Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
New race quotas for SA rugby
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="j&#039;nuh" data-source="post: 586734" data-attributes="member: 55446"><p>You're making the argument to be more simple than it actually is. What perspective do you want to look at it from? Objectivism? Collectivism? It's a classic, deep-rooted philosophical issue here. In this case, what matters more, the rights of the group or the rights of the individual?</p><p></p><p>Generally, I'm not convinced by either in its entirety. To ignore the rights of the individual to an extreme, and you end up with a 1984-like nanny state, and the issues are obvious. But I think that modern culture has gone too far in the other direction: in some cases it would be wrong to uphold the right of the individual over the right of the group. eg, I don't think it's morally acceptable that people earn their market worth, rather than their actual contribution to society. The disparity in wages between Premiership football players and teachers, for example, is criminal. The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong. I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold? Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy.</p><p></p><p>To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role <em>into</em> the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.</p><p></p><p>Overall, it's a difficult issue, but I do think that it's probably a decent policy in the long-term.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="j'nuh, post: 586734, member: 55446"] You're making the argument to be more simple than it actually is. What perspective do you want to look at it from? Objectivism? Collectivism? It's a classic, deep-rooted philosophical issue here. In this case, what matters more, the rights of the group or the rights of the individual? Generally, I'm not convinced by either in its entirety. To ignore the rights of the individual to an extreme, and you end up with a 1984-like nanny state, and the issues are obvious. But I think that modern culture has gone too far in the other direction: in some cases it would be wrong to uphold the right of the individual over the right of the group. eg, I don't think it's morally acceptable that people earn their market worth, rather than their actual contribution to society. The disparity in wages between Premiership football players and teachers, for example, is criminal. The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong. I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold? Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy. To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role [I]into[/I] the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance. Overall, it's a difficult issue, but I do think that it's probably a decent policy in the long-term. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
New race quotas for SA rugby
Top