“Difference with equality” is a concept that I do not think fully exists in the way that it is isolated within this context. This is because the idea of equality includes having the same status, rights, and opportunities whereas the complete definition of the difference is that of having variations of these same aspects. However, the root of the post is to look at whether the knowledge of effects delegitimizes the moral force of different questions. While there is a difference between the statements of opinion and those more empirically based. However, reverting to the “inspiration” behind this question and the two examples of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers, I agree with the points made in that post, stating the difference is on whether individuals are harmed as a result of ignorance.
Within Todorov’s three axes, epistemic, axiological, and praxeological, I feel that them being seen as equivalent is not the way realistic to how they realistically progress. Looking at them about knowledge, the lowest and simplest form of interaction between “others” would be the lack of knowledge and therefore epistemic. The next level would be labeling this ignorance and unawareness through axiological forms. The hierarchy ends with a more direct exchange between the two groups, in search of knowledge or with an awareness of individual bias, ignorance, or naivety through the praxeological axis.
In general, I believe that the world is seeing a trend of praxeological mindsets where knowledge of effects is promoted, while it is still accepted for a party to not be as factual if they are aware of their perspective being dictated solely by values. With this, we should be looking to continue furthering research for the areas of ignorance that inflict harm on others. However, there will always be different perspectives that see issues as being both empirical or inaccurate based on factors of upbringing and beliefs. Moreover, the debates of religion and opinions of many social issues cannot be completely refuted, and should not be delegitimized because there is personal evidence that factualizes these beliefs. Conversely, beliefs that cause harm or damage to individuals or have more negative effects than not, should be better supported with morals as well as factual events.
I still think there are many layers to this question that can be further answered with more exploration on both the axes as well as how they can be applied to the concept of “difference with equality” and other varied questions alike.
Dear Noël Sedona James,
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you included an example regarding the "flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers." I found that interesting because it is true that to others, they are seen as incorrect. However, since the flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers truly believe in their "facts," we as a society have to learn how to co-exist with them. You mentioned that "the world is seeing a trend of praxeological mindsets." I agree with this statement, however, could you also agree that with the growth of praxeological mindsets, there is also a decline in an epistemic mindset? For instance, if you analysis our country and it's society, is there not an increase in racism and hate? There are numerous communities among the country whom refuse to integrate and learn new cultures/ideologies other than theirs. What can we, college students, do to help implement the concept of "difference with equality"?
-avq
In terms of your initial comments on the definitions of equality and difference, I have a question to pose: Does this mean that everything has a relative value to everything else? If so, does that mean that for every object, idea, thing, concept, person, group, etc, there's a set place in a larger hierarchy for it? I know this is slightly out of context to the ideas of culture and societal acceptance of various groups, but it really made me think about the inherent value of everything around us. This ties to constructivist ideas somewhat, too, I think because not everything *has* an inherent value attached to it, which creates an even more complicated question. Anyway, your suggestion about further research to prevent ignorant acts of harm is a great point and I would support that as well. Its true that there are multiple layers to the ideas of an inevitable hierarchy, and its hard to say whether or not we will ever be able to perfectly assess how to live in harmony without the power-atrocity complex.
ReplyDelete