You're a brave soul being so black and white. This article brings up so many thoughts. I remember growing up, my dad would go on-and-on about what he called "situational ethics". It feels like exactly the issue you're describing. At the time, I had no idea how prevalent this would become. It feels like finding an accepted right and wrong is harder than nailing jello to a wall.
Thank you for shining a light on this. Wish more people would have an honest discussion like you and your friend in the article.
Spot on, like usual. One of the craziest things in the DEI push is white people being offended on behalf of others. It's one facet of good intentions that can't be publicly called out because you'll immediately be tarred and feathered and called a racist or bigot or sexist or [insert group]-ist. I dunno how we move from here back towards a world of common sense. At risk of being attacked for bringing up politics, I will suggest this last election showed an electorate that's fed up with a whole lot of this.
Your comment means a lot to me, John because honestly, I'm scared about these posts. These facts seem so clear and obvious to me, but like you said, saying them in some circles means that you are a bigot of some kind. It really doesn't make sense to me. It's nice to know I'm not alone.
Revolution is not bound by morals - I agree with Jason K that our world does not resemble the "civilized" world we think we inhabit. Capitalism is not driven by morals. Stock prices are not driven by morals. Insurance claim decision makers do not sit on a throne of morals, doling out good deeds. Doing the "right", ethical, and moral thing no longer seems to be guiding what society has labeled important (sadly). With the events of the last decade, I predict we are on the slippery slope to burning it all down and having to rediscover our own humanity.
I really appreciate the comment. Just want to be certain I understand. Am I understanding you correctly that you condone this murder? Or did I misunderstand?
I do not condone the insurance companies denying claims, denying life saving surgeries, nor denying the health required treatments that lead to the untimely death of so many. Equally, I do not condone the murder of an Insurance Company CEO.
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate both the thought and the time you invested in writing this. Some topics truly need to be brought into the open for honest discussion. With that in mind, let’s consider the broader implications of what you’ve outlined.
The core takeaway, as I see it, is that such acts are utterly incompatible with what we traditionally consider a civilized society. But this raises an uncomfortable question: what if our current reality no longer resembles the “civilized” world we believe ourselves to inhabit? What if, instead, we are witnessing the formation of a class struggle unfolding right before our eyes?
Consider the case of Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians are often regarded as lesser than their Israeli counterparts. On a single day, a group of Palestinian extremists (Hamas) committed horrific atrocities against Israeli citizens. Viewed in isolation, this event appears as nothing more than senseless violence. Yet history did not begin on that day. For decades—some would argue generations—Israel has tightened the proverbial screws on the Palestinian people. In a sense, this is class warfare playing out in real time. Now we see Israel not only pursuing Hamas but also pressuring its neighbors. The motive could be twofold: because it can, and because it never wants to experience what Hamas inflicted upon it ever again.
Turning our attention closer to home, we have those who feel similarly disenfranchised, albeit under far more comfortable conditions than many people elsewhere in the world. Despite this relative prosperity, they perceive the system as increasingly oppressive. The difference here is that Americans have been adeptly distracted—by racism, sexism, and other cultural divisions—while most people, at their core, just want to live their lives without interference.
Human beings, when pressed hard enough, will eventually strike back. On that day, someone did. And this may only encourage others to follow suit. Those who are truly in power are rightfully concerned about such uprisings. To prevent a broader awakening, media narratives will likely intensify—stoking racial tensions, promoting identities like BLM or the Proud Boys—anything to keep the focus away from the underlying issues that truly matter.
I want to make my position absolutely clear: I am against violence of any kind, against the loss of any life, including animals. However, if you speak with people on the ground—from professionals to the homeless at my church—many express anger they deem fully justified. This moral unraveling has grown so large that I doubt it can be halted. When I begin discussions neutrally, for instance, by simply mentioning the murder of a CEO, the reactions I hear often surprise me. Those who’ve struggled to keep pace with the so-called American dream, or who feel excluded from it entirely, increasingly see acts of violence as understandable, if not justified. Factor in a massive transfer of wealth, the upheavals of COVID, and it becomes a perfect storm for disaster.
Jason, this really has me thinking. I took my time thinking about this before responding. You almost had me convinced, but I can't go that far.
