At the core of our worldview is the greatest thing we seek: being treated equally, so
that there is no one above another for favorable outcomes, or is that now an
anathema due to identity politics? If we prioritize identity over equal outcomes due to
to equal treatment, then we have built favoritism and inequality into our systems
by our show of favoritism.
If we suspend equal treatment under the law, then we have some who can break
it and get a pass, while those who cannot are held accountable. Our constraints of
law is either applied equally or are biased, protecting some over others. It may
even start to look like the guilty are protected over the victims.
If we give preferential treatment to some, we penalize others for the benefit of
those favored. If we include identity politics, we create multiple layers of unequal
treatment compared to equal treatment for all.
Constraints on human behavior are at the heart of this, our notions of fair play in
how we define fair play. Our constraints define who we are and how we view the
world, a nation is defined by its borders; remove those, and you lose the nation. A
nation is also defined by its constraints of it's own laws, ignore those, you lose the
nation it then becomes anarchy, where everyone does what is right in their own
eyes, making the country completely unsafe as all restraints have been done away
with.
Part of my devotions today:
From ESV Proverbs 20
Do not say, “I will repay evil”; wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you. Unequal weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good. A man's steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way? It is a snare to say rashly, “It is holy,” and to reflect only after making vows.
Our technological state is allowing, thru literally permeating walls in some cases, an hubris of universality. Drones are capable of flyby hacks on unsecured networks. Inordinate manner of online vices and passions emanate, as well as good information and helpful connections, across the world. How long until the boundaries become indeterminate? Well, unless internet bans are used, setting copilots and security are critical.
The question of why, seen from the problem of pain, as it never resolves here, must realize the calling on a path whether you suffer and it may lead to redemption, or whether you may suffer and it leads to redemption. I suppose certain inequalities deserve unequal attention. Therefore, jails or prisons aren't just corrective facilities, but exist specifically for their poor treatment and giving deterrence, conducive to that end.
Samaritans are known to care for the underdogs: foster care, adoption support, orphanages, disabled family members, infant/pregnancy centers, the unborn, and all those who are marginalized. That in evidence shows favoritism to the underprivileged, because these are relatively innocent. The localized care they need may be more readily supplied to them than the incarcerated, who they visit at a distance.
Utilitarianism has an erratic tradition in Western ethics. Based on utilitarian principles and a flawed understanding of universalism, some are proposing a kind of radical altruism. It may be in part a worthy strain of thought, like how some are called to be missionaries. This must be discerned interiorly, though. Jesus never coerced into giving. Some who aspire to so high a sophistication, or claim such ideal status, are often setting up unrealistic goals.
The pope said we can and should see each person we meet as a neighbor, as Christ would make to himself. One has a responsibility foremost to one's family and country members. A community does transcend those institutions, so one could have a larger group beyond that, i.e., church congregations. The Christian is called to care for others where they are situated at. Working toward the golden mean within systems entails climbing out of your hole and helping others digging out.
Sources of mention: article of R. Neuhaus debating P. Singer, web.archive.org