Question

are there any valid arguments against inclusiveness as a social goal?
(please give as much information as possible!)

Answer 1

Contents of you question are inappropriate for our audience. If you continue to post such content on Brainly, your account might and will be eventually deleted. Please be advised.

Answer 2

Inclusiveness refers to the practice or regulation to include those with physical or mental disabilities and members of minority groups that could be excluded or oppressed

EXPLANATION:

What you mean by "inclusions" depends upon what you say; what most of us means with this word, namely the fact that people from all walks of life have equal respect and are treated fairly, is a legitimate social objective, and I cannot think of a reasonable argument against it. Such pathological cases do not so much deny inclusion, but demonstrate the essential limits of the theory. In particular, the paradox of diversity shows the need for those with radical and misogynist beliefs, whose inclusion would be counterproductive to the inclusion of others, not to have a growing opportunity for inclusion.

Therefore, events, locations or activities are sometimes perceived to be exclusive to particular groups of interest or to cater for such a particular audience. In that scenario, I would say that the underlying philosophy must be equality and fairness, and inclusion is a way to achieve that. Equality can sometimes also be accomplished by giving a minority or a disadvantaged category an equal opportunity to hold an event in which it dominates. Forcing integration into such events is something which effectively undermines equality between these groups (and thereby taking away a chance to dominate).

Ultimately, but not least, the concept of diversity is related. Inclusion refers to a sense of acceptance, but diversity refers first and foremost to a person's presence. Diversity and inclusion are both extremely valuable objectives, and I don't think there are valid arguments against them. However, discussions about the merits of various approaches to achieving these goals are also valid. or instance, broaden the search for potential recruiting so that each groups is well represented at the original pool, eliminate sources of inequality in the recruitment process and ensure that candidates of all backgrounds feel equal and welcome throughout the entire process, including once they are hired and the implementation of a consistent standard for all applicants irrespective of context to determine whether to employ are all relatively unquestionable approaches to increasing diversity.

Nevertheless, there are other methods to achieving diversity, such as positive actions, which are contentious, as different factors are not only used in the initial search but also in deciding the requirements. The dispute is here a microcosm of much broader philosophical and ethical debate about whether or not morality is dictated by outcomes or by acts (that is, are there any ends justifying the means?) and whether justice at the individual level or the identity group level should be taken into consideration. I personally stand on the "end does not justify means," but on both sides of the problem there are reasonable arguments.

To know more

Are there any valid arguments against inclusiveness as a social goal?

https://brainly.in/question/8678360

Are there any steps towards increasing inclusiveness with which you would be uncomfortable?

https://brainly.in/question/8881261