I completely agree that we’re watching the moral fabric of society unravel, and people’s growing anger feels like it’s reaching a boiling point. That said, while I understand the frustration and how it’s tied to feeling excluded or powerless, I can’t condone the rationalization of murder or racism, no matter the context. I know you stated you're not doing that, but the "however" in the last statement, kinda feels like it a little bit...
Using history or systemic issues to justify atrocities—whether it’s Hamas targeting innocent Israelis or a CEO being murdered—crosses a line we can’t afford to blur in my opinion.
If we let emotions like anger or resentment redefine what’s right and wrong, we lose the principles that hold society together. I don't think we should go down this path. It's much easier to just have the moral clarity to say murder is always wrong.
You’re correct that we shouldn’t let anger or resentment redefine the boundaries of right and wrong—especially at society’s moral extremes. Over time, I’ve come to see morality as subjective rather than objective. Consider, for instance, the notion that we can never truly know if we perceive the color green in the same way. Morality, much like our perception of color, can differ from one individual to another.
Let’s make it personal for me. Ten years ago, I regarded the killing of animals in the same way Greg described in his post. Today, I view it as morally wrong. This shift in perspective highlights just how fluid moral beliefs can be.
Think about today’s contentious debates—abortion, for example. I won’t dive into the issue here, but it’s clear that what one person views as moral, another may see as deeply immoral. Or look back at how our moral compass has evolved over time: same-sex marriage, interracial relationships, women’s rights, labor rights, divorce, sex before marriage, single parent families—many of these were once considered immoral or taboo but are now accepted or even championed. And who’s to say our current views won’t be judged differently 25, 50, or 100 years from now?
To bring this into the present, consider the moral stance we both likely share: “Thou shalt not steal.” I believe you and I agree that theft is harmful and should be condemned. But what if you haven’t eaten in six days? At that point, if faced with starvation, would you steal to feed your family? I believe most people would, including you and me. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing today: theft rising across the U.S. and the U.K., retailers installing extra security, everyday items locked behind glass, retailers moving away from self checkouts. These actions aren’t happening in a vacuum. They reflect changing conditions and moral calculations that people make under pressure.
All of this suggests that what we consider moral from a place of relative comfort doesn’t necessarily hold true everywhere. It’s not simply a matter of personal values—it’s shaped by circumstance, survival, and the pressures of the moment.
I want to be crystal clear: I’m not advocating for violence or lawlessness. Killing is wrong, full stop. And though I might have more “tools” in my armory than I do utensils in my kitchen (my wife is working on that), I certainly don’t wish to use them. We can’t solve the deeper issues by merely stamping out the surface-level symptoms. More policing, more force, more oppression—these won’t cure the disease; they’ll only mask the symptoms.
To truly address the problem, we need to look at what’s causing people to reach such desperate ends. We need more kindness, more compassion, and less fixation on “shareholder demand” as the guiding principle of our society. Root causes must be addressed!
There is a lot here to unpack. Being against violence of any kind, including animals, diminishes the value of human life in my opinion. 1) Animals are food. 2) Animals are resource (leather, etc.). 3) Animals are killed with crop farming intentionally and unintentionally. Animals will be killed by humans for humans to survive. Either way, animal life cannot be measured in the same value as human life in society (and I would argue morally).
Regarding the rules of civilization changing. I am not sure they have changed much at all outside of any measurable category of development increasing in a positive manner across all of civilization. There is no a solution in which there will be no classes. Even in prisons where every inmate gets the same cell, free time, food, etc., there is a class system.
The definition of the American Dream may be changing, but I am not sure the opportunities to achieve someone's own definition of the American Dream is not. Who feels excluded? How does that relate to an increase in violence?
The title and role of a man murdered is irrelevant unless it was a case of self-defense. This is definitely sensational news and will carry much weight, apparently even more than the near assassin(s) of former/named President Trump. Freedom is messy. Society is messy.
I am not sure this CEO murder is a proper representation of the status our society, but the responses to it may be...
Greg, I don’t know you personally, but I appreciate your passion for leveraging what you believe God has provided for human prosperity. Allow me to introduce a bit of my own perspective. I’m known for taking on the role of devil’s advocate, challenging beliefs so long as those involved are discussing in good faith. I’m also a religious individual, and your statements reminded me of a similar conversation I recently had with my pastor. While I won’t assume your position stems from religious conviction, I understand how firmly held beliefs can arise from such foundations. Before I continue, let me be clear: I’m not judging your life choices, nor do I believe in using force to change anyone’s mind. Open dialogue is the only way we can truly move forward.
