Morality of discrimination

Are there cases when discrimination is moral?

  • There are cases when discrimination is moral

  • There are no cases when discrimination is moral


Results are only viewable after voting.

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
 
Upvote 0

citizenthom

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.
Nov 10, 2009
3,299
185
✟12,912.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes. Choosing a person with experience over one without experience is "discrimination." Choosing to hire a Christian as a pastor over a non-Christian who applied as a joke is "religious discrimination." Choosing a woman to run a lingerie department over a man is "discrimination." Choosing to give veterans government benefits not available to non-veterans is "discrimination."

"Discrimination" is a part of everyday life. The word itself is not evil. The act itself is not evil. Only certain specific brands of discrimination are wrong at all.
 
Upvote 0

Paulos23

Never tell me the odds!
Mar 23, 2005
8,168
4,434
Washington State
✟309,164.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, when the qulifications for the job require it. And yes there are some jobs where it shouldn't matter, but it still does (any personal sales job, you really need to be young and pretty, or a very fast talker).
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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?
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.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

lawtonfogle

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Apr 20, 2005
11,585
350
35
✟13,892.00
Faith
Christian
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?

Would you happen to be/know a programmer who wants to work from home?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
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.

If working from home comes at no extra cost or effort, then I suppose it is immoral discrimination to not hire someone who could and would work at home.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Would you happen to be/know a programmer who wants to work from home?
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.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
22,884
6,555
71
✟318,580.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Most of what is called discrimination is actually more of a failure to discriminate.

It is looking at a group and saying all members of that group have the same characteristics. Even when it is statistically true of the group it is almost never true of all members of the group.

Statistically men are stronger than women. I've met women stronger the 95% of all men.

Painting with a broad brush is a failure to discriminate on a fine level.

Why is it that discimination is used when prejudice is usually a much better word choice? Prejudice is deciding before one has the information needed to made an informed decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citizenthom
Upvote 0