|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A moral right not to be refused service on the grounds of race is universal (everyone has it; in any imaginary society with only one race it would still exist even if not relevant).
We live in a society with only one race. Actually, we live in a society with no race as it is an artificial construct where superficial characteristics are assigned artificial meaning. Not completely unlike sexuality and gender. We are all merely human and people arguing the right to discriminate against other humans are simply arseholes.
[ 20. February 2017, 12:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Drivers licenses are artificial constructs but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It is the privilege of the white to say "there is no such thing as race." Blacks know all too well how real it is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Drivers licenses are artificial constructs but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It is the privilege of the white to say "there is no such thing as race." Blacks know all too well how real it is.
Sure. On the other hand, I find a lot of people who view the artificial construct as though it came down from Mt. Sinai, and can't cope with the idea that some other group of people might make a different artificial choice.
Of course race is real - we see the effects of race all around us. But that doesn't mean that it should be real, and it's entirely consistent to simultaneously think that race is a big thing in contemporary society and that it shouldn't be.
The danger in holding that set of opinions is that you walk your way into "colorblind" thinking, which is also a problem.
[ 20. February 2017, 15:29: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The danger in holding that set of opinions is that you walk your way into "colorblind" thinking, which is also a problem.
That's where I was, bumblingly, trying to go.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Race isn't real. Racism is. There is a fundamental difference between the two. It is the value that people place on the artificial categories that matters. Whilst sexuality and gender are real, it is the valuesthat people assign that are artificial and unnecessary.
[ 20. February 2017, 17:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Since there's no "consensus" on whether Ruby Bridges should be allowed to attend the William Frantz Elementary School, the "moral" position (according to Russ) in inaction and indifference.
No, I'm saying that since at that time there was no consensus on school desegregation, the relevant act of government can't be justified on a "we're apolitically solving a social problem" basis but only on a "morally this is the right thing to do" basis.
Forbidding black children of US citizens from going to the best schools just because they're black is the sort of prejudiced action that I'm suggesting is morally wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
No. Because (it seems to me but you may be able to persuade me otherwise) there is a moral duty to treat people impartially when acting in the public realm. (cf St James "in the assembly")
Not a specific right to be served, not a right to any sort of cross-group equality of outcome, but an individual right to impartial treatment.
Which means, for example, making hiring decisions on the basis of most advantageous outcome to the business rather than indulging any personal animus or prejudice or private conviction or whim that the hiring manager might feel.
Which means, for example, limiting the service offered as the service provider sees fit, allowing their own religious convictions, but then offering that service impartially to everyone.
You seem to be jumping back and forth between two contradictory ideas, largely for personal preference as near as I can tell. On the one hand you support racial discrimination if it leads to "the most advantageous outcome" to whatever organization you belong to. In other words, individual racism is immoral but institutional (or systematic) racism can be a moral imperative in certain situations. See also your endorsement of racial discrimination in employment practices.
Which brings us back to Ruby Bridges. On the one hand you seem to be arguing that the New Orleans school board took the correct and moral action in segregating its schools, correctly anticipating the huge amount of disruption desegregation would cause. In your terms segregating New Orleans' public schools was "the most advantageous outcome" for the school district. On the other hand you claim that public school segregation "is the sort of prejudiced action that I'm suggesting is morally wrong". So we've got you advancing two standards, one of which says racially segregating public schools is not just morally right but a moral imperative, while you "suggest" such segregation is morally wrong.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Trespass means to do wrong not just stray onto someone else's land, but also such thngs as trespass on someone's hospitality. The most common modern usage of straying onto someone's land was originally a specific example.
I think you'll find that "to pass across" (someone else's land) is the root meaning of the word and to do wrong generally the derived meaning by analogy.
Based on a concept of wrongdoing as trespassing on the rightful domain of others, ie crossing a boundary to infringe on their rights.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Trespass means to do wrong not just stray onto someone else's land, but also such things as trespass on someone's hospitality. The most common modern usage of straying onto someone's land was originally a specific example.
I think you'll find that "to pass across" (someone else's land) is the root meaning of the word and to do wrong generally the derived meaning by analogy.
Based on a concept of wrongdoing as trespassing on the rightful domain of others, ie crossing a boundary to infringe on their rights.