Your statement—“Being against violence of any kind, including animals, diminishes the value of human life in my opinion”—suggests that respecting animal life somehow lessens our regard for human life. In my view, this frames the issue as a zero-sum game. Believing that killing animals is wrong, or even that animals have souls, doesn’t inherently reduce the worth we assign to human beings. Both can coexist without diminishing one another. For analogy, consider social movements: “Black Lives Matter” doesn’t imply that white lives matter less, and “White Lives Matter” doesn’t negate the value of minority lives. Similarly, advocating for men’s rights (this is something I am very passionate about) doesn’t mean opposing women’s rights. None of these perspectives need to be at odds if we recognize that moral considerations can operate in tandem rather than in competition.
Let me share a personal anecdote. I’ve been teaching my daughter that choosing a vegan lifestyle is one way to express love and respect for animals. At a family meal one Sunday, I asked her why she’s vegan, she simply said, “Because I love animals.” My mother-in-law found this both endearing and, in a way, unsettling. She insisted she also loves animals. I replied, “Yes, certain ones.” (She was eating steak at the dinner table) Many people differentiate between which animals are deserving of compassion and which are considered food. In the United States, dogs are typically seen as companions, never a meal; in some other cultures, this distinction doesn’t exist. Kangaroos are cherished in some places and viewed as a resource in others such as Australia. These cultural differences underscore how morality is deeply influenced by upbringing, society, and circumstance.
To be perfectly clear, I’m not condemning people who must rely on animal-based resources for survival. If one truly needs to kill an animal to live, that’s a different moral context. But assuming we both live in a developed country, it’s hard to justify the routine killing of animals when viable, nutrient-rich alternatives are readily available. We live in an age of abundance where plant-based options can often surpass animal products in both health benefits and accessibility.
Ultimately, your stance reinforces my broader point: morality is more subjective than we often acknowledge. The value we assign to life—human or otherwise—varies widely based on our cultural norms, individual experiences, and personal beliefs.
The rest of your points I believe I have responded to in Travis' reply, but if not I am here to discuss if you feel I missed something.
It is awesome that veganism is an option for our civilization. I have explored veganism myself, but never to the level of not using any animal products because it became so unrealistic. leather is everywhere. Other goods from animals are everywhere. Animals are killed to grow crops…. Whether is your local farmer shooting/trapping rabbits, foxes, coyotes or other animals that tamper with their crops or combines mowing down deer, birds, any any other mammal in the area. But the choice to avoid eating meat is awesome; however, the idea that it is morally superior or even resulting in less animal death is very open for discussion and critique.
I agree white lives versus black lives is similar, but we are somehow brining in animal lives are similar to human lives; they are not, no matter how cute they are or how much I love my pets. I am not sure this is grounded in religion or beliefs because I can’t picture anyone actually disagreeing in this reality versus theory.
To the original post of Travis which seems to be getting lost, to say a door is open in justifying human murder or not is such a trending theme right now is concerning for the moral fabric of our society. Appreciate the dialogue and conversation.
I don't disagree with a lot of your points here, and certainly, situation ethics implies, at best, a lack of ethics to begin with. The question that remains is, do you believe that talent is equally spread amongst all people? If that is true, and I believe it is, AND people genuinely want to be "...building cultures where personal responsibility and achievement are the sole measures of success." then we would see equal representations of ALL people across leadership positions. The challenge in removing DEI initiatives is that we miss a significant portion of talent if we don't seek accountability and create more equal opportunities. When we don't seek and work to find the best opportunity for the best talent, we fall prey to our own blinders in implicit biases. This is what created a world in which we recognize a need for change.
When we explore the polar ends of this spectrum, like poverty vs. wealth and victim vs. prey, it becomes much easier to see the challenges. It's in the everyday decisions and interactions that we get lost, and without a higher level of accountability, we falter and miss the mark.
I 100% agree that it is not acceptable to consider race, gender, class, caste, etc... in decision-making, I also believe that it is equally unacceptable to proceed with a status quo that doesn't reflect the full spectrum of talent across humanity. If we don't want accountability to see that representation, what would you propose that could produce it?
Chris, I really appreciate the post. Obviously we don't agree on this topic, but I love the respectful dialog!
