[nfb-talk] NFB philosophy

Tue Apr 22 16:38:35 CDT 2008

If we were to follow your idea, we would do nothing.  There would 
always be somebody opposed to any position we would take.

We have to do what we feel is right, as directed by the majority of 
our members.

Dave

At 04:03 PM 4/22/2008, you wrote:
>Yep, that was poorly worded by me. I didn't mean to imply that the NFB
>should behave in a Christian way. Personally, I'm an atheist. But I consider
>the Christian ethic a valid philosophy and what I was trying to say was that
>the NFB's philosophy isn't intuitively obviously correct. I'm not sure I've
>made my point clear even now.
>
>With some things, you can say that they're self-evident.  But the NFB's
>philosophy doesn't fall into that category.  I think that at first glance it
>may appear to be a self-evident truth and I think a lot of people have
>accepted it without giving it any thought.
>
>I  propose that the NFB's philosophy is inappropriate for an advocacy group
>because by opposing accessible money, for example, the NFB is essentially
>imposing it's philosophy on all blind people. And that is unethical unless
>it can be justified  on a utilitarian basis. As the nation's leading
>advocacy group for the blind, the NFB has an obligation to do what is best
>for blind people instead of trying to fulfil a philosophy that many blind
>people would not support.
>
>So again, as a blind person, how does the NFB's philosophy help me? The
>accessible money issue is just one example. We can discuss that particular
>example but I'm more interested in discussing the philosophy in general. I
>am proposing that the NFB's philosophy is inappropriate on a basic ethical
>and moral level.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] NFB philosophy
>
>
> > John:
> >
> > First, not everybody in this country is Christian -- and we do have
> > separation of church and state, so such justification alone isn't
> > going to make it happen.
> >
> > I think, in part, our philosophy is grounded in reality.  Whether or
> > not it would be a good thing there simply aren't enough financial and
> > other resources to do everything we could do.  Our society will never
> > allocate the money to video describe all programs, put audible
> > pedestrian signals at every intersection, put all books into braille
> > and record them, and make them available in computer form etc.
> >
> > Society, and government will do some things, but simply can't do
> > everything for everybody.  I call their willingness "good will."  You
> > can call it whatever you like, but there is only so much of it, so we
> > must be judicious about what we ask for.  So in large part, we are
> > talking about where we set the bar, the bar of what we ask for.  You
> > would set it at a different place then the NFB.
> >
> > And ... there is also probably stuff here about self reliance, what
> > we need help with, what we ask for, what we do our  selves etc.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > At 03:04 PM 4/22/2008, you wrote:
> >> >From the wikipedia entry on the NFB:
> >>
> >>"Federation philosophy holds that blindness should not be used as an
> >>excuse
> >>for insisting that the world be remade for the convenience of blind
> >>people.
> >>Sometimes providing reasonable access does demand modifications in
> >>infrastructure, but if such changes are not necessary, then blind people
> >>should not expect them"
> >>
> >>Why not?
> >>
> >>Note that we're not talking about legal principles here. The above stated
> >>philosophy seems to contradict the Christian ethic -- that doing good for
> >>others is a moral obligation.  If doing good for others is a moral
> >>obligation, then there can be nothing wrong with asking for accomodations.
> >>
> >>If you haven't guessed, in my opinion, the above philosophy is dead wrong.
> >>We are all in this together. There's nothing wrong with laws prohibiting
> >>racial discrimination. There's nothing wrong with laws requiring
> >>accessible
> >>bathrooms. We, as a society, have every right to make laws that we feel
> >>create the best society. If those laws place a burden on some people at
> >>the
> >>expense of others, well, that's unfortunate but it cannot be hhelped.
> >>
> >>For instance, we, as a group, are better off because the law requires that
> >>buildings must be made wheelchair accessible. I'm not saying we're  a
> >>richer
> >>society. That may be. I'm saying we're a better society. I guess you could
> >>say the total amount of happiness in our society has been increased by
> >>that
> >>law. We're a more just, more open, and happier society as a result of the
> >>law that required that buildings be wheelchair accessible.
> >>It isn't intuitively obvious that the above stated philosophy is
> >>beneficial
> >>to blind people. If the NFB is going to support a philosophy, they ought
> >>to
> >>be able to justify it. So what benefits do I, as a blind person, get from
> >>the NFB's philosophy?
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>nfb-talk mailing list
> >>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> >>for nfb-talk:
> >>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/dandrews%40visi.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG.
> >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date:
> >>4/22/2008 3:51 PM
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nfb-talk:
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for nfb-talk:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 
>4/22/2008 3:51 PM