I think the word you're actually looking for is "ὀφειλήματα", or possibly "debita" if you want to go with Latin. If you're going to parse word meanings and delve into semantic theology (theosemantics?), maybe a reference to the actual words used might be a help.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
While the derivation means to pass across, it was not originally limited to land, it was to pass across a rule. Think of transgress.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Think also of the torts of trespass to the person and to goods; now legal archaisms, but pointing up the error of your assertion.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Guys this is all so much low-hanging fruit, while the more substantive points go completely unaddressed.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Not sure about that; they're not new points, they're the equivalent of PRATTs now. That Russ doesn't consider them refuted a thousand times is rather beside the point, as with creatonuts.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's so little excuse when these things can be checked online:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trespass
I don't think either Gee O'D or I are disputing what it says there.
The disagreement is to whether trespass / transgress originally meant to cross a line physically (i.e. a land boundary) and then by analogy meant to cross a line as a metaphor for breaking a rule. Or vice versa, with the wrongdoing meaning being primary and the act of physical trespass being so named by analogy.
But that really doesn't matter.
The point being made was just that same analogy - that part of morality is like unto respecting other people's domains - the space in which they have the right to do things their way.
Reflecting, now I come to think of it, a model of society not as an army that marches to the drum of whoever is voted the drummer, but as a group of independent small landowners with a procedure for resolving boundary disputes.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The point being made was just that same analogy - that part of morality is like unto respecting other people's domains - the space in which they have the right to do things their way.
And more specifically, how do we define your domain? Nobody is denying that an individual person is allowed to think that homosexuality is sinful, that black people are an inferior race, that women should be barefoot and pregnant, or whatever else they like.
Most of us don't like those opinions, and think that it is morally wrong to hold them, but we are not attempting to punish people for having them.
But when you enter into business, and open your premises to the general public, we impose a bunch of rules on you, because you're no longer in your private domain.
Some of those rules are about things like fire safety, uniform signage for emergency exits, and so on. Some of the rules are about standard terms and conditions for sales, so commerce can take place in a reliable fashion and customers don't need to reinvent the wheel with every new merchant. And some of the rules are to do with how you may treat customers, and include the rules that you can't discriminate between them on the "popular" grounds.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be jumping back and forth between two contradictory ideas, largely for personal preference as near as I can tell...
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
I see no contradiction. Although of course it's possible to believe two things which may occasionally come into conflict...
I've said I believe there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public. That's the rule or principle that wrongful acts of a discriminatory nature transgress against.
That duty rules out allocating black children to a better or worse school than white children. It rules out advertising a job and not giving it to the best candidate because they happen to be gay. It rules out a manager in a large organisation acting on their prejudice about what sort of staff are worthy of promotion.
It doesn't rule out "indirect discrimination" - decisions that have a secondary impact that is more favourable to some social groups than others.
It doesn't rule out private individuals from choosing to shop in one bakery rather than another because they feel more comfortable there.
It doesn't even rule out setting up a system where there's one school for white children and another equally-good school for black children (although I tend to think this is a bad idea for the sort of reasons JaneR mentioned).
Is that any clearer ?
It's a narrower moral duty in one sense than the one you seem to believe in, but it is general (thanks Dafyd) applying to all prejudices, common or uncommon.
It's a duty on individuals because all moral duties are on individuals. Only individuals make choices.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be jumping back and forth between two contradictory ideas, largely for personal preference as near as I can tell...
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
I see no contradiction. Although of course it's possible to believe two things which may occasionally come into conflict...
I've said I believe there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public. That's the rule or principle that wrongful acts of a discriminatory nature transgress against.
That duty rules out allocating black children to a better or worse school than white children. It rules out advertising a job and not giving it to the best candidate because they happen to be gay. It rules out a manager in a large organisation acting on their prejudice about what sort of staff are worthy of promotion.
<snip>
Is that any clearer ?
As I pointed out, it's not the clarity that's the problem, it's the contradiction. Telling someone their essay should be no more than five pages is perfectly clear. So is telling then that their essay should be at least fifteen pages. It's when you try to reconcile these two ideas that you run into problems.
For example, you maintain that "[n]o black would-be-baker has a moral claim against you", which would seem to include any moral claim to impartial treatment. Yet you also say that "there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public". Both these statements are perfectly clear, yet are arguing contradictory points. The first that racial (or religious) partiality is a perfectly acceptable employment practice (and presumably in other areas as well), while the second says impartiality is a "moral duty".
