Not all of a group committed the act, therefore the group as a whole is not a problem, just the uncharacteristic minority.
The group does not represent the act, only because not all members are predicated by the act, so the concern is a generalisation and therefore incorrect.
This is a common counter-argument in debate against those who identify a theme or pattern amongst a group. The counter-argument is to point out the minorism or generalisation and that these are invalid as they argue from particular to universal.
The point of the counter-arguer is to negate the need to discuss an issue, because it seeks to convert a minority to a generality or a wholistic statement.
The logical format of the argument for Minorism - Some is Important - can be stated as, some X does/predicates Y, therefore Y is a predicate of X whether minor or not.
The complaint by anti-minoritists and anti-generalists is their demand for something to be a true predicate, then All members need to have the predicate proposed, not just some or even many, or most as in the generlisation. If All do not have the predicate then the proposal is wrong.
So, someone notices how MOST terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims and argues therefore that there is a problem in Islam to discuss. But before we can proceed, the counter argument is made, "Not all Muslims commit terrorist attacks, therefore there is no problem in Islam. And by the way, you're being racist in even suggesting it.
Many arguments fail to proceed due to this premature cut-off at the minorism or even the generalisation. So that's a problem in need of solution. It's a problem, because the issue isn't discussed beyond the first statement.
We get it.
Not all X do Y. But that's why it's called a "generalisation" or "minorism". Conversely, some argue that if so many of X do Y, there is clearly a problem within X.
Why is it so bad, so wrong, to argue that because most or not all X does Y, we have something significant to discuss and resolve?
Not ALL catholic clergy are pedophiles, but that hasn't stopped a Royal Commission into the Catholic Church and similar formal inquiries across thre globe.
The generalisation was made that so many in the Catholic clergy commit, support and protect paedophile crimes a theme is apparent that demonstrates a causal relation between the church and the crime. This relation has found to be the vulnerability of children in adult care, combined with a sexual desire pervasive among clergy, combined with the power of the church to cover these acts up.
It should not matter that out of 1000 people, 1 person is Y. The minority behaviour or condition is important and should not be ignored because a majority are not Y.
We need to turn this knee-jerk reaction against generalisations around, this attitude that the minority or even majority of a thing does not matter.
Generalisations are made for a reason and are part of how we judge action, value, response. Generalisations help. They identify a trend, a weakness or strength, a tendancy, a strategic issue.
The majority matters.
The majority is how groups are elected, how consumer products are sold on the market and those in the minority are removed, how we decide on whether to visit a place based on reviews.
The majority is how groups decide on what action to take, what policy to hold. It is at the heart of democracy. The majority rules in most decision-making groups.
Not all ethnic groups share the same physical appearance (skin colour, eye shape etc) but we all generalise and use terms like White People, Asians, Blacks, Arabs based on the generalisation that most members of an ethnicity share physical appearance. We do this because it's helpful and it works.
So, why are we always defeated in argument simply because there is a minority that don't fit the proposal, the observation?
Why in important areas of life does the majority rule and become accepted, but in other areas the demand is for total inclusion, not just majority, before the argument can proceed.
If most people in group A behave with type X, we are told we cannot draw any conclusion, design actions, solutions, change or modify policies?
The Law, politics, voting systems disagree; all of these change and modify due to a majority, and do not remain unchanged because one issue falls outside the majority.
We are all treated by the Law, by Tax rules and regulations based on the conclusion by governments that the majority of people behave a certain way.
Not everyone drives, but most do, so we have roads and road rules.
Not everyone in the UK can read English, but most do, so school teachers, signs and forms use English.
Not everyone likes garlic bread at pizza restaurants, but guess what's on the menu?
Most people are not allergic to codeine, but guess what you're given for pain by medical staff (assuming they ask you about your allergies first).
Without generalisations, imagine how difficult your life would be.
You could not SAY certain things anymore:
Politicians lie.
Life is difficult.
Marriage is hard.
I like sausages.
Christians believe in forgiveness.
Melbourne is the best city to live in.
I'm a friendly person.
I'm good at my job.
So, you are reduced to mitigating the sentiment behind these kinds of generalisations:
Sometimes I love you.
Human beings sometimes have legs.
Some restaurants serve food.
Some cars have wheels.
How ridiculous and impractical.
Generalisations should be contrasted to vague statements, such as "We teach an open minded religious instruction in our school."
What the hell does that mean?
A generalisation is not vague, like this. A generalisation summarises a theme shared between multiple issues. It says, "I have noticed that this group shares this in common, not wholly, but in large numbers; large enough to establish a theme so that we can predict the character of other members of that group.
In general, male homosexuals use a lisp in their speech. This is a commonly observed characteristic particularly apparent in a large number of homosexual men, as opposed to the minority of this in non-homosexual males. Therefore, we have the generalisation that male homosexuals speak with a lisp.
When we hear a lisp we can predict a likelihood of homosexuality. This is empirically verifiable.
Generalisations are what most of our positions on the world are to us.
Get over it!
Minorities mean something too.
Peadophiles are a minority, but we treat it with serious action. We don't wait for all humans to become paedophiles before we act against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment