> Human rights are fundamentally important. Treating other people well is the right thing to do. All of this is of paramount priority, whatever you do. If you don't agree with this, I have no hope for you.
He actually says that treating people well is morally right thing to do and the highest priority. That’s different from human rights which is the minimum that people should be treated. So I don’t think the “if you don’t agree” relates to the idea of human rights but rather that you should treat everyone as best as you can and consider that your highest priority. And if you disagree then he has no hope for you.
And this is the point. What if you believe that you should treat people “okay” not as best as you can, or not as your highest priority? What if you instead believe that you should give people freedom to do what they want no matter what the outcome is and not interfere in one way or another? Basically don’t treat anyone anyway and leave them alone?
That would produce unfettered success but also unfettered failure. What if you’re okay with some people utterly failing as long as some people have unparalleled success?
What if you’re okay with the idea of treating those who work hard very well, but ignore and don’t help anyone who is lazy or doesn’t work hard? Does that go counter to his idea that people should be treated well?
I don’t subscribe to these arguments but my point is that just because they don’t think treating everyone equally doesn’t mean that they are evil, they just have different priorities. A ceo like Steve Jobs would fire unproductive employees and reward productive employees, does that run counter to his argument of treating people well with the highest priority? And does he accept this diversity in thought or does he reject it?
He actually says that treating people well is morally right thing to do and the highest priority. That’s different from human rights which is the minimum that people should be treated. So I don’t think the “if you don’t agree” relates to the idea of human rights but rather that you should treat everyone as best as you can and consider that your highest priority. And if you disagree then he has no hope for you.
And this is the point. What if you believe that you should treat people “okay” not as best as you can, or not as your highest priority? What if you instead believe that you should give people freedom to do what they want no matter what the outcome is and not interfere in one way or another? Basically don’t treat anyone anyway and leave them alone?
That would produce unfettered success but also unfettered failure. What if you’re okay with some people utterly failing as long as some people have unparalleled success?
What if you’re okay with the idea of treating those who work hard very well, but ignore and don’t help anyone who is lazy or doesn’t work hard? Does that go counter to his idea that people should be treated well?
I don’t subscribe to these arguments but my point is that just because they don’t think treating everyone equally doesn’t mean that they are evil, they just have different priorities. A ceo like Steve Jobs would fire unproductive employees and reward productive employees, does that run counter to his argument of treating people well with the highest priority? And does he accept this diversity in thought or does he reject it?