Discrimination

[Ectezus]

If someone has horrible views but they do not lead them to behave inappropriately, then there are no grounds for firing them.

What if the response is reactive in nature? Should the situation be avoided by the other parties because they know what will happen or should the person in question abandon the behavior that is attached to his world view or even his religion?

Do you consider, for example, the simple act of not wanting to shake a womans hand inappropriate or should it be respected?

- Ectezus

 

[cantata]

What if the response is reactive in nature? Should the situation be avoided by the other parties because they know what will happen or should the person in question abandon the behavior that is attached to his world view or even his religion?

Do you consider, for example, the simple act of not wanting to shake a womans hand inappropriate or should it be respected?

I would say it depends entirely on the manner in which the behaviour occurs. If declining to shake someone’s hand is done in a polite and respectful way (many male orthodox Jews, who often do not shake hands with women in case they are menstruating, seem, in my experience, to have this politeness down pat), have at it. If the staff member says something like “I’m not shaking hands with a woman, it’s not as if their opinions matter anyway,” there’s a problem.

Duh.

I don’t see how hard it is to understand. In the workplace, people’s views don’t matter. What matters is their behaviour. If a doctor privately thinks women who use birth control outside of marriage are slappers, that’s A-okay as long as it does not prevent her from issuing prescriptions for birth control for women who ask for it. If a firefighter thinks that black people are lesser human beings than white people, that’s A-okay unless she gives preferential treatment to white people when she is rescuing people from a burning building.

 

[Ectezus]

I don't understand why you keep saying things like "Duh" and "I don’t see how hard it is to understand" when I ask you a perfectly normal question. You have two different outcomes for the same scenario and according to you it depends entirely on the amount of 'respect' they give. Do you not understand that respect is subjective and every human being has a different view on the amounts that should be given and being received?

Don't shrug it off with a "Duh it's simple!" when it clearly is not. If someone has 10% more tolerance than *your* disrespect boundary where things suddenly *do* become a problem, that probably makes you a discriminator without a valid concern in their eyes by your own definition.

Furthermore, the examples of the firefighter and doctor you mention are extremely simple. Of course the doctor will give the birth control pill otherwise he wouldn't even be a doctor in the first place. But there's more to work than just the dichotomy of doing your job or not. You mention respect and there are other variables that do have influence (for most jobs at least) that are not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

- Ectezus

 

[cantata]

I don't understand why you keep saying things like "Duh" and "I don’t see how hard it is to understand" when I ask you a perfectly normal question. You have two different outcomes for the same scenario and according to you it depends entirely on the amount of 'respect' they give. Do you not understand that respect is subjective and every human being has a different view on the amounts that should be given and being received?

Don't shrug it off with a "Duh it's simple!" when it clearly is not. If someone has 10% more tolerance than *your* disrespect boundary where things suddenly *do* become a problem, that probably makes you a discriminator without a valid concern in their eyes by your own definition.

Furthermore, the examples of the firefighter and doctor you mention are extremely simple. Of course the doctor will give the birth control pill otherwise he wouldn't even be a doctor in the first place. But there's more to work than just the dichotomy of doing your job or not. You mention respect and there are other variables that do have influence (for most jobs at least) that are not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

- Ectezus

But again, my point is not and has never been that it is easy to judge when someone is behaving inappropriately (it often isn’t), but that it is that behaviour which matters and not the views which inspire it.

 

[Ectezus]

But again, my point is not and has never been that it is easy to judge when someone is behaving inappropriately (it often isn’t), but that it is that behaviour which matters and not the views which inspire it.

Yes behavior trumps mere opinion. Yet 2 posts above you say:
"If the staff member says something like “I’m not shaking hands with a woman, it’s not as if their opinions matter anyway,” there’s a problem."

So 'only saying your opinion' = behavior that can get you fired.

- Ectezus

 

[cantata]

Yes behavior trumps mere opinion. Yet 2 posts above you say:
"If the staff member says something like “I’m not shaking hands with a woman, it’s not as if their opinions matter anyway,” there’s a problem."

So 'only saying your opinion' = behavior that can get you fired.

- Ectezus

Absolutely. Do you feel that speaking doesn’t constitute behaviour? Verbal abuse can be very serious.

 

[Ectezus]

Absolutely. Do you feel that speaking doesn’t constitute behaviour? Verbal abuse can be very serious.

Ok so basically you don't think you can discriminate people for having extreme opinions unless they speak of it in which case they can be punished for it but that's not discrimination on *your* part but bad behavior on *their* part.
Got it.

