Furthering King's Argument in "Ethical Demands for Integration" - Jemma

By

While King argues in “The Ethical Demands for Integration” that the sacredness of human personality necessitates desegregation, his argument does not explicitly extend to the necessity for integration. However, based on King’s description of the sacredness of human personality, we can interpret how such an argument might go. First, King summarizes the inherent dignity and worth of man by citing the Declaration of Independence, which states that men are endowed with “certain inalienable rights,” including “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” According to King, segregation debases human personality because it treats men as means, rather than as ends. Therefore, men become objects or tools rather than people, and are unable to enjoy these inalienable rights. It follows that desegregation is a necessary condition for the protection of human personality: exploiting a particular race makes them a means. 

But why isn’t desegregation a sufficient condition for the protection of human personality? One might speculate that desegregation eliminates the condition of men being treated as means. King might answer by referring to his distinction between advantageous cooperation and responsibility. In a desegregated society, all races mutually tolerate one another and are able to engage in mutually advantageous cooperation. However, though people may enjoy a great degree of freedom in such a society, they will still be treated as a means, rather than as an end. This is because people engage in mutually advantageous cooperation out of self-interest––man is still using his fellow man as a means of getting something he wants. An integrated society, however, requires that people take responsibility for one another: “At the heart of all that civilization has meant and developed is ‘community’––the mutually cooperative and voluntary venture of man to assume a semblance of responsibility for his brother” (122). When people take responsibility for each other, they are treating other people as ends deserving of the rights and privileges of humanity, rather than as a means for their own personal gain. Therefore integration, or the formation of a community with mutual responsibility for one another, is necessary in elevating all men to the status of persons, rather than things.

Comments

  1. Josh MorgansteinJanuary 16, 2023 at 10:10 AM

    I agree with your argument that King could have drawn the distinction between mutually advantageous cooperation and responsibility to explain why desegregation is not sufficient. However, I think King would have likely used two additional lines of reasoning. First, King believes that treating humans as ends rather than means inherently entails considering a person's whole. As such, King voices distaste for the synecdoche used by the southern gentry in calling slave laborers "hands" (119). Desegregation is a necessary first step, but it alone does not consider the whole person. King argues that desegregation without integration would result in "a society where men are physically desegregated but spiritually segregated." As such, desegregation only considers a man's physical identity, rather than his spiritual identity as well. According to King's argument, for the black American to be truly free, physically and spiritually, the country must pursue integration. Only when true freedom for all is achieved can the U.S. be rightfully viewed as respecting the sacred worth of all humans and protecting dignity. Second, King would likely argue that respect for human dignity can only be achieved if attitudes shift. King uses the aforementioned synecdoche to reveal an attitude toward black laborers that can only be fixed through integration, not desegregation. Indeed, King later writes that desegregation is an enforceable obligation, but a shift in attitudes (which can only occur from integration) is an unenforceable obligation (124). It is not just segregation which degrades human personality, but the refusal of such a significant portion of the population to recognize the sacredness of the human personality for another significant portion of the population (which can only be fixed by integration). Thus, desegregation does go far enough in securing such worth.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more