"Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ..."
I just realised I didn't actually answer this question. I'll start by saying that I don't think a generalised rule is necessary. Justification for exclusion will always require grey areas and careful, ca…
"Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ..."
I just realised I didn't actually answer this question. I'll start by saying that I don't think a generalised rule is necessary. Justification for exclusion will always require grey areas and careful, case-by-case thinking. But generally speaking, my answer would be:
WHEN one sub-population, by nature, poses a measurable threat to the safety of the other sub-population. Especially when the exclusion doesn't in any way harm the first sub-population.
The "by nature" clause is important because as we discussed above, if you've mistreated a population for years, and they bear some malice towards you because of that, it's not their fault. That's not by nature, It's because of your cruelty. There are measurable, natural differences between males and females. Still waiting for any corollary between black people and white people.
As I mentioned in the other reply, given the aforementioned cruelty, racial segregation would probably have been absolutely fine with most black people. The only reason it wasn't, is because it actively harmed black people (failing the second clause of my "rule"). Both in the inferior standard of facilities available to them, and the massive head starts white people had in society with regards to education, land, infrastructure, wealth, and opportunity.
Level out those playing fields and I think plenty of black people would have argued for racial segregation just as strongly as any KKK member. Mainly because of the threat white people posed to *black* people's safety.
"Humanity is justified in excluding one sub-population from a community managed resource for benefit of another sub-population WHEN ..."
I just realised I didn't actually answer this question. I'll start by saying that I don't think a generalised rule is necessary. Justification for exclusion will always require grey areas and careful, case-by-case thinking. But generally speaking, my answer would be:
WHEN one sub-population, by nature, poses a measurable threat to the safety of the other sub-population. Especially when the exclusion doesn't in any way harm the first sub-population.
The "by nature" clause is important because as we discussed above, if you've mistreated a population for years, and they bear some malice towards you because of that, it's not their fault. That's not by nature, It's because of your cruelty. There are measurable, natural differences between males and females. Still waiting for any corollary between black people and white people.
As I mentioned in the other reply, given the aforementioned cruelty, racial segregation would probably have been absolutely fine with most black people. The only reason it wasn't, is because it actively harmed black people (failing the second clause of my "rule"). Both in the inferior standard of facilities available to them, and the massive head starts white people had in society with regards to education, land, infrastructure, wealth, and opportunity.
Level out those playing fields and I think plenty of black people would have argued for racial segregation just as strongly as any KKK member. Mainly because of the threat white people posed to *black* people's safety.