Philosophical Vegan Forum

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:00 am Do Buddhists try to do anything for the common good?

I am only slightly familiar with Buddhism, so don't take my response as definitive

Buddhism seems to focus on each individual striving to make themselves the "best" individual they can be.

The "common good" is a collection of individuals.

If a belief system suggest that each individual should strive to be the "best" they can be, then that system would ideally consist of many individuals working toward a greater goal.

Any system that strives to achieve a "common good" is going to be comprised of individuals. If you only focus on the outcome (the greater good), it is very easy to miss the most important elements necessary to achieve the greater good; the individuals.

Consider how many regimes that espoused equality for the common good ended up starving the lowliest of the masses. (unintentionally or otherwise)

Sometimes it is intellectually easy to conclude that sacrificing a few is beneficial to benefit the many. Unless you (or someone you care about) are required to sacrifice themselves for the "greater good".

Dietarilly, reduction of harm is easy to justify.

If it would benefit the "common good", how many people would you be willing to personally kill, to support a greater number of people?

(This is not a question I'm actually trying to get an answer to, just a query designed to get you to think about your OP.. )

Hey guys, the other day my English teacher said that genders are just a social construct used to oppress women, is that true (unless I misunderstood what she said)?

@Red
The concept of gender as distinct from sex is a social construct that describes the roles associated with a sex, where sex is the anatomical male / female / other distinction. This is a relatively new (and forced) definition, so it is still common to describe sex and gender as the same anatomical property.

As to it oppressing women, your teacher would have to be more concise about what he means: is he speaking about the first world? If so, how does he explain the many traditionally masculine traits that modern women have adopted and how does he know others haven’t adopted their feminine gender roles consensually? And how are these roles “oppressing” them?

Is it possible that she meant gender roles, not gender itself?

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:08 pm Is it possible that she meant gender roles, not gender itself?

I think a gender is defined by its gender roles.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:28 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sun May 27, 2018 6:08 pm Is it possible that she meant gender roles, not gender itself?

I think a gender is defined by its gender roles.

In my opinion, gender roles are an aspect of gender, not gender itself. However, given that gender itself is a debated term, it's impossible to know what she meant when she said gender.

Well, I'll ask her tomorrow for clarifications so we don't get tangled in a debate that confuses the subject matter.

@Red Cult of Dusty did a good video on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTVjY-VUERA

Jonathon Sharkey for president 2020

Rest in Peace John McCain, one of the few Republicans I actually liked.