Drawing the Line: Ethics of Inclusion and Exclusion

Identity & The ‘Other’: To what extent does a cohesive group identity—be it national, political, or cultural—fundamentally require an out-group to define itself against? Can a strong and meaningful sense of “us” exist without a “them”?

The Borders of ‘Us’: Societies define their in-groups by various criteria: shared citizenship, common ideology, universal human values, etc. What do our preferred criteria for defining “us” reveal about our core philosophical beliefs, and how do we ethically justify one boundary over another?

The Internal vs. External 'Other': What are the distinct consequences for a society when its primary “other” is an internal group (like a rival political party) versus an external one (like another nation)? Which scenario poses a greater long-term threat to social stability and prosperity?

The Ethics of Division: If we assume that humans naturally form “us vs. them” distinctions, where is the most ethical and constructive place to draw this line for the sake of a flourishing society? Should the primary distinction be based on civic values, national borders, economic class, or another principle entirely?

The Language of ‘Othering’: How does the specific language we use to describe our opponents—labeling them as “evil,” “un-American,” or “deplorable”—function to create and dehumanize the “other”? Can a commitment to precise and charitable language act as a practical antidote to toxic polarization?

Constructive Opposition: Beyond creating conflict, can tension with an “other” be a positive force? In what ways might sincere engagement with those holding fundamentally different views force us to clarify, strengthen, or even evolve our own individual and collective values?