It's these kinds of contradictions that lead me to suspect that the term "impartiality" is doing a lot of hidden work in your analysis. Something along the lines of "I impartially decided that the applicant had failed the 'being white' portion of his interview". Which seems a bit extreme, hence the request for clarification as to how your acceptance of racial and religious discrimination in hiring practices fits with your claim that "there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's so little excuse when these things can be checked online:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trespass
I don't think either Gee O'D or I are disputing what it says there.
The disagreement is to whether trespass / transgress originally meant to cross a line physically (i.e. a land boundary) and then by analogy meant to cross a line as a metaphor for breaking a rule. Or vice versa, with the wrongdoing meaning being primary and the act of physical trespass being so named by analogy.
But that really doesn't matter.
The point being made was just that same analogy - that part of morality is like unto respecting other people's domains - the space in which they have the right to do things their way.
Reflecting, now I come to think of it, a model of society not as an army that marches to the drum of whoever is voted the drummer, but as a group of independent small landowners with a procedure for resolving boundary disputes.
I totally agree with what Karl posted and in particular that you ought to have checked the etymology before you posted as you did. What you're now trying to avoid are the consquences of your post where you likened wrongdoing to a breach of land rights; that was wrong and you have yet to acknowledge it.
This may be low fruit but it points out quite clearly the flaws in Russ's reasoning in this small area - flaws echoing those in much more imporatant ones.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Reflecting, now I come to think of it, a model of society not as an army that marches to the drum of whoever is voted the drummer, but as a group of independent small landowners with a procedure for resolving boundary disputes.
Human society is just so unlike a group of independent small landowners that the analogy is positively unhelpful. Humans are not independent.
In any case, you've said you think that rights are only one part of morality, which in your world seems to mean punishable behaviour.
So even if a certain behaviour isn't a violation of anyone's rights it might still according to you be morally wrong, therefore punishable, and therefore a candidate for being illegal.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said I believe there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public. That's the rule or principle that wrongful acts of a discriminatory nature transgress against.
This looks so vague as to positively invite special pleading. It's not a rule or a principle: it's an ad hoc justification for positions taken on other grounds.
It doesn't even rule out school segregation by race? How does the working on that one go?
How does the working on any of your permissions go?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I've said I believe there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public. That's the rule or principle that wrongful acts of a discriminatory nature transgress against.
This looks so vague as to positively invite special pleading. It's not a rule or a principle: it's an ad hoc justification for positions taken on other grounds.
It doesn't even rule out school segregation by race? How does the working on that one go?
How does the working on any of your permissions go?
Simples. He is a privileged straight, white male. None of the practical repercussions of his proposal will affect him.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Reflecting, now I come to think of it, a model of society not as an army that marches to the drum of whoever is voted the drummer, but as a group of independent small landowners with a procedure for resolving boundary disputes.
Human society is just so unlike a group of independent small landowners that the analogy is positively unhelpful. Humans are not independent.
I guess it depends on how "independent" you want to stipulate. If we posit independence to mean lack of such infrastructure of interdependence like a common set of laws or a shared idea of property rights the "independent small landowner" that comes to mind is something like a pre-feudal dark ages warlord. While they did have "a procedure for resolving boundary disputes", it's not one many would find optimal.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess it depends on how "independent" you want to stipulate. If we posit independence to mean lack of such infrastructure of interdependence like a common set of laws or a shared idea of property rights the "independent small landowner" that comes to mind is something like a pre-feudal dark ages warlord. While they did have "a procedure for resolving boundary disputes", it's not one many would find optimal.
A pre-feudal dark ages warlord relied upon an infrastructure of peasants, servants, women of the warlord social class, etc.
Much as I admire John Locke, he thinks as if society is entirely made up of seventeenth-century English gentlemen. That ideological construction lurks within modern anglosphere liberalism, especially at the libertarian edge of the stream, to this day.
Set aside such cultural facts as common laws and shared ideas of property rights. People can speculate in an utopian or dystopian way about societies with neither of those things. Human beings have common languages, which they don't each make up or choose independently. That's not a merely incidental fact about humans.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, you maintain that "[n]o black would-be-baker has a moral claim against you", which would seem to include any moral claim to impartial treatment. Yet you also say that "there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public". Both these statements are perfectly clear, yet are arguing contradictory points.
If you read the sentence in context, it is saying that no-one has a claim (of wrongful conduct) against you, Eliab Bakery-Manager, because you are not prejudiced and have impartially decided that it is disadvantageous to the business that you work for to hire a black baker.
