Is it moral to discriminate people in some cases?
Yes: in a job where physical handicaps would lead to severe danger, discriminating against those with such handicaps is therefore the right and moral thing to do. For example, fine and delicate motor control might be needed when building a nuclear reactor, but someone without such control would pose a severe risk to themselves and to others. Thus, discriminating against that person with regards to employment isn't just amoral, it's moral.Is it moral to discriminate people in some cases?
If hiring that person puts the employer at a detriment, then it is not immoral to discriminate against that person. In places where wheelchair ramps are not required by law, it is entirely amoral (i.e., neither immoral nor moral) to discriminate against a wheelchair-user because of the extraordinary cost in hiring that person.So, basically all you say it is moral to discriminate when the act of discriminating is bringing more good than non-discriminating.
That is quite understandable and agreeable.
What about a case when someone can do his job, but unfortunately he cannot do it in the environment that is common for others. Say he cannot go to the office, but he still can go his job from home (for any reason, illness, whatever). Is it moral to discriminate against this person?
Well, the example was "working from home" which usually have a benefit for the employer, as he does not need to care for the work place of that person. The case above is understandable.If hiring that person puts the employer at a detriment, then it is not immoral to discriminate against that person. In places where wheelchair ramps are not required by law, it is entirely amoral (i.e., neither immoral nor moral) to discriminate against a wheelchair-user because of the extraordinary cost in hiring that person.
So, basically all you say it is moral to discriminate when the act of discriminating is bringing more good than non-discriminating.
That is quite understandable and agreeable.
What about a case when someone can do his job, but unfortunately he cannot do it in the environment that is common for others. Say he cannot go to the office, but he still can go his job from home (for any reason, illness, whatever). Is it moral to discriminate against this person?
True, but working from home is also comes with costs. If you can hire the person with no more cost than if you hired a 'normal' person, then discriminating against them anyway becomes immoral as the objective reason is supplanted by a subjective prejudicial one.Well, the example was "working from home" which usually have a benefit for the employer, as he does not need to care for the work place of that person. The case above is understandable.
Not exactly. The proper verb is not "wants to", but "only able to". The person wants to go to work and meet with people, but unfortunately that's impossible for some reasons.Would you happen to be/know a programmer who wants to work from home?