Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Certainly this isn't a new idea...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I could use some help in defining and laying out this system I'm thinking of... if it hasn't been already. What I have are the ideas. What I need are a sufficient way of expressing them and quality proof.

I'll try to be terse.

It is wrong to make a prejudicial decision about someone based merely on one or a combination of these facts:

  1. a certain race
  2. a certain gender
  3. a certain age
  4. in a certain family

For example, a person does not deserve to be thrown in jail or ostracized as already a criminal merely because he is, say, black.

A person's job application does not deserve to be disregarded simply because the applicant is, say, a woman.

A person does not deserve to be derided or criticized just because he or she is over 65.

And Romeo does not deserve to be scorned or thought less of because he is a Montague.

So, in short, what I'm saying is nothing new: that what people cannot change about themselves holds no moral content/no content that can be judged. Thus other examples would be a person born with a physical or mental handicap, or born in Latvia as opposed to somewhere else (being specific to birthplace and not place of living).

It is not right to hold against someone an attribute they cannot change, or, It is not right to hold contempt for someone due to an attribute he cannot change.

What I propose and attempt with all my focus to practice is, neither is it right to hold regard for someone due to an attribute he cannot change!

So for the same reason that it is wrong to act or speak detrimentally toward someone due to one of these traits, it is wrong to honor them for any of them.

So the examples for the other side of this (which no one seems to care about practicing) could go something like this:

For example, a person does not deserve to be elected to office or given better chances at a job or a college scholarship merely because he is, say, black.

A person's job application does not deserve to be regarded especially simply because the applicant is, say, a woman. Neither does an individual deserve special treatment, such as preferential treatment in company, or holding a door for someone, or caring for their well-being, simply because the individual happens to be female.

A person does not deserve to be praised or respected just because he or she is over 65.

And your uncle does not deserve your defense or your love because he is your uncle.

In essence, what I'm saying is, no human is anything (bad OR good) because he is:

  1. a certain race
  2. a certain gender
  3. a certain age
  4. in a certain family
  5. born in a certain place
  6. born in a certain status

Even shorter, my proposition is that nothing in the above list is ever a good reason for anything about a person.

Why is only half of this practiced or considered true, and how can I describe my views on this?

Is anyone with me on this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone with me on this one?
You're saying that factors like race, and so on should not be used to discriminate against a person, nor to discriminate in their favor. Instead, we should be rational in our discrimination. I think most folks here would be "with you", in the sense of agreeing with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying that factors like race, and so on should not be used to discriminate against a person, nor to discriminate in their favor. Instead, we should be rational in our discrimination. I think most folks here would be "with you", in the sense of agreeing with you.

So how can I make this known, so that people can know about it and see the truth of it?

Too often I hear "Why do you love him?" "Because he's my cousin."

Or "Why do you deserve that?" "Because I'm a girl!"

And they would be ready to admit that neither they nor their cousin deserves a jail sentence just for those reasons.

I would really like to see this implemented and for that I need to be able to, although I don't like this word, disseminate it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against you because you are being too broad in your formulations. Perhaps you can amend your position to accomodate the following objection.

Not all judgements are moral judgements. Not all decisions about a person are made based on his moral status. For example, many jobs with a physical component have a minimum performance requirement (be able to lift/carry 50 lbs), physical fitness requirement, or even a minimum height requirement.

Specific judgements that can be made are:

  • a certain age - minimum age requirements relating to legally discriminating adults from children objectively
  • born in a certain place - initial citizenship status can be based on place of birth
  • born in a certain status - Are a citizen or not. Are an orphan or not? (What kinds of status do you have in mind?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how can I make this known, so that people can know about it and see the truth of it?
What are you doing to form a proper moral system for yourself? The first step is to understand the nature of moral reasoning for yourself. Why, exactly, is it wrong for you to morally judge people on the basis of the metaphysically given? Why exactly is it wrong for you to refuse to judge people on the basis of the metaphysically given? Do you understand the difference between the two? The last step is to educate others about moral reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black people are typically better runners. White people are typically better swimmers. This is not due to racism in running and swimming but due to slight variations in build which ultimately have a genetic basis.

Mohawk Indians have been sought after for their ability to walk the high steel and not lose their balance. This ability of theirs could be genetic.

Men are generally taller and stronger than women; women generally weigh less than men. In special situations where a person's height or strength or weight might make the difference between whether they can do a job successfully or not, the advantage may clearly go to one sex or the other.

There are some cases where some people will have a natural advantage over others because of their genetic makeup, and I don't see anything wrong with allowing people who have that advantage to use it.

A person can also have legitimate advantages because of birthplace or family. For example, if you were writing somebody's biography, you might have a natural advantage if you are his cousin -- or spouse -- that an unrelated New York professional might not have. If you are born in a certain place at a certain time, you might have a useful or interesting perspective (e.g., on a historic event that happened when you were young) that people born elsewhere would not have.

This is not the same thing as punishing people who have a disadvantage.

One boundary is drawn on the basis of individual rights. Rights do not vary according to race, sex, or genetics, but are the same for everyone. Among these rights are the right of voluntary association. If you're hiring, you can hire whomever you want. It would be a crime to prevent people from hiring whomever they want.

Another boundary is drawn on the basis of reality. Failure to hire the best person is not a crime, but it is a vice. Reality will be on your side to the maximum extent if you hire the best person for the job without regard for irrelevant factors, even if these factors are, in general, statistically correlated. Disregarding genetics, birthplace, and so forth means not trying to fight people's natural advantages.

It also means not assuming advantages exist when, in a particular instance, they don't. Statistical generalizations are observations about reality, not substitutes for it. Sometimes the tallest person available is a woman; some women are taller than some men. Sometimes the best swimmer available is black. Sometimes the person who was there at the time of the historical event is a poor observer or a poor writer and therefore would not write as good an article as the New York professional who relies on research instead of personal experience. It would be a denial of reality to deny the existence of these situations when they occur.

Statistics and prejudice are not the same thing. Prejudice exists when a person refuses to look at reality on the alleged basis that he already knows everything he needs to. White people are generally better swimmers than black people, but that doesn't mean you can look at a black person and say, "well, he's black, therefore he can't swim as well as a white person." Some black people swim better than some white people.

If you pass over the best person, you won't do as well. This is true even in the absence of competition.

Prejudice is also a vice outside of hiring, in more personal relationships, such as friendships. If you turn down a friendship or a romance on the basis of some statistical generalization that does not apply in that specific instance -- because you figure it applies most of the time so you don't have to actually check -- then you are missing out.

There is a cost in checking statistical generalizations but there is also a cost in acting on unchecked ones.

The best policy is to look at reality -- at the particular instance that confronts you.

Finally, it's important not to confuse statistical generalizations with inductive ones. Inductive generalizations, such as the law of gravity, are certain within the context in which they are formed. Statistical generalizations are by definition uncertain. That is why they are useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...