Regarding what do we do instead of DEI. That is easy. We return to merit, equality of opportunity, and not judging people by their group characteristics and viewing everyone as an individual. That has been proven over and over again that it is the only way to achieve prosperity for the most people.
It is interesting you bring up the blind auditions topic. This article is absolutely astonishing to me in it's wrongness.
Here is the history of blind auditions that often gets misrepresented. Blind auditions became more common in the late 20th century as a way to ensure fairness in orchestra hiring by preventing judges from seeing the candidates. The goal was simple: eliminate any possibility of discrimination based on race, gender, or other irrelevant factors, and select the best musicians based purely on performance.
What’s fascinating is that when blind auditions were implemented, they initially resulted in more women being selected, which was seen as a success in removing gender bias. However, over time, as blind auditions expanded in use, the outcomes revealed something the left didn’t expect: they favored Asians and Whites disproportionately compared to other groups. This result didn’t fit the narrative that differences in outcomes are always due to discrimination. Instead of accepting that talent and preparation might differ among individuals for a variety of reasons, critics shifted the goalposts, claiming that blind auditions themselves were now “racist” because they didn’t produce the outcomes they wanted.
The New York Times even published an article in 2020 calling for an end to blind auditions, claiming they prevent orchestras from achieving racial diversity. This is utterly nonsensical. Blind auditions were designed to remove bias and have consistently proven to identify the most skilled performers, regardless of race or gender. To argue they are biased because they don’t produce politically desirable results is as absurd as blaming aliens for influencing the judges. It’s unscientific, unfalsifiable, and undermines the very idea of meritocracy.
Blind auditions demonstrate that the only fair way to select people is through objective measures that don’t account for superficial group identities. To suggest otherwise is to abandon fairness entirely and descend into arbitrary decision-making.
Thanks for a great talk! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thank you. I also enjoy polite Discord; disagreement is the essence of progress! I love the idea of meritocracy. I suppose I fear that it can allow for intentional and unintentional disparagement of minorities who do have talent and don't have the opportunity. Regarding meritocracy and a way to have this discussion and leave human groups out of it, what if we were to discuss legislation? One of my most significant issues with our current political system is the divide between the two parties, mainly because legislative votes follow party lines, not merit. I like Nebraska's Unicameral legislature practice. I want your thoughts on paralleling that to the above conversation. I would also like to hear about or see examples of true meritocracies that have shown proportionate equivalencies to their given populations and were sustained/successful. I don't know enough about all the given variables to be an expert. My goal is to learn, grow, and be the best example to my family, so this is a topic I am currently interested in, and I appreciate your views.
DEI arose for a reason: it attempts to fix what a pure meritocracy can’t. Sure, “may the best person win” sounds fair in theory, but real life usually gives a head start to those already holding resources, connections, or both. Growing up, I had advantages some families in underfunded neighborhoods, like parts of Detroit, never did. That’s not true meritocracy; that’s stacking the deck.
This dynamic becomes even clearer when you consider merit-based immigration policies. On the surface, they seem logical: bring in top talent. But doing so often strips other countries of their brightest minds, the very people who could solve problems in their own communities. It’s a quiet brain drain that leaves those places stuck in a cycle of struggle.
Look at China’s recent ban on cram schools. Sure, it was meant to level the playing field for students, but families with money and connections still find ways around the rules: private tutors, special favors, anything to keep their kids ahead. The system just adapts, maintaining an uneven playing field.
Our political landscape follows a similar pattern. We’re told there’s a huge divide, but if you watch closely, both major parties chase insider trading opportunities, accept favors from lobbyists, and support expanded surveillance. Year after year, it’s the same script with different actors, and meaningful change rarely materializes. It’s as though everyone’s playing for the same team behind the scenes, just not the team most of us "normies" are on. I would like to bring up the castration of Bernie Sanders in 2016 as exhibit A.
I’m not claiming to have a solution. But I do know that clinging too tightly to any extreme, be it a pure meritocracy or a system built solely around identity, won’t give us what we need. To build a world where everyone can genuinely thrive, we have to acknowledge the hidden or not so hidden advantages, uproot the barriers, and find a balance that actually helps people rather than leaving them behind.
