Discrimination: Right or Wrong

[Mling]

I also recall being verbally reprimanded when I was six years old and drinking from the "colored" water fountain. Well: I was six, and it was hot outside, and I was thirsty -- and I really didn't care if the water fountain was off limits to white people. Separate but equal facilities are a notorious form of discrimination because while they may be separate, they're rarely equal and people of different races have the same essential body structure and bleed the same blood.

It is very easy for us in the under-40 crowd to forget that this really was so recent. Thank you for the reminder.

I guess I take a slightly different slant on this, because, while I agree that discrimination not based on merit is wrong, I strongly support people's right to do it. I have been told (in the politest words possible) that the place where I wanted to work simply did not hire my kind. Not pleasant, but as an organization which does not receive government funds, they have every right to have that policy.

I understand that we weren't strictly talking about a person's or private business's right to discriminate, but it is something to keep in mind. The existance of personal discrimination is highly preferable to the 1984 style of government it would take to eradicate it. So long the discrimination is not being supported by governement funds, I strongly support the right for it to exist, no matter how deplorable I find it.

edit: though...thinking about this a bit. I have to make an exception for very large businesses. If you have the power to make or break a town (say, Wal-Mart), that power must not be used maliciously.

 

[ebia]

It is very easy for us in the under-40 crowd to forget that this really was so recent. Thank you for the reminder.

I guess I take a slightly different slant on this, because, while I agree that discrimination not based on merit is wrong, I strongly support people's right to do it. I have been told (in the politest words possible) that the place where I wanted to work simply did not hire my kind. Not pleasant, but as an organization which does not receive government funds, they have every right to have that policy.

I understand that we weren't strictly talking about a person's or private business's right to discriminate, but it is something to keep in mind. The existance of personal discrimination is highly preferable to the 1984 style of government it would take to eradicate it. So long the discrimination is not being supported by governement funds, I strongly support the right for it to exist, no matter how deplorable I find it.

So you think people have the right to degrade others?

 

[Atheon]

I think the current laws (in Australia) are in line with the public's view on discrimination. Discrimination is essentially refusing people's basic rights, but in some situations you loose those rights (e.g. A child molester applying for a job as a teacher) and thefore to refuse such people on those grounds is not discrimination.

 

[kopilo]

I agree with Atheon.

 

[Harlan Norris]

God has no respect of persons.

 

[Atheon]

God has no respect of persons.

What is that meant to mean?

 

[Harlan Norris]

What is that meant to mean?

God only discriminates between those that do his will and those that don't.No other factors are involved.If we discriminate,we err.

 

[Atheon]

God only discriminates between those that do his will and those that don't.No other factors are involved.If we discriminate,we err.

Well I'm glad I don't believe in a god that see's everything in black and white.

 

[Mling]

So you think people have the right to degrade others?

Depends on what you mean by degrade. I think that a person in a public place has the right to call me names--so long as they don't also prevent me from leaving, or hang around in such a way that makes it impossible for me to do whatever I'm doing. I think that, if a person privately owns something--a small business or a club, then all decisions regarding what happens with it should be left up to that person. So, say I've got a band, and we practice in my garage every week, it is complete up to me and my band members to decide who to allow in. If we don't want to allow somebody in because the are blonde or straight or too skinny, that would probably be wrong, but, to try to establish a system where we were not allowed to make that decision regarding our own private club would be worse.

The exception I edited in was along the line of--expressing an opinion regarding people is one thing; actually preventing them from living their lives is something else. So if this one company has a monopoly on a certain niche in a certain area, then they cannot make that a miserable place to be for certain people. I would also say that a place which caters to the general public--a public restaurant, for example, as opposed to a club--then they need to be consistant in that and not discriminate against certain members of the public (I wonder where dress codes would fall in here...I don't see anything wrong with them). If a group of people wanted to establish a privately owned, "members only" restaurant, then they have the right to decide who is a member and who is not.

Basically, I prefer incivility over fascism.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Discrimination is an incredibly broad idea, and I don't think it's possible to make any moral judgement on it as a whole, because it depends entirely on the circumstances.

To be completely pedantic discrimination is just choosing between two or more different things. Now, no-one is going to say that 'choosing' is in itself wrong. It depends on what you choose and why. Unless we don't believe people ought to have a choice in certain matters.