Like I said before, practically everyone is against discrimination yet we all draw our own subjective line what is allowed and what isn't. But we already agreed on that it often is a vague issue.

- Ectezus

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it immoral to discriminate against people who discriminate?

Discrimination is discrimination, even against those who discriminate themselves. I don't see a difference between discriminating against people because of their religion, beliefs, opinions, or hiring practices (any one of which could lead to discriminatory behaviour on their part). If one's immoral, then all are.

From another angle, if we allow discrimination against those who discriminate, then we ourselves are open for discrimination: we discriminate against those who discriminate, so can ourselves be discriminated against.
Very quickly everyone can be discriminated against, even on an individual basis ("I discriminate against those who discriminate against those who discriminate against..., and that set of people includes one person: my neighbour Paul."), and the whole idea becomes meaningless.

God I love recursion.

Lets say; people who consider women highly inferior to men, as for example the Quran clearly states.

Well, they're entitle to their opinion, however backward I may think it is.

In other words: Is everyone equal, even the people who don't consider everyone equal?

Depends on what we are equating. Ostensibly, people aren't equal: I'm 5'8", while my friend is 6'2" .

 

[NotreDame]

Wiccan Child, for Ectezus, the issue is not refusing to call a spade a spade, i.e. refusing to call or define discrimination as discrimination. Rather, Ectezus is exploring the idea of whether ALL forms of discrimination are bad, impermissible, etcetera.

For example, a black person refuses to be polite, respect, courteous, or even shake the hand of any individual who has a racist view against blacks. Clearly this is being discriminatory in being conengial towards a certain kind of people but is this "bad, reprehensible, wrong, impermissible, immoral" discrimination?

The question for Ectezus is whether there exists any kind of discrimination which is okay, permissible, allowed, right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan Child, for Ectezus, the issue is not refusing to call a spade a spade, i.e. refusing to call or define discrimination as discrimination. Rather, Ectezus is exploring the idea of whether ALL forms of discrimination are bad, impermissible, etcetera.

As I said in my post, I don't see a difference between one form of discrimination and another: if racism is immoral, then so too is sexism, homophobia, etc.

For example, a black person refuses to be polite, respect, courteous, or even shake the hand of any individual who has a racist view against blacks. Clearly this is being discriminatory in being conengial towards a certain kind of people but is this "bad, reprehensible, wrong, impermissible, immoral" discrimination?

The question for Ectezus is whether there exists any kind of discrimination which is okay, permissible, allowed, right?

That depends: are there any that are not okay?

 

[keith99]

First off discrimination is GOOD. It is good to treat bad wine differently from good wine. It is good to treat a gifted student differently from a poor student.

What is bad is to make that treatment inappropriate to the situation or to actually fail to recognise the good student because one is looking at something that is not a good indicator, like skin color or gender.

What now gets called discrimination is really more a failure to discriminate, or to discriminate only with a very broad brush. It is a failure to see the differences between members of a group, it is to say they are all alike, when they in fact are not.

Now one can discriminate at the right level and still take the wrong action. In the student example given one could recognize the good and poor students and then decide to simply ignore the poor student. Personally I feel giving less time to either student is wrong, but I find giving less time to the very good student less wrong (And personally having been an excellent math student with plenty of outside resources I would have been quite happy to be all but ignored). Staying in the math area I would find it totally appropriate to assign different problems to different students. Though this rarely every happened, historically because it would have been a lot more work for the teacher. But today there is some idea that it is wrong because it would be 'discriminating', though I can promise unless it was totally overboard it would make both students happier and also serve their education better.

 

[rahmiyn]

Is it immoral to discriminate against people who discriminate?
Lets say; people who consider women highly inferior to men, as for example the Quran clearly states.

In other words: Is everyone equal, even the people who don't consider everyone equal?

Your thoughts?

- Ectezus

I can think of only one scenario where my actions could potentially be viewed as "discriminating against discriminators." I would not hire such a person for any position of authority over others.

Technically, in the purest definition of the term, I would be discriminating against this person, but I would do so in an effort to keep others from being discriminated against.

I can't help but think of Monty Python humor when imagining how such a lawsuit might play out in a court room.

 

[NotreDame]

dp

 

[NotreDame]

As I said in my post, I don't see a difference between one form of discrimination and another: if racism is immoral, then so too is sexism, homophobia, etc.


That depends: are there any that are not okay?

So, according to your reasoning, a Holocaust survivor who invites everyone in his neighbor over to his house for a picnic, but not his neighbor Adolf Eichman, then this discriminatory act by the Holocaust survivor is wrong?

