{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
7/6/2016 11:35:41 PM
5
I've taken two psychology courses, and in both of them, the professors get on the subject of IQ tests and that for a long time, they were structured mainly towards white people. So on top of not accurately measuring a specific percentage of the population, the tests also led to said population not being able to attain jobs - which, in turn, led to said population having particularly distinct levels of poverty.
[quote]
The issue is similar to the now-cliche situation where a Christian baker is asked to bake a gay wedding cake. The Christian ought to be able to refuse service to whomever he pleases - that's his right.[/quote]
Why is that his right? I'm hearing the assertion, but I'm not hearing the argument. You're telling me that these people have the right to discriminate. That's the claim that I'm seeing. If I own a business, then it's my "right" to refuse people based on sexuality, religion, skin color, etc.
What type of 'right' is that? Give my the reasoning. You're just telling me that it's a "simple truth", but I don't think so. Freedom comes at a cost - freedom comes with limitations. You can't say that it's a right simply because it's 'wrong' to tell people what they can and can't do. That's like telling me that it's wrong to tell people that they can't murder.
English
-
[quote]Why is that his right? I'm hearing the assertion, but I'm not hearing the argument. You're telling me that these people have the right to discriminate. That's the claim that I'm seeing. If I own a business, then it's my "right" to refuse people based on sexuality, religion, skin color, etc.[/quote] Right. Fair question. If we go so far as to say that people own their bodies, their speech, their labor, and their property, then we know that people own their businesses. They can exercise their authority over their property (in this case, their business). Part of that authority comes with association. I can tell my neighbors to stay off of my lawn, since I have authority over my property. In the same sense, I can use my labor at my discretion since I have authority over my labor. If somebody offers me cash in return for my labor, I have the right to decline. That's part of self-ownership. To contrast that with "murder," we recognize that people own their bodies. If I deprive somebody of their life, I've violated their authority over their body and their life. The same principle goes for something like stealing - if I take my neighbor's car, I've violated the authority that he holds over that piece of property.
-
Edited by ClusiveC: 7/6/2016 11:58:59 PMI agree with some of the points you're raising, but it seems to me like your case is unintentionally, but implicitly, suggesting that it's a moral [i]ought[/i] to allow someone to commit a morally [i]wrong[/i] action. In other words, it's not just [i]right [/i]for me to keep my hands out of other people's personal actions, but I [i]ought[/i] not to do it - even when that action is an immoral one. Because those actions belong to those people, and it's their rights, right? I say this because I believe that it's immoral to discriminate based on superficial grounds that people [i]have no control over. [/i] You speak of property, and people owning their bodies. On your own argument - f I become the CEO or w.e the top position is in Google, and I decide to fire everyone who is outside my race, then how is that not violating the authority that those people have over their bodies? In this instance, I'm taking away their job because of an inherent property that they have no control over. It's not the same as stealing, but it would be robbing someone of an opportunity due to my own personal biases - biases that may be flatout incorrect.
-
[quote]I say this because I believe that it's immoral to discriminate based on superficial grounds that people have no control over.[/quote] This is going to sound cruel, but it truly isn't. Racial discrimination is morally neutral. I find it illogical, and I find it unethical. There's no rational basis for doing it. However, as far as people's rights are concerned, nobody's rights are violated if somebody is discriminated against by a private citizen. [quote]You speak of property, and people owning their bodies. On your own argument - f I become the CEO or w.e the top position is in Google, and I decide to fire everyone who is outside my race, then how is that not violating the authority that those people have over their bodies? In this instance, I'm taking away their job because of an inherent property that they have no control over.[/quote] You're merely exercising your authority over your property (or the authority granted to you by the owner, however the business is set up). You aren't violating anybody's rights because they don't "own" that job. It's a transaction. They're selling labor in return for cash, and you've ended the transaction. They didn't lose their labor - you presumably paid them for all the labor they gave you.
-
You make a good point. [quote]Racial discrimination is morally neutral.[/quote] [quote]I find it unethical.[/quote] This is nitpicky, but that's a conflicting viewpoint. I would point out the fact that not too long ago, people's rights were clearly being violated on the basis of race, but I see that you were carefully distinguishing "private citizen". However, I'd say that reason is how we can know certain moral truths. And if a belief can't be rationally defended, and is also shown to be irrational, then that belief is out of touch with reality. And individuals don't make up their own reality - nature does that. And nature has shown certain beliefs to be completely unreal. It seems to me like the implicit premises in your argument is that [1]if an action is within the realm of basic rights, then that action must therefore not be an immoral one. I disagree with that - it may be my right to deny people for no good reason at all, but I don't see how that makes that action a morally neutral one. And [2] as long as a person's rights haven't been violated, no moral injustice has happened to them. I also disagree with this. An action doesn't have to violate a person's rights in order for it to be immoral. I.e, it's not a violation of personal rights if I steal money from the government, but that doesn't mean that stealing is a neutral action. Especially if stealing that money has unexpected consequences on the common people.
-
[quote]This is nitpicky, but that's a conflicting viewpoint. I would point out the fact that not too long ago, people's rights were clearly being violated on the basis of race, but I see that you were carefully distinguishing "private citizen".[/quote] I can't find the right word for it. It isn't immoral, but it's still irrational. Yes, it's incredibly important to note that only private citizens reserve this right. The state cannot rightfully racially discriminate. [quote][1]if an action is within the realm of basic rights, then that action must therefore not be an immoral one. I disagree with that - it may be my right to deny people for no good reason at all, but I don't see how that makes that action a morally neutral one.[/quote] It's morally neutral because it does not violate anybody else's rights. The motivation isn't relevant. There was the option to make a transaction, and I declined for whatever reason. That's a morally neutral act. It might not be rational, but it doesn't hold any moral baggage. [quote][2] as long as a person's rights haven't been violated, no moral injustice has happened to them. I also disagree with this. An action doesn't have to violate a person's rights in order for it to be immoral. I.e, it's not a violation of personal rights if I steal money from the government[/quote] I do argue that morality hinges on rights. However, the example of stealing public funds does arguably violate somebody's rights. The state's purse is a collection of money meant to fund the the state (which would ideally be doing two things - protecting rights and punishing those who violate them). By stealing money from the public purse, you're depriving the state of resources needed to safeguard the rights of others, which is immoral. I could go into how taxation itself is immoral, but I'm a minarchist, not an an-cap.
