In this sense, I think that focusing on the debates and how they were formulated is a red herring. It's how the white people wanted to look at themselves. But I think it's important to not fall for that, because that way of looking was (and still is to a large degree) thoroughly racist.
I agree with all that, but I think there is a distinction that can and IMHO should be made between what is the philosophically and morally justifiable position - which IMHO you presented very well - and what is the practical process through which the society's circle of empathy and rights expands.
So far, the circle of empathy has expanded as sufficient numbers of those who have power have accepted more beings into the ranks of those who aren't just means to someone else's ends.
I certainly don't mean to imply that is how things ought to be - just how they have been, and likely will be.
But then the question is, why talk about the expansion of the circle of empathy? Shouldn't the discussion be formed around stopping repression of the moral relationship that is already there?
That is a very good point and a great question. I have to think about it. I just used the term circle of empathy because I've thought it was a neat descriptive title for a progress that IMO has been quite real.
Perhaps I have to reframe other ideas too in a similar manner. Thank you!
Comments
I certainly don't mean to imply that is how things ought to be - just how they have been, and likely will be.
Perhaps I have to reframe other ideas too in a similar manner. Thank you!