the war?), but in most cases it's hard to justify. Thanks for the comment!
*".....The focus of DEI gradually seemed less about opposing stereotyping and reducing the importance of race and gender in who gets ahead and more about introducing new stereotypes, and increasing the importance of race and gender in who gets ahead. ....."*
That is such a good way of putting it. I was trying to summarise the same thing last year and didn't do nearly such a good job!
“…impact matters more than intent”. This observation you made about the wrongheadedness of some of our culture’s approaches to correct perceived wrongs reminds me of a spiritual teaching I heard which is that “wrong means never lead to right ends”. In that sense, it puts paid to the notion that the means justify the end, reminding us that such concepts as trying to achieve peace through war, or angry protests against things we don’t want to continue instead simply hold those things firmly in place. The means are not just everything, they are the only thing.
I think there are a couple of different threads here that are important. One is pragmatic: if you care about ends, but you haven't thought through realistically how the means will or won't get you to the ends, then your theory of change is bad. That's the story of defund the police and education failures harming disadvantaged communities in blue cities. The second thread is moral: I believe (and our legal system agrees) that intent *does matter*. For example, attempted murder is a crime even if no one is hurt. Accidental manslaughter is a much less serious crime than intentional murder even though the impact is the same. So, even though the "impact matters more than intent" crowd are hypocrites, as I point out in the essay, they're also wrong on the moral principle. The third thread, which I think lies at the heart of your comment, is both moral and pragmatic: it is very unlikely that a set of means that violate deep moral principles will end up achieving an end that does not (as a matter of fact), and it's also very unlikely that choosing it would be a sound moral choice, even if the ends worked out the way you wanted (as a matter of ethics). There are some edge cases where this second point is contested (e.g. was dropping the A-bomb on Japan ok if it saved many more lives by shortening the war?), but in most cases it's hard to justify. Thanks for the comment!
🙏💫💚