 

[rahmiyn]

So, according to your reasoning, a Holocaust survivor who invites everyone in his neighbor over to his house for a picnic, but not his neighbor Adolf Eichman, then this discriminatory act by the Holocaust survivor is wrong?

If we take every teaching of Jesus seriously, then yes, for a Christian he would say this is wrong. Honestly, I think it requires more faith to follow the teachings of Jesus than it is to believe for a physical healing or miracle.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, according to your reasoning, a Holocaust survivor who invites everyone in his neighbor over to his house for a picnic, but not his neighbor Adolf Eichman, then this discriminatory act by the Holocaust survivor is wrong?

I never said that discrimination was wrong. I simply said that I don't see a distinction between one form of discrimination and another: if racism is wrong, then so too are sexism, etc. If racism isn't wrong, then neither are the rest.

Note that I'm using racism as an example. My point is that either all forms of discrimination are wrong, or none are.

 

[Verv]

Racism is a natural phenomenon and the people who never feel a sense of racism are probably quite unique or simply have never been exposed to a situation where they live as a minority.

The quickest way to find yourself having racist feelings is to be discriminated against -- I find myself having racist feelings from time to time as I live in a place where I occasionally incur racism, and it seems the most natural feeling is then to make belittling streotypes right back (or perhaps I am just a very imperfect person, LOL).

I do not know if I can ever be on the wavelength of the people who act as if this is not natural or as if this is something that can somehow be defeated by being racist back towards "racists."

 

[Catherineanne]

Is it immoral to discriminate against people who discriminate?
Lets say; people who consider women highly inferior to men, as for example the Quran clearly states.

In other words: Is everyone equal, even the people who don't consider everyone equal?

Your thoughts?

- Ectezus

Discrimination is not wrong. It is what prevent us from seeing all the people around us as exactly the same, with no individuality, no interest, and no humanity. This point of view is that of the narcissist, for whom the only interesting person is himself; the rest are bit players in the drama of his own life.

Therefore, discrimination; looking at those around us and determining that this one is similar to me, in having a young family, and that one is different from me in having an interest in architecture, or even in having a different faith, is fine. As is noticing that some are white, some black, some other shades.

However, discrimination in law is something other than this. It takes discrimination a step further, and says that if I use my normal human reasoning to ascertain that someone is very different from myself, and I then choose to treat that person in relation to goods or services or a job in a way that I would not treat someone similar to myself, only because of their difference, then that treatment is unlawful.

I can certainly decide to only invite whites to dinner. I can certainly decide to only have white friends. That behaviour would probably be bigotted, but it would not be discrimination in the legal sense, as we are all free to choose our friends and companions. And what black person with any self respect would want to come into such a house anyway?

As has rightly been said, discrimination applies only to behaviour, because it is not possible to legislate to control thought or opinion. Think what you like about me, but treat me with respect, is a good start. And the reasonable assumption is, if you treat me with respect, you will end up having respect. As is indeed the case for most people.

In theory at least, the more we get to know one another, the less those anti-discrimination laws will be needed. And you cannot get to know people if you will not employ them, or serve them, or live next door to them.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

From what I can gather by reading this board, allot of the people who harp on "Christians" for the acts of their brethern are just as bad. Ignorance is going to exist amongst humans, it's just that way and nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is slow it down through education and setting a higher standard.

If an individual applies for a job, and they are a known racist, should they be denied the job? If I'm a supervisor in charge of hiring, and a Black Panther or Klansman walks in, should I deny them the job becuase of their beliefs? Should I treat them with less respect than someone else because of this? No I should not. Individuality is what makes being a human greater than being a lower primate. How is a racist any worse than a sexist? Or, how are they any worse than a woman who will not date bald men? Humans, no matter how hard we try, will always be intolerant of something. There will be traits of other individuals that we cannot accept and will always have a hard time with. However, we can overcome that problem through seeing them as a human being and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

If you discriminate against someone because you don't support their views on life, then you are worse than they are. The reason being is that you are not upholding the best humanity has to offer; you are sinking to the levels that some twisted individuals may be. I'm not saying support their ideas, but respect their opinions and try to do your best to show them the error of their ways.

 

[cantata]

How is a racist any worse than a sexist? Or, how are they any worse than a woman who will not date bald men?

What an odd comparison.

Whom you choose not to date, and of whom you are intolerant, are often very separate things. Is it sexist to be hetero- or homosexual rather than bisexual? No. Is it discriminatory not to find bald men, bald women, men with small ears, women with large breasts, &c., attractive? No. It would certainly be discriminatory to deny any of these people employment, goods, or services on the basis of their appearance, though.

Sexual attraction and discrimination are different.