Because the scenario as Eliab described it was one in which the business would lose a major part of it's customer base if it did that, due to the erroneous beliefs of the residents of Bigotsville.
In that situation, skin colour is relevant to the decision. Just as it would be relevant in casting Othello (or any other play about race).
In a racist society, a private individual may of course assert his anti-racist beliefs, and act on them within his own domain. But it would be a bad employee who did so at his employer's expense.
Conversely, if Mr Bakery-Manager has advertised the post to the public and then makes the decision on the basis of his private conviction about race or noses or religion or anything irrelevant to the job, then he has not been impartial, and thereby wrongs both the applicant and his employer.
Perhaps you might want to say what you think the relevant general moral principles and duties are, since you think I've got it wrong...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Because the scenario as Eliab described it was one in which the business would lose a major part of it's customer base if it did that, due to the erroneous beliefs of the residents of Bigotsville.
Yes, that was exactly the point of the thought-experiment. The manager has no good options. It's a choice between commercial martyrdom and functional racism.
You could make the case that the manager ought to choose martyrdom, but in the real world, that has always been a minority interest. In a situation where acting impartially has a real cost, many people will in fact act as if they shared the majority's prejudices.
You conceded that the net effect of this was unjust, but also said that the manager was not personally at fault. And you did not see any reason for anti-discrimination law, even though you acknowledged that there was a real injustice.
The corollary to your position must be that the manager could in fact be sued for damages (negligence/breach of contract) by his employer if he engaged the services of a black or gay member of staff - because if it is lawful to have a straight-white-only hiring policy, compliance with that policy can be made a contractual duty*.
Another corollary is that there is no principled distinction between the 'duty' to racially discriminate if the alternative is near-certain business failure for your employer to the same duty when the alternative is merely a commercial disadvantage. Your position is therefore consistent with imposing a legally binding contractual duty on all employees to act as if they were racist in any circumstance where racial discrimination is commercial beneficial.
My view is that if the manager wanted to challenge the injustice, the law ought to be on his side. He ought to be able to say to his employer, to his customers, to the public at large "I won't agree to discriminate, and what's more, the law says that I mustn't". He ought to be protected from being sued or dismissed, and he ought to have the support of a law that applies the same rules of non-discrimination to his commercial rivals. The law won't solve the problem of prejudice (you're right about that), but it can and should give support to the people who are trying to solve the problem.
Your preferred system gives not only gives the non-racist no support whatsoever, but goes further and says that a non-racist can be required to act in a racist way, if he is under a contractual duty to maximise profits for a business and impartiality would be commercially harmful. Since you started out from the position that people should not be forced to act against their convictions, I think you need to recognise that this looks very like a fatal flaw.
(*There are, in E&W at least, a very small number of acts which are lawful, but which cannot be the subject of an enforceable contract - however these provisions are even more open to the charge of special pleading and social engineering than anti-discrimination laws, so I assume you would not support extending this class.)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Because the scenario as Eliab described it was one in which the business would lose a major part of it's customer base if it did that, due to the erroneous beliefs of the residents of Bigotsville.
This looks rather as thought the right in question doesn't belong to the applicant but to the business owner. Usually if you have a right that right defends your interests. Here the right is defending only the interests of the business owner.
A right that can be voided by third party disregard of that right is not a right at all.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, you maintain that "[n]o black would-be-baker has a moral claim against you", which would seem to include any moral claim to impartial treatment. Yet you also say that "there is a moral duty of impartiality when dealing with the public". Both these statements are perfectly clear, yet are arguing contradictory points.
If you read the sentence in context, it is saying that no-one has a claim (of wrongful conduct) against you, Eliab Bakery-Manager, because you are not prejudiced and have impartially decided that it is disadvantageous to the business that you work for to hire a black baker.
Because the scenario as Eliab described it was one in which the business would lose a major part of it's customer base if it did that, due to the erroneous beliefs of the residents of Bigotsville.
<snip>
Conversely, if Mr Bakery-Manager has advertised the post to the public and then makes the decision on the basis of his private conviction about race or noses or religion or anything irrelevant to the job, then he has not been impartial, and thereby wrongs both the applicant and his employer.
Perhaps you might want to say what you think the relevant general moral principles and duties are, since you think I've got it wrong...
First off, I'm fairly confident that both of these examples would see themselves as acting impartially, the first because he's deriving material benefit from racism and the second because he's simply impartially concluded the inferiority of certain races renders them unsuitable for employment. (Racists prefer to be called "racial realists" these days.)
