lakeman

I would ask that before taking the poll you read a number of posts to get a feel for where this is heading.

It is sometimes legitimate to discriminate against a person even if they are harmed but
there is a greater good?

The greater good is served by outlawing all discrimination even if there are some detrimental
results for society in general.

The following is a definition of discrimination from thefreedictionary.com:

dis·crim·i·na·tion play_w("D0263200")
n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.


What do you think about the following examples of discrimination?

An employer does not hire a person with a weak heart and a pacemaker to work as a longshoreman on the dock.

A couple refuses to contract with any men for the men to be their surrogate mother.

A church hires any qualified person for secular jobs but restricts positions of religious offices to those of the same faith and to males.

A city does not change all the stairs in all public places to wheelchair ramps.

A director does not cast the best actor for a part but casts the one who is the same race as the character.

A woman places an ad for a date but specifies that only black men apply.

A large national but private club restricts membership to those who will agree to “swing” with other members.

A large national but private club restricts membership to those who will take a religious oath.

A government makes it legal for people to marry only if they are like those who do not produce genetic disorders i.e. unrelated.

A government makes it legal for people to marry only if they are like those who are likely to produce children i.e. opposite genders.

People under the age of 16 can’t drive and under the age of 21 can’t drink alcohol.

The military only drafts people who are over 18 but younger than 25.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Advertising

michaelr

I believe that if there was an eleventh commandment it should read as this;

Thou shalt not judge a book by it's cover.

lakeman

Apparently everyone thinks this is a trap. But honest debate can stand up to anything.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Migi e!

I voted it is sometime legit to discriminate. Take your example of the guy with a pacemaker & weak heart. The guy gets the job, has a heart attack while on the job, causes an accident that could wound or kill many others.

lakeman

Presently more people have voted that it is ok to discriminate even if it harms the person who is discriminated against.

While I see that as a dangerous road, the government could then harm just about any individual in the name of the greater good, it does appear to be better than the alternative, that the harm of every single individual trumps the needs of society.

How do we draw a line for balance?

Now: just to stir up the pot. I don't agree that the government should restrict relatives from getting married based on the need to avoid genetic problems. When relatives intermarry they are just as likely to magnify good genes as they are to magnify bad genes. Are there other reasons that relatives should not marry?

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

lakeman

I guess I'm just gonna beat this dead horse. I was just looking forward to this thread is all and if I have to play devil's advocate I will.

Did you realize that I just wrote a defense of discrimination against gay marriages. I.e.

"A government makes it legal for people to marry only if they are like those who are likely to produce children i.e. opposite genders." based on the idea that even if it is discrimination the benefit the the greater population outweighs it.

There were plenty of inflamatory statements on that list and I could see people arguing both sides.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Kanabi

In my personal opinion, allowing discrimination in certain areas, only create loopholes to allow it everywhere. If you want to dissolve it completely, outlaw it completely, and don't selectively choose to allow it when it suits a governments current needs.

Dispondent

Discrimination is part of human nature. Right and wrong are determined in hindsight, rarely at the moment. In the real world people are not created equal, while having the high ideal that they are doesn't really change anything. In any given situation there is a call for a certain standard, if we choose to accept a given standard there will be discrimination. We may call it something else, such as a standard, but it is discrimination none the less.

The God Fearing

I agree. This debate treads a very fine line and a very delicate subject.
So where do I begin?

I am reminded of a debate in which Mitt Romney was involved recently. Someone called him on the fact that a catholic agency places special needs children in foster homes in Massachusetts; the same agency does not place the children in homes with gay parents; thus, they are, by definition, discriminating.
Is it the responsibility of the government to step in and tell this private agency that they can't do that, when they provide this service to society? It would detriment many childrens' lives for this agency to cut it services if they so responded to a government mandate that they send children to gay parents as well.

As a minority, discrimination is and has always been very tender for me; ignorant children would call me 'chinese boy' when i am proud of my japanese heritage. These instances hurt and I would insist that my teachers would put a stop to it. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that handing government the power to adjudicate whether or not a person or agency has been guilty of discrimination is a very dangerous thing. Granted, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that our rights are protectesd.
But sometimes, I think that it would be best for individuals to just suck it up sometimes, be the bigger person, walk away when someone makes a racist remark or displays something ethnically offensive, rather than be coddled by a government that could very quickly step beyond itself and turn us into something we don't want to be.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

Freedom for All

I vote that it's a poorly worded poll.

Discrimination is not inherently wrong. It means "making a choice".

INTELLIGENT PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT GOVERNMENT IS A DANGEROUS SERVANT AND A CRUEL MASTER.

LIKE FIRE, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE DON'T LET THE TINY CANDLE OF WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TO BURN UNWATCHED AND UNCONTROLLED.