You're a brave soul being so black and white. This article brings up so many thoughts. I remember growing up, my dad would go on-and-on about what he called "situational ethics". It feels like exactly the issue you're describing. At the time, I had no idea how prevalent this would become. It feels like finding an accepted right and wrong is harder than nailing jello to a wall.
Thank you for shining a light on this. Wish more people would have an honest discussion like you and your friend in the article.
Your dad nailed it! Situational ethics. Exactly. Well said. Thanks for the kind words man. I think we need to have more conversations like this.
Spot on, like usual. One of the craziest things in the DEI push is white people being offended on behalf of others. It's one facet of good intentions that can't be publicly called out because you'll immediately be tarred and feathered and called a racist or bigot or sexist or [insert group]-ist. I dunno how we move from here back towards a world of common sense. At risk of being attacked for bringing up politics, I will suggest this last election showed an electorate that's fed up with a whole lot of this.
Your comment means a lot to me, John because honestly, I'm scared about these posts. These facts seem so clear and obvious to me, but like you said, saying them in some circles means that you are a bigot of some kind. It really doesn't make sense to me. It's nice to know I'm not alone.
Revolution is not bound by morals - I agree with Jason K that our world does not resemble the "civilized" world we think we inhabit. Capitalism is not driven by morals. Stock prices are not driven by morals. Insurance claim decision makers do not sit on a throne of morals, doling out good deeds. Doing the "right", ethical, and moral thing no longer seems to be guiding what society has labeled important (sadly). With the events of the last decade, I predict we are on the slippery slope to burning it all down and having to rediscover our own humanity.
I really appreciate the comment. Just want to be certain I understand. Am I understanding you correctly that you condone this murder? Or did I misunderstand?
I do not condone the insurance companies denying claims, denying life saving surgeries, nor denying the health required treatments that lead to the untimely death of so many. Equally, I do not condone the murder of an Insurance Company CEO.
Thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate your comments!
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate both the thought and the time you invested in writing this. Some topics truly need to be brought into the open for honest discussion. With that in mind, let’s consider the broader implications of what you’ve outlined.
The core takeaway, as I see it, is that such acts are utterly incompatible with what we traditionally consider a civilized society. But this raises an uncomfortable question: what if our current reality no longer resembles the “civilized” world we believe ourselves to inhabit? What if, instead, we are witnessing the formation of a class struggle unfolding right before our eyes?
Consider the case of Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians are often regarded as lesser than their Israeli counterparts. On a single day, a group of Palestinian extremists (Hamas) committed horrific atrocities against Israeli citizens. Viewed in isolation, this event appears as nothing more than senseless violence. Yet history did not begin on that day. For decades—some would argue generations—Israel has tightened the proverbial screws on the Palestinian people. In a sense, this is class warfare playing out in real time. Now we see Israel not only pursuing Hamas but also pressuring its neighbors. The motive could be twofold: because it can, and because it never wants to experience what Hamas inflicted upon it ever again.
Turning our attention closer to home, we have those who feel similarly disenfranchised, albeit under far more comfortable conditions than many people elsewhere in the world. Despite this relative prosperity, they perceive the system as increasingly oppressive. The difference here is that Americans have been adeptly distracted—by racism, sexism, and other cultural divisions—while most people, at their core, just want to live their lives without interference.
Human beings, when pressed hard enough, will eventually strike back. On that day, someone did. And this may only encourage others to follow suit. Those who are truly in power are rightfully concerned about such uprisings. To prevent a broader awakening, media narratives will likely intensify—stoking racial tensions, promoting identities like BLM or the Proud Boys—anything to keep the focus away from the underlying issues that truly matter.
I want to make my position absolutely clear: I am against violence of any kind, against the loss of any life, including animals. However, if you speak with people on the ground—from professionals to the homeless at my church—many express anger they deem fully justified. This moral unraveling has grown so large that I doubt it can be halted. When I begin discussions neutrally, for instance, by simply mentioning the murder of a CEO, the reactions I hear often surprise me. Those who’ve struggled to keep pace with the so-called American dream, or who feel excluded from it entirely, increasingly see acts of violence as understandable, if not justified. Factor in a massive transfer of wealth, the upheavals of COVID, and it becomes a perfect storm for disaster.
Jason, this really has me thinking. I took my time thinking about this before responding. You almost had me convinced, but I can't go that far.