Second, I take issue with your assertion that racism is okay if you're deriving some benefit from it. (In Eliab's example, a monetary benefit.) It sounds a lot like a case I once heard someone making that George Wallace wasn't really a racist, he just shamelessly race-baited as an electoral (and governing) tactic as a practical means of gaining and keeping political power. I've always thought that argument made Wallace sound like an even worse person, but by your reckoning that kind of behavior is not just morally acceptable but a moral imperative.
Which brings us, yet again, to Ruby Bridges. You've made the claim that racially segregated schools are "the sort of prejudiced action that [you're] suggesting is morally wrong". And yet the actions of the New Orleans school board in maintaining segregated schools would seem to exactly fit your criteria for when racism is moral: the anticipation of negative consequences of not racially discriminating. This anticipation even turned out to be correct in New Orleans, since the entire district was disrupted and most white students withdrew from school.
But despite being a textbook example of what you consider acceptable racism, you claim it's "morally wrong".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I take issue with your assertion that racism is okay if you're deriving some benefit from it. (In Eliab's example, a monetary benefit.) It sounds a lot like a case I once heard someone making that George Wallace wasn't really a racist, he just shamelessly race-baited as an electoral (and governing) tactic as a practical means of gaining and keeping political power. I've always thought that argument made Wallace sound like an even worse person, but by your reckoning that kind of behavior is not just morally acceptable but a moral imperative.
Mr Bakery-Manager is under a moral imperative to do the job that he is being paid to do. Or to resign his job if he feels that he is being asked to act immorally.
What makes it OK to discriminate is not any benefit that he gains (which in this instance is limited to still having a job to go to).
What makes it OK is that the business requirement for a white baker is a fact of the situation, something that an impartial person would recognise. Rather than a prejudice on the part of the manager.
quote:
Which brings us, yet again, to Ruby Bridges
I direct the right honourable gentleman's attention to my previous answers. I do not favour segregated schooling. But see such provision as a breach of the duty of impartiality if and only if one school is inherently worse than another.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I take issue with your assertion that racism is okay if you're deriving some benefit from it. (In Eliab's example, a monetary benefit.) It sounds a lot like a case I once heard someone making that George Wallace wasn't really a racist, he just shamelessly race-baited as an electoral (and governing) tactic as a practical means of gaining and keeping political power. I've always thought that argument made Wallace sound like an even worse person, but by your reckoning that kind of behavior is not just morally acceptable but a moral imperative.
Mr Bakery-Manager is under a moral imperative to do the job that he is being paid to do. Or to resign his job if he feels that he is being asked to act immorally.
What makes it OK to discriminate is not any benefit that he gains (which in this instance is limited to still having a job to go to).
What makes it OK is that the business requirement for a white baker is a fact of the situation, something that an impartial person would recognise. Rather than a prejudice on the part of the manager.
I'm not sure I follow. Why doesn't 'catering to the prejudices of the manager' count as a "business requirement"? Keeping management happy would seem to be business related.
And what if the job he's being paid to do includes racial discrimination? Doesn't he have a moral imperative to be racist, even if he personally disagrees and it's a bad business decision? If so, your idea of morality comes down to 'whatever you pay me to believe'. If not, why is it a moral imperative in one case but not the other when both reduce to 'because it's the job that you're being paid to do'?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which brings us, yet again, to Ruby Bridges. You've made the claim that racially segregated schools are "the sort of prejudiced action that [you're] suggesting is morally wrong". And yet the actions of the New Orleans school board in maintaining segregated schools would seem to exactly fit your criteria for when racism is moral: the anticipation of negative consequences of not racially discriminating. This anticipation even turned out to be correct in New Orleans, since the entire district was disrupted and most white students withdrew from school.
But despite being a textbook example of what you consider acceptable racism, you claim it's "morally wrong".
I direct the right honourable gentleman's attention to my previous answers. I do not favour segregated schooling. But see such provision as a breach of the duty of impartiality if and only if one school is inherently worse than another.
Yeah, I got that. The problem is that answer is totally irreconcilable with your racist baker answer. The exact same situation would seem to apply for pretty much exactly the same reasons. Angry racists insist Ruby Bridges should attend a separate and much worse school than the white students living in the same district and they'll cause all kinds of problems for the school district if this doesn't happen. It would seem to be an exact parallel of your racist bakery manager answer (it's okay to be racist if everyone else is racist and will make life tough for you and the bakery you work for if you're not racist), and yet you come to the opposite conclusion.
