Sometimes the consequences of acting with good motives are not what we aimed at. If you want war, work for justice If you and I disagree because I want an outcome more favorable to me and you want an outcome more favorable to you there is room for compromise, as we see whenever people bargain over the price of a house. But if we disagree because I see what I want as just and the alternative as unjust and you see it the other way around, compromise looks to both of us like moral treason.
Regarding choosing a school. If Caplan's theory of education is correct, then students may be actually rational in choosing the best school they can get into.
What they lose by getting a less suitable education might very well be more than offseted by the more valuable signal to potential employers of a more prestigious school.
The argument about Jewish people seems wrong to me. There are many (millions?) of Americans for whom Judaism is an important part of their identity. Perhaps more than the total number of Jews in the world before the emancipation.
The Jewish communities are also quite diverse, from different Hasidic sects, to various reform congregations.
So it seems tolerance led to more diversity not less, at least in this case.
The influence between justice and custom can work both ways. Sometimes a change in moral attitudes will bring new customs into being. Other times, a purely practical social arrangement will get moralized by the participants. Why is it so hard to find an equilibrium?
One hand-wavey start at an explanation is to say that new circumstances put new stresses on old ways. Psychologically, it is hard not to think of moral standards as being static. What is wrong for us will always be wrong, and has always been wrong. But if we accept that, we have to accept that people in the past made huge mistakes. Are we really past the point where such mistakes are possible? Or are we just biased?
Before WW II there were no Jews in Europe. There were French Jews, German Jews, Italian Jews, Austrian Jews, British Jews, etc. After WW II (and the Holocaust) there were just Jews.
In the section about Romani, do you want "gadjo" rather than "gaijin" as the term for non-Romani?
Regarding choosing a school. If Caplan's theory of education is correct, then students may be actually rational in choosing the best school they can get into.
What they lose by getting a less suitable education might very well be more than offseted by the more valuable signal to potential employers of a more prestigious school.
The argument about Jewish people seems wrong to me. There are many (millions?) of Americans for whom Judaism is an important part of their identity. Perhaps more than the total number of Jews in the world before the emancipation.
The Jewish communities are also quite diverse, from different Hasidic sects, to various reform congregations.
So it seems tolerance led to more diversity not less, at least in this case.
The influence between justice and custom can work both ways. Sometimes a change in moral attitudes will bring new customs into being. Other times, a purely practical social arrangement will get moralized by the participants. Why is it so hard to find an equilibrium?
One hand-wavey start at an explanation is to say that new circumstances put new stresses on old ways. Psychologically, it is hard not to think of moral standards as being static. What is wrong for us will always be wrong, and has always been wrong. But if we accept that, we have to accept that people in the past made huge mistakes. Are we really past the point where such mistakes are possible? Or are we just biased?
Before WW II there were no Jews in Europe. There were French Jews, German Jews, Italian Jews, Austrian Jews, British Jews, etc. After WW II (and the Holocaust) there were just Jews.
>More than thirty years ago, in his very interesting Choosing a College: A Guide for Parents and Students
I think Sowell makes the same point in his more recent book: Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (2005).