As for discriminating between people, that is a necessary and beneficial part of life, not to mention survival. If you're walking down a dark street by yourself at night you might be less prepared to run if there's a small elderly woman than if there's a large young man. If you're choosing someone for a job, you have to make a judgment about how suited they are for that job.

It depends on whether to reasons for discriminating between people are actually relevant to the situation. For certain public offices, it is important imo that the racial, sexual, economic, geographical etc. diversity of the community is reflected. So if you need to choose a new police officer, and you have equally qualified candidates but one is from a thus far underrepresented social group, that one should probably be chosen. It shoudln't be necessary to 'positively discriminate' and I admit I have ethical qualms about it, but perhaps at a time when we are trying to redress imbalances it is necessary temporarily.

But only when the discrimination is based on something irrelevant is it immoral. Unfortunately, however, it is commonplace not just based on things like race and sex, but on things like how someone talks or dresses, or whether they have a tattoo or whatever.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Mling,

I'm afraid I can't agree. I can understand where you're coming from, but if something is a legitimate business then, quite rightly, under the law they really oughtn't discriminate against people based on irrelevant aspects of their character.

Of course, there are millions of exceptions to the general rules of not discriminating based on sex, race, age or whatever. But that is only where something is relevant. I mean, if you're running an organisation of some sort for women, or homosexuals, or whoever, then hiring a CEO not in that group would probably not happen, and for good reasons. But if you're running a supermarket that 'doesn't hire black/female/homosexual/white/whatever people' for no reason at all then it's wrong and the government has every right to control you.

 

[Mling]

Of course, there are millions of exceptions to the general rules of not discriminating based on sex, race, age or whatever. But that is only where something is relevant. I mean, if you're running an organisation of some sort for women, or homosexuals, or whoever, then hiring a CEO not in that group would probably not happen, and for good reasons. But if you're running a supermarket that 'doesn't hire black/female/homosexual/white/whatever people' for no reason at all then it's wrong and the government has every right to control you.

Right, that's where I was going with the thought about a normal restaurant--a place that caters to the public should not be unnecessarily discriminatory in which bits of the public they serve--and that should probably be legally enforced.

I wasn't really arguing against any idea that has been expressed, but there is a strong tendency, when everybody agrees that something is "wrong" for the thought process to sway into "it shouldn't be allowed," even if that idea isn't stated outright. I was trying to point out where I think the line is drawn. Most people seem to believe that the law should prohibit racial segregation on a societal level--at one extreme; and I don't think anybody believes the law should force me to have a racially, sexually and religously balanced group of friends--at the other extreme. But where is the line between them? I would say that a private institution or transaction--a club, band, or tossing a "for sale" sign on my car, should not be legally scrutinized the way a public restaurant or theatre would be.

 

[billwald]

It is obvious that some of you fail to differentiate between discrimination and prejudice

 

[JGG]

Discrimination is neither good, nor bad. It is merely discrimination.

Prejudice is bad.

 

[morningstar2651]

Question: Is discrimination right or wrong?


Now when I say discrimination I am not refering to any specific instances, but the general idea. Are there instances where it can be right?

For example, discriminating against child molesters in hiring an elementary teacher, in my mind, would be the right thing to do.

Discriminating against people with multiple crime offenses in the last few years would be, in my mind, reasonable in hiring a police officer.


I only bring this up because I know so many people that simply speak of discrimination as if it is ultimately wrong. While I think that in many instances it is wrong, I feel that there are instances where it is. Is discrimination absolutely wrong in all cases, are there exceptions, is it wrong in only certain cases, or is it OK?

It all depends on context and justification.

Charles Manson has been given equal opportunity to parole...in fact, he's up for parole in 2007. Who here thinks he'll actually get parole this time?

 

[Mling]

Is he even fighting for parole? I know Suzie Atkins is. I was under the impression that Manson was not trying to get paroled.

edited to include something that is related to the OP.

Refusing to parole Manson, even when other murderers do get paroled, would not be any type of discrimination of prejudice. He is a type of dangerous the world rarely sees. As a psych major, I find him fascinating.

Now, refusing parole to some of his Family members might be prejudice--I don't know enough about them to make the call. I would be most nervous about Atkins, though.

 

[kopilo]

See post #23.

'Everything that is given to you by the government, can be taken away by the government'.