Yes, I saw your earlier answer. I even linked to it. The problem is that it's the complete opposite of what you consider the correct moral course of action in an apparently identical situation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It would seem to be an exact parallel of your racist bakery manager answer (it's okay to be racist if everyone else is racist and will make life tough for you and the bakery you work for if you're not racist), and yet you come to the opposite conclusion.
The difference is private enterprise.
The bakery, being a private enterprise, has a legitimate interest in employing whoever will help them to sell more cakes. That's what the job is. They are under no obligation to publicly advertise any vacancy they have. If they do, in effect holding a public competition for the job, then it should be a fair competition. But "fair" in that context means not judging on criteria that are irrelevant to performance in the job.
Conversely, the local education authority is a part of government, and should be fair in allocating children and funds to schools, not employing irrelevant criteria to give some children a better education than others.
"Be racist" is not an action. It's not well-defined.
I've said what I see as the general moral imperative that underpins people's sense of the wrongness of discrimination.
The public/private distinction seems to me a necessary part of that principle.
I've invited you to set out your alternative moral basis...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Meanwhile, The Washington State Supreme Court ruled against the florist who refused to save gay customers who were getting married. Supreme Court rules against Florist.
It probably didn't help her case any that she admitted in court that making floral arrangements for any other group of "sinners" would not constitute supporting their sin, only gays.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ahhhh. I'd wondered.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The public/private distinction seems to me a necessary part of that principle.
The public/private distinction is frequently a load of rubbish. The fact that something is not run by government does not make it "private" in the sense of closed off from the wider world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Nor, I should add, is "private" synonymous with "immune from legislative control".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It's an interesting consequence of Russ's views that he thinks there's nothing wrong with business cartels. And that the government shouldn't make them illegal.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
My view is that if the manager wanted to challenge the injustice, the law ought to be on his side. He ought to be able to say to his employer, to his customers, to the public at large "I won't agree to discriminate, and what's more, the law says that I mustn't". He ought to be protected from being sued or dismissed, and he ought to have the support of a law that applies the same rules of non-discrimination to his commercial rivals. The law won't solve the problem of prejudice (you're right about that), but it can and should give support to the people who are trying to solve the problem.
The law you propose doesn't "support" anyone. The law sets out what actions are punishable by the state.
Mr B-M is conflicted; you've rightly said that he has no good options. Your idea of supporting him seems to be to make him pay a financial penalty (either a fine or compensation) if he chooses the action that you the lawmaker don't want him to choose.
The law may protect him from dismissal for choosing the path of "commercial martyrdom". It won't protect him from redundancy when his branch of the bakery is shut down because it's not profitable with a black employee. And in the meantime, working for an organisation that would like to get rid of you but is legally prevented from doing so is not a happy experience.
Your law punishes the innocent. You want to apply pressure to make people choose martyrdom in the cause of a value that you believe in.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
AIUI, the Anti-Discrimination Act would protect the manager here, but I caan't speak of other states.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's an interesting consequence of Russ's views that he thinks there's nothing wrong with business cartels. And that the government shouldn't make them illegal.
How do you get that ?
I've said nothing about conspiring with other bakeries. On the contrary, I'm assuming a competitive market. That racially-prejudiced customers can get their doughnuts somewhere else...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The public/private distinction is frequently a load of rubbish.
So what are your alternative moral principles that don't make this distinction ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's an interesting consequence of Russ's views that he thinks there's nothing wrong with business cartels. And that the government shouldn't make them illegal.
How do you get that ?
I've said nothing about conspiring with other bakeries. On the contrary, I'm assuming a competitive market. That racially-prejudiced customers can get their doughnuts somewhere else...
But on your principles it's wrong for the law to enforce a competitive market. If the bakeries want to fix prices the law shouldn't stop them.
You say: either price-fixing is a social problem or it's positively immoral.
By your principles it isn't positively immoral. It isn't a violation of customers' rights to charge high prices. (At least I seriously doubt you entertain any such socialist notion.) So it can't be immoral for a baker to promise another baker to keep high prices. You reject the idea that an agreement between two people can be immoral solely because of systemic effects on third parties. (Or you'd think that systemic effects on black or gay people would make certain otherwise moral transactions immoral.) So according to your principles there isn't anything morally wrong with price-fixing.