I completely agree that we’re watching the moral fabric of society unravel, and people’s growing anger feels like it’s reaching a boiling point. That said, while I understand the frustration and how it’s tied to feeling excluded or powerless, I can’t condone the rationalization of murder or racism, no matter the context. I know you stated you're not doing that, but the "however" in the last statement, kinda feels like it a little bit...
Using history or systemic issues to justify atrocities—whether it’s Hamas targeting innocent Israelis or a CEO being murdered—crosses a line we can’t afford to blur in my opinion.
If we let emotions like anger or resentment redefine what’s right and wrong, we lose the principles that hold society together. I don't think we should go down this path. It's much easier to just have the moral clarity to say murder is always wrong.
You’re correct that we shouldn’t let anger or resentment redefine the boundaries of right and wrong—especially at society’s moral extremes. Over time, I’ve come to see morality as subjective rather than objective. Consider, for instance, the notion that we can never truly know if we perceive the color green in the same way. Morality, much like our perception of color, can differ from one individual to another.
Let’s make it personal for me. Ten years ago, I regarded the killing of animals in the same way Greg described in his post. Today, I view it as morally wrong. This shift in perspective highlights just how fluid moral beliefs can be.
Think about today’s contentious debates—abortion, for example. I won’t dive into the issue here, but it’s clear that what one person views as moral, another may see as deeply immoral. Or look back at how our moral compass has evolved over time: same-sex marriage, interracial relationships, women’s rights, labor rights, divorce, sex before marriage, single parent families—many of these were once considered immoral or taboo but are now accepted or even championed. And who’s to say our current views won’t be judged differently 25, 50, or 100 years from now?
To bring this into the present, consider the moral stance we both likely share: “Thou shalt not steal.” I believe you and I agree that theft is harmful and should be condemned. But what if you haven’t eaten in six days? At that point, if faced with starvation, would you steal to feed your family? I believe most people would, including you and me. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing today: theft rising across the U.S. and the U.K., retailers installing extra security, everyday items locked behind glass, retailers moving away from self checkouts. These actions aren’t happening in a vacuum. They reflect changing conditions and moral calculations that people make under pressure.
All of this suggests that what we consider moral from a place of relative comfort doesn’t necessarily hold true everywhere. It’s not simply a matter of personal values—it’s shaped by circumstance, survival, and the pressures of the moment.
I want to be crystal clear: I’m not advocating for violence or lawlessness. Killing is wrong, full stop. And though I might have more “tools” in my armory than I do utensils in my kitchen (my wife is working on that), I certainly don’t wish to use them. We can’t solve the deeper issues by merely stamping out the surface-level symptoms. More policing, more force, more oppression—these won’t cure the disease; they’ll only mask the symptoms.
To truly address the problem, we need to look at what’s causing people to reach such desperate ends. We need more kindness, more compassion, and less fixation on “shareholder demand” as the guiding principle of our society. Root causes must be addressed!
There is a lot here to unpack. Being against violence of any kind, including animals, diminishes the value of human life in my opinion. 1) Animals are food. 2) Animals are resource (leather, etc.). 3) Animals are killed with crop farming intentionally and unintentionally. Animals will be killed by humans for humans to survive. Either way, animal life cannot be measured in the same value as human life in society (and I would argue morally).
Regarding the rules of civilization changing. I am not sure they have changed much at all outside of any measurable category of development increasing in a positive manner across all of civilization. There is no a solution in which there will be no classes. Even in prisons where every inmate gets the same cell, free time, food, etc., there is a class system.
The definition of the American Dream may be changing, but I am not sure the opportunities to achieve someone's own definition of the American Dream is not. Who feels excluded? How does that relate to an increase in violence?
The title and role of a man murdered is irrelevant unless it was a case of self-defense. This is definitely sensational news and will carry much weight, apparently even more than the near assassin(s) of former/named President Trump. Freedom is messy. Society is messy.
I am not sure this CEO murder is a proper representation of the status our society, but the responses to it may be...
Greg, I don’t know you personally, but I appreciate your passion for leveraging what you believe God has provided for human prosperity. Allow me to introduce a bit of my own perspective. I’m known for taking on the role of devil’s advocate, challenging beliefs so long as those involved are discussing in good faith. I’m also a religious individual, and your statements reminded me of a similar conversation I recently had with my pastor. While I won’t assume your position stems from religious conviction, I understand how firmly held beliefs can arise from such foundations. Before I continue, let me be clear: I’m not judging your life choices, nor do I believe in using force to change anyone’s mind. Open dialogue is the only way we can truly move forward.
