In class on Wednesday, we discussed the way in which people often think in terms of circles; that is, they place, in limited ways, a higher priority on those closer to them, such as friends and family, than on those to whom they have few or no links. We spoke about the typical configuration of these circles - the smallest one being oneself and one's friends and/or family, the next one being one's acquaintances, the next being, perhaps, one's country, and so on. We further determined that this type of partiality, provided that it does not interfere with overarching ethical concerns, is not immoral.
In this post I wanted to mention that, while I think most people have a fairly uniform idea of how and where these circles are drawn (probably in a way similar to that described above), I think that alternative ways of drawing circles are equally ethical. For example, if a person wishes to give priority to another nation instead of their own, or to strangers over their family, I think that they have the right to do that. Others may think that they are rather strange, and possibly berate them for their priorities, but not justly. How and where to draw one's circles is a matter of individual choice.
I think this is a very interesting concept. People certainly berate others for they draw their circles.
ReplyDeleteThere is that strange fascination with referring to a group of friends as a family of choice. I imagine that so doing is partially the result of family members berating the young members of the family for caring more about their friends than they do family; it is possibly the result of our society slowly moving away from mechanical solidarity. Then there are, as you mentioned, those with more traditional views. There is nothing wrong with any of that.
I do rather want to meet someone whose circles place enemies before friends. It would make for quite an interesting person. Society would be perhaps more interesting if doing so was the norm.