Price-fixing is a social problem. You don't think the law ought to intervene to solve social problems.
So you don't think the law ought to intervene to solve price-fixing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The law may protect him from dismissal for choosing the path of "commercial martyrdom". It won't protect him from redundancy when his branch of the bakery is shut down because it's not profitable with a black employee.
If all the other bakeries in town are legally obliged to also hire black employees then it does protect him.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The public/private distinction is frequently a load of rubbish.
So what are your alternative moral principles that don't make this distinction ?
I wonder how many times it has to be stated and restated that moral principles aren't the issue, it's harm reduction?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The public/private distinction is frequently a load of rubbish.
So what are your alternative moral principles that don't make this distinction ?
What the hell has that distinction got to do with moral principles? The last time I heard a discussion about public/private, it was about how some guys saw themselves as kings in their own homes and abused their wives accordingly.
Morals should not change depending on where you are and who you think is watching.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So according to your principles there isn't anything morally wrong with price-fixing.
I suggest to ypu that there isn't anything morally wrong with fixing a price as such. But there is something wrong with abuse of monopoly power.
So that a system of promises that are designed to create a monopoly to exploit is wrong in a way that a simple promise isn't.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So according to your principles there isn't anything morally wrong with price-fixing.
I suggest to ypu that there isn't anything morally wrong with fixing a price as such. But there is something wrong with abuse of monopoly power.
So that a system of promises that are designed to create a monopoly to exploit is wrong in a way that a simple promise isn't.
What's wrong with monopoly power is that it is in your terms a social problem. And you don't think social problems should be legislated against.
But if it's not morally wrong on your terms then on your terms it's a social problem. We can all agree that social problems like racism are wrong. But you don't think that they're a kind of wrong that should be legislated against.
If morality is a matter of resolving boundary disputes between independent landowners the fact that one landowner has a monopoly of some good is morally irrelevant. Because morality on that account is independent of third parties or the absence of third parties.
If you're thinking that the abuse of power is a separate type of wrong that should be legislated against then why think that it is only a wrong when there's an explicit monopoly? Monopolies are not different in kind; only different in degree. For example, if the supply of jobs in a town is tight compared to the supply of qualified candidates then that gives employers power they can abuse. Or if people with one particular characteristic are subject to discrimination by a majority then that puts them at a disadvantage that can be abused.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Race isn't real. Racism is. [..] Whilst sexuality and gender are real, it is the valuesthat people assign that are artificial and unnecessary.
Hmm. Can you expand on your case for gender being real and race not being real? Because I'm not convinced that gender is any different from race here. At some level, they're both artificial social constructs.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Race isn't real. Racism is. [..] Whilst sexuality and gender are real, it is the valuesthat people assign that are artificial and unnecessary.
Hmm. Can you expand on your case for gender being real and race not being real? Because I'm not convinced that gender is any different from race here. At some level, they're both artificial social constructs.
Race is completely a social construct. Gender is a little different.
[ 27. February 2017, 18:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Race is completely a social construct. Gender is a little different.
Well, OK, but if I pointed to a review article that said that people who identify as racially black tend to have dark skin, you'd think I was taking the piss.
The studies on correlating transgender identity with brain function and so on might be useful if you think trans people are just making it up, but it doesn't tell you that gender exists.
We have (possibly, low statistics, usual disclaimers) evidence that people with female bodies who say they are men have brain functions more like people with male bodies who say they are men than people with female bodies who say they are female. But given that whatever gender is, it's something of an encapsulation of the way people think, and the thing that does the thinking is the brain, should we be surprised that people who say they think in "male" ways have brains like other people who say they think in "male" ways?
I'm just not sure I see the data as saying anything more fundamental than the observation that people with sickle-cell disease tend to be black.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Race is completely a social construct. Gender is a little different.
Well, OK, but if I pointed to a review article that said that people who identify as racially black tend to have dark skin, you'd think I was taking the piss.
It doesn't seem you read the article in the same way I did.
quote:
The studies on correlating transgender identity with brain function and so on might be useful if you think trans people are just making it up, but it doesn't tell you that gender exists.
If you accept that transgender exists, there kinda has to be some sort of gender to trans.
from the article: quote:
They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.
Etiology is the study of causation, not effect.
Race is externally assigned, gender is internally manifested. The studies are still new, but the growing body indicates gender is something one is born with. Now, some of the activities/characteristics we attribute to gender are cultural, but the basic identity doesn't appear to be.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