Your statement—“Being against violence of any kind, including animals, diminishes the value of human life in my opinion”—suggests that respecting animal life somehow lessens our regard for human life. In my view, this frames the issue as a zero-sum game. Believing that killing animals is wrong, or even that animals have souls, doesn’t inherently reduce the worth we assign to human beings. Both can coexist without diminishing one another. For analogy, consider social movements: “Black Lives Matter” doesn’t imply that white lives matter less, and “White Lives Matter” doesn’t negate the value of minority lives. Similarly, advocating for men’s rights (this is something I am very passionate about) doesn’t mean opposing women’s rights. None of these perspectives need to be at odds if we recognize that moral considerations can operate in tandem rather than in competition.
Let me share a personal anecdote. I’ve been teaching my daughter that choosing a vegan lifestyle is one way to express love and respect for animals. At a family meal one Sunday, I asked her why she’s vegan, she simply said, “Because I love animals.” My mother-in-law found this both endearing and, in a way, unsettling. She insisted she also loves animals. I replied, “Yes, certain ones.” (She was eating steak at the dinner table) Many people differentiate between which animals are deserving of compassion and which are considered food. In the United States, dogs are typically seen as companions, never a meal; in some other cultures, this distinction doesn’t exist. Kangaroos are cherished in some places and viewed as a resource in others such as Australia. These cultural differences underscore how morality is deeply influenced by upbringing, society, and circumstance.
To be perfectly clear, I’m not condemning people who must rely on animal-based resources for survival. If one truly needs to kill an animal to live, that’s a different moral context. But assuming we both live in a developed country, it’s hard to justify the routine killing of animals when viable, nutrient-rich alternatives are readily available. We live in an age of abundance where plant-based options can often surpass animal products in both health benefits and accessibility.
Ultimately, your stance reinforces my broader point: morality is more subjective than we often acknowledge. The value we assign to life—human or otherwise—varies widely based on our cultural norms, individual experiences, and personal beliefs.
The rest of your points I believe I have responded to in Travis' reply, but if not I am here to discuss if you feel I missed something.
It is awesome that veganism is an option for our civilization. I have explored veganism myself, but never to the level of not using any animal products because it became so unrealistic. leather is everywhere. Other goods from animals are everywhere. Animals are killed to grow crops…. Whether is your local farmer shooting/trapping rabbits, foxes, coyotes or other animals that tamper with their crops or combines mowing down deer, birds, any any other mammal in the area. But the choice to avoid eating meat is awesome; however, the idea that it is morally superior or even resulting in less animal death is very open for discussion and critique.
I agree white lives versus black lives is similar, but we are somehow brining in animal lives are similar to human lives; they are not, no matter how cute they are or how much I love my pets. I am not sure this is grounded in religion or beliefs because I can’t picture anyone actually disagreeing in this reality versus theory.
To the original post of Travis which seems to be getting lost, to say a door is open in justifying human murder or not is such a trending theme right now is concerning for the moral fabric of our society. Appreciate the dialogue and conversation.
I don't disagree with a lot of your points here, and certainly, situation ethics implies, at best, a lack of ethics to begin with. The question that remains is, do you believe that talent is equally spread amongst all people? If that is true, and I believe it is, AND people genuinely want to be "...building cultures where personal responsibility and achievement are the sole measures of success." then we would see equal representations of ALL people across leadership positions. The challenge in removing DEI initiatives is that we miss a significant portion of talent if we don't seek accountability and create more equal opportunities. When we don't seek and work to find the best opportunity for the best talent, we fall prey to our own blinders in implicit biases. This is what created a world in which we recognize a need for change.
When we explore the polar ends of this spectrum, like poverty vs. wealth and victim vs. prey, it becomes much easier to see the challenges. It's in the everyday decisions and interactions that we get lost, and without a higher level of accountability, we falter and miss the mark.
I 100% agree that it is not acceptable to consider race, gender, class, caste, etc... in decision-making, I also believe that it is equally unacceptable to proceed with a status quo that doesn't reflect the full spectrum of talent across humanity. If we don't want accountability to see that representation, what would you propose that could produce it?
https://www.upworthy.com/this-orchestras-blind-audition-proves-bias-sneaks-in-when-you-least-expect-it-hw
Chris, I really appreciate the post. Obviously we don't agree on this topic, but I love the respectful dialog!
