Who says discrimination is bad?
Who or what is the moral authority for this claim?
Why is diversity good?
Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity?
Who says discrimination is bad?
Who or what is the moral authority for this claim?
Why is diversity good?
Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity?
I appreciate the sincere attempt at answering those questions. You're spot on when you say that the law has a moral as well as a legal authority. In fact, I would argue that we craft laws to reflect our moral foundations, i.e. the morality comes first. So, what's the moral basis for anti-discrimination laws? It's all well and good to point to something Kant said, but there's not one in a thousand of our ruling class that could recite any of the philosophers as justification for their rigid adherence to the blank slate. Their beliefs come from somewhere else. Perhaps some of it is Biblical, but there's also no shortage of chapter and verse that supports the idea of nations and tribes, that argues against the free intermingling of humans - with the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel being particularly powerful. Besides, some of the fiercest proponents of blank slate egalitarianism come from the increasingly post-Christian Europe. They can't fall back on the Bible to justify their claims.
As far as the alleged benefits of diversity in the workplace, so what? That's an entirely different matter than enacting legal frameworks to enforce diversity. I can list 10 benefits to eating a low-carb diet couple with moderate exercise, but does that mean we should we all be compelled to eat and exercise in accordance with those aims? As I've pointed out before, we would find it unconscionable to ban discrimination in other matters of taste, so what's the moral grounding for the idea that I'm not allowed to have a preference when it comes to my human relationships?
By outlawing discrimination we've now eliminated the fundamental right to free association. We are not allowed to place our bodies next to, or not next to, people of our choosing. We are now quite literally slaves to the morality of those who worship at the altar of the blank slate and I've yet to hear a compelling justification for this egregious infringement on my rights as a human.
A polite and reasoned reply. However ultimately you are ultimately arguing, in effect for diversity (eg being allowed to eat a diverse diet) and against discrimination (in not being picked on for choosing those who you wish to associate with). In short, it cuts both ways.
There is also no law I know of that compels one to associate with others in private. (In fact it is more accurate to say you are calling for 'freedom of disassociation) But if as far as the public arena is concerned one really would, say, prefer a return to segregation, and so to allow by your reckoning 'freedom of association', whereby one can choose to utterly exclude others to the max, these days one is likely to be disappointed. There is also the matter of motive. It is not just a matter of 'taste' to discriminate strongly against people and to suggest it is, when the actual motive is often clear, and to ignore the pernicious hatred it can engender, the societal detriment and plain inhumanity and lack of justice involved, is regretfully mealy-mouthed.
Each of these questions are too vague to give concrete answers, and rely upon knowing what you specifically mean by them.
>Who says discrimination is bad?
Discrimination based on skill, experience is not necessarily bad. But I assume you mean race, right?
>Why is diversity good?
It isn't, necessarily.
>Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity?
What is it you want to do that you currently cannot do?
Who says discrimination is bad?
- The person being discriminated against.
Who or what is the moral authority for this claim?
- Jesus.
Why is diversity good?
- It takes a lot of colours to make a rainbow.
Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity?
- Because they're on TV dummy!
- The person being discriminated against.
- Jesus.
Who says discrimination is bad?
What is the moral authority for this claim?
Why is diversity good?
Why are my preferences less valid than the person on the television preaching about diversity?Because your preferences may seems valid to you but they are limited by personal biases or a lack of exposure to different perspectives. Without challenging and critically examining your preferences, they can become rigid and harmful. share
The above quotes are all essentially differently worded versions of what Christians call The Golden Rule. But this isn't applicable in matters of association, which by necessity involve prioritization, i.e. discrimination. If I'm not hired based simply on my genitalia or my melanin content, hasn't the person doing the hiring violated the Golden Rule from the perspective of the person passed over?
Diversity strengthens resilience, fosters innovation, and promotes cooperation. It enriches society, while rejecting diversity leads to division and stagnation, which is clearly bad.
In-group preferences foster cooperation, altruism, high trust, and charity, thus enriching society. Diversity leads to friction, mistrust, and social ills, which is clearly bad.
Because your preferences may seems valid to you but they are limited by personal biases or a lack of exposure to different perspectives. Without challenging and critically examining your preferences, they can become rigid and harmful.
All of this is pure conjecture on your part and could easily be turned 180 degrees.
Isn't it nice that other religions have managed to come up with differently worded versions of what Christians call the Golden Rule, even though some of them taught it centuries before Christ?
And you know why the "pure conjecture on my part" is not surprised by your echoing the 'Golden Rule isn't applicable in matters of this or that' argument? It’s because similar justification have been repeatedly used to legitimize exploitation and oppression throughout the history of Western colonialism and imperialism, from the subjugation of indigenous peoples to the enforcement of racial hierarchies and economic dominance.
I understand that you need an example of what discrimination is and what is not. But I have absolutely no idea what kind of job needs to hire you based solely on your genitalia or melanin content. So I am not sure if they violated the Golden Rule or not. Like everyone else, my perspective has its limitations. But I'm willing to learn and grow...
While in-group preferences can indeed foster cooperation, altruism, and trust within a particular group, a truly enriched society requires embracing diversity and promoting inclusion. By celebrating and valuing our differences, we can cultivate broader trust, cooperation, and charity that transcends group boundaries. It's not diversity itself that leads to friction, mistrust, and social ills, but rather our failure to acknowledge, understand, and appreciate the unique perspectives and experiences that diversity brings. By embracing diversity and promoting inclusion, we can harness its power to build a more harmonious, equitable, and thriving society for all.
Well said.
share