
Bosses are under increasing pressure to take stances on social issues - known
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731834-rules-thumb-navigating-era-activism-bosses-are-under-increasing-pressure-take
======
api
This is a sign that the polarization of society is increasing. I imagine
during the run-up to the first US civil war there were similar pressures.

I'm struggling with identifying the root issue behind this polarization. My
best try so far is:

"Is the natural human condition just?"

Pro: "Nature and/or God made us a certain way and that's the way we should be.
We should embrace our nature. If there are differences in outcomes by gender,
race, etc. then these are ordained by nature and/or God and are therefore
intended and just. Fighting nature on these issues is a losing battle."

Con: "Sentient beings should endeavor to change nature both social and
physical to improve their quality of life. We should not accept intrinsic
limitations or large scale differences in outcome but search for ways to
address the root causes of these and change them to our benefit."

On the pro side would be: fundamentalist religious conservatives (of any
religion), secular "alt-right", advocates of "human biodiversity" or other
Neo-racist and biological determinist ideas, nativists, Neo-reactionaries, and
certain very reactionary elements of the green movement.

On the con side would be: humanists, socialists, liberal-leaning or humanistic
libertarians, transhumanists, progressive religious theologies, and other
liberal or enlightenment schools of thought.

Edit: on a deeper level this is the is/ought issue in philosophy. To what
extent is "is" synonymous with "ought" and how does one arrive at the latter
from the former? This is a very fundamental issue in ethics, epistemology, and
even metaphysics.

