----------------------------------------------------------------
TRINPsite, 51.13.1 - 54.10.5 MNI/BoI/5/4/2Txt.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------
5.4.2 *FAKE FOCUSES OF RELEVANCY*
A distinction is only relevant if the focus to which it
is thought to be relevant is a genuine determinant, that is, a
determinant which does not itself depend on one or more non-
relevant differences made. If we allowed for fake focuses
every distinction would be 'relevant' because people could
choose a discriminatory attitude or practise itself as a focus
then. Thus every distinction of ethnicity would be 'relevant' if
the promotion of ethnocentrism itself could be chosen, and were
accepted, as the focal determinant to establish the 'relevance'
of the distinction. If ethnocentrism is defined as the
attitude or practise of making irrelevant distinctions on the
basis of the ethnic group to which somebody belongs, the
underlying 'reasoning' could even logically be rejected as
circular.
But assume, someone gives another definition of ethnocen-
trism or formulates `er goal without making use of the notion
of relevancy or a term synonymous to (ir)relevant. For exam-
ple, `e says "my goal is promoting the happiness or well-being
of ethnic group A and/or the suffering of all other ethnic
groups". In a purely truth-conditional sense such 'reasoning' is
not circular now. In order to achieve `er aim, the distinction
to be made between ethnic group A and all other ethnic groups in
the specific situation concerned is 'relevant'. Tho not so
obvious as before, the 'reasoning' behind this attitude is still
unfounded because the distinction made under the specific cir-
cumstances is the same as the one made in the formulation of the
goal itself, and therefore stands or falls with the relevancy of
the distinction made_within_the goal. (Note that this conclusion
cannot be drawn if the person`s goal had been everybody ought
to promote the happiness of `er own group.) An ethnic group in
itself is not a goal, and must be distinguished on the basis of
some factor, but if that factor is happiness, or suffering
for that matter, as mentioned in the formulation of the goal, it
is not relevant to distinguish on the basis of ethnicity ( or
race or species ) between sentient beings in that the happiness
(or suffering) of the one should be promoted and not that of the
other. (However, questions of intensity, amplitude and life
plans may play a role in assessing the implications of this
standpoint, but irrespective of ethnicity.) If there is no other
factor on the basis of which the distinction between ethnic
group A and all other groups is relevant, the so-called
'relevance' is unfounded as it is 'relevance' with respect to a
goal in which an irrelevant distinction has already been drawn.
Such a goal is a fake focus of relevancy.
The nonrelevant distinction made on the basis of the same
factor which is said to be relevant in respect of a certain
focal determinant may also be made in the phrasing of the goal.
Thus when someone claims that `e is 'justified in refusing to
employ a male au pair girl or a female foreman' needing a good
au pair girl or foreman is `er (fake) focus and sex `er
factor. However, the sexual distinction has already been drawn
underhandedly in the focus itself which should have been
needing a good au pair (person) or foreperson in the first
place. Those who take this kind of 'reasoning' seriously must be
extremely antiegalitarian.
Not seldom is the fallacy involved simply a case of 'factor
fuzzing'. For example, when helping students and senior citizens
(say, by charging them less for a service) is given as focus and
poverty as factor. In the focal determinant the distinction is
made then on the basis of age and studentship, presumably
because the people mentioned are believed to have no work and no
earnings. But this distinction is not relevant if poverty were
really the reason to help people, because then the focus should
be helping poor people. Some students, and probably a greater
number of people over 55 or 65, may have moderate to high
incomes or assets, and other poor people are neither students
nor senior citizens.
A focus of relevancy may also be _corrective_instead of genu-
ine or fake. What is often called "positive", "compensatory" or
"reverse discrimination" or "corrective justice" could be said
to amount to making a distinction which is relevant in respect
of a corrective focus. If the distinction is made on the basis
of F, the focus is, for example, the correction of damage
suffered by the person or group formerly or elsewhere discrimi-
nated against on the basis of F. Altho the distinction may not
be relevant in respect of the usual, undisputed focuses (such as
the quality of professional work to be done), it is relevant in
respect of the goal of correction. Hence, if there is dis-
agreement about the legitimacy of a corrective treatment, it may
not be about the relevancy of the distinction itself, but rather
about the legitimacy of the focal determinant(s) chosen or to be
chosen.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(C) MVVM in@xs4all.nl POB 11449, 1001 GK Amsterdam, Neth.
www.xs4all.nl/~in www.trinp.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
|