Regarding what do we do instead of DEI. That is easy. We return to merit, equality of opportunity, and not judging people by their group characteristics and viewing everyone as an individual. That has been proven over and over again that it is the only way to achieve prosperity for the most people.
It is interesting you bring up the blind auditions topic. This article is absolutely astonishing to me in it's wrongness.
Here is the history of blind auditions that often gets misrepresented. Blind auditions became more common in the late 20th century as a way to ensure fairness in orchestra hiring by preventing judges from seeing the candidates. The goal was simple: eliminate any possibility of discrimination based on race, gender, or other irrelevant factors, and select the best musicians based purely on performance.
What’s fascinating is that when blind auditions were implemented, they initially resulted in more women being selected, which was seen as a success in removing gender bias. However, over time, as blind auditions expanded in use, the outcomes revealed something the left didn’t expect: they favored Asians and Whites disproportionately compared to other groups. This result didn’t fit the narrative that differences in outcomes are always due to discrimination. Instead of accepting that talent and preparation might differ among individuals for a variety of reasons, critics shifted the goalposts, claiming that blind auditions themselves were now “racist” because they didn’t produce the outcomes they wanted.
The New York Times even published an article in 2020 calling for an end to blind auditions, claiming they prevent orchestras from achieving racial diversity. This is utterly nonsensical. Blind auditions were designed to remove bias and have consistently proven to identify the most skilled performers, regardless of race or gender. To argue they are biased because they don’t produce politically desirable results is as absurd as blaming aliens for influencing the judges. It’s unscientific, unfalsifiable, and undermines the very idea of meritocracy.
Blind auditions demonstrate that the only fair way to select people is through objective measures that don’t account for superficial group identities. To suggest otherwise is to abandon fairness entirely and descend into arbitrary decision-making.
Thanks for a great talk! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thank you. I also enjoy polite Discord; disagreement is the essence of progress! I love the idea of meritocracy. I suppose I fear that it can allow for intentional and unintentional disparagement of minorities who do have talent and don't have the opportunity. Regarding meritocracy and a way to have this discussion and leave human groups out of it, what if we were to discuss legislation? One of my most significant issues with our current political system is the divide between the two parties, mainly because legislative votes follow party lines, not merit. I like Nebraska's Unicameral legislature practice. I want your thoughts on paralleling that to the above conversation. I would also like to hear about or see examples of true meritocracies that have shown proportionate equivalencies to their given populations and were sustained/successful. I don't know enough about all the given variables to be an expert. My goal is to learn, grow, and be the best example to my family, so this is a topic I am currently interested in, and I appreciate your views.
DEI arose for a reason: it attempts to fix what a pure meritocracy can’t. Sure, “may the best person win” sounds fair in theory, but real life usually gives a head start to those already holding resources, connections, or both. Growing up, I had advantages some families in underfunded neighborhoods, like parts of Detroit, never did. That’s not true meritocracy; that’s stacking the deck.
This dynamic becomes even clearer when you consider merit-based immigration policies. On the surface, they seem logical: bring in top talent. But doing so often strips other countries of their brightest minds, the very people who could solve problems in their own communities. It’s a quiet brain drain that leaves those places stuck in a cycle of struggle.
Look at China’s recent ban on cram schools. Sure, it was meant to level the playing field for students, but families with money and connections still find ways around the rules: private tutors, special favors, anything to keep their kids ahead. The system just adapts, maintaining an uneven playing field.
Our political landscape follows a similar pattern. We’re told there’s a huge divide, but if you watch closely, both major parties chase insider trading opportunities, accept favors from lobbyists, and support expanded surveillance. Year after year, it’s the same script with different actors, and meaningful change rarely materializes. It’s as though everyone’s playing for the same team behind the scenes, just not the team most of us "normies" are on. I would like to bring up the castration of Bernie Sanders in 2016 as exhibit A.
I’m not claiming to have a solution. But I do know that clinging too tightly to any extreme, be it a pure meritocracy or a system built solely around identity, won’t give us what we need. To build a world where everyone can genuinely thrive, we have to acknowledge the hidden or not so hidden advantages, uproot the barriers, and find a balance that actually helps people rather than leaving them behind.