When is discrimination OK?

Great Debates
1

I am not sure if this qualifies as a “Great Debate”… maybe it would be presumptuous of me to say so? It would seem only a posteriori one could say “that was a Great Debate!” So, I would say, my only reason for posting here is that it is realated to some rather philosophical views of morality. I propose the subject and maybe someone can make this a Great Debate… maybe.

Anyway, follow me closely here… Often I see historical figures denigrated because they were racist or whatever. I contend they were the product of their times and should be judged by the standards of their times, not ours. But then I am told: “How can you say that? What’s wrong is wrong! It does not matter when or where!”

One example of an “absolute” wrong would be the equal but separate doctrine: Yes, blacks have the right to live elsewhere, just not next to me. Yes, blacks can have some jobs but not the ones that might compete with mine, etc.

Some people said that was morally wrong and should be ended because as human beings we are all equal in everything, including rights. Other people argued that, if blacks were given all civil rights, whites would lose jobs to blacks etc. Those in favor of civil liberties for all denied that but said, even if that were the case, equality is the morally right thing to do, even if there were a cost for others. In the end the civil rights movement won the day and today, any views in favor of discrimination would be considered unacceptable. But does that mean that the same views held 100 years ago were just as morally wrong? Each one of you decide for yourself.

Now…

Today, most people in the developed countries, people who consider themselves compassionate, people who would never deny anyone rights on account of race, sex or creed, will readily deny equal rights on account of nationality.

Does anybody see a contradiction here? I expect many, if not most, will not, and that reinforces my assertion that we are a product of our times. How can it be morally justified? How can you morally say “it is wrong to deny this man any rights for reason of race but it is fine to deny him some rights for reason of nationality”?

The same people who point out the American constitution says “all men are created equal” and sarcastically point out it meant “all men as long as they are white”, those same people see no contradiction in considering today “all men” means “all men as long as they hold American citizenship”.

My point is that we are a product of our times and our history and our culture. If we can understand discrimination on account of nationality today, how can we not understand discrimination on account of race 100 years ago? How do you think our discrimination today will be judged in the future?

There is a thread expressing some outrage about Mexicans who break the law by coming into the US without a visa. How is this different from the blacks who refused to sit in the rear of the bus? Will these Mexicans, criminals today, be the heroes and martyrs of tomorrow?

There is the argument that if we let them all in they would flood us, taking away our jobs etc. But, even if it were true, if it is wrong, it is wrong, regardless of cost. If it is admissible with Mexicans, why not with blacks?

Is it morally right that a Mexican who has lived “illegally” in the US for years, otherwise never breaking the law, working, paying taxes and being a responsible member of the community, has no right to remain if he is caught and can be deported while an American citizen can be a criminal and yet will always have the right to the benefits of being a US citizen?

I can imagine 100 years from now, while remaining separate countries, Mexico and the USA will have total freedom of movement of people, goods etc. The people of both countries then may well look back and call us immoral and all sorts of nasty things. What would you say to them?

2

Discrimination is always perfectly acceptable as long as the party of the first part, to be known hereinafter as the Alpha Party, is bigger, stronger, richer, and has more weapons and is better at using them than the party of the second part, to be known hereinafter as the Beta Party.

If the Beta Party should ever manage to make the status quo shift, either by magically becoming bigger, stronger, or richer than the Alpha Party, or by obtaining weapons, or by suddenly getting better at using the weapons they have, then the Beta Party shall be perfectly entitled to discriminate against the Alpha Party, who will then be forced to sit in the back of the bus, until such time as they in their turn manage to make the status quo shift.

This is known as “History”. The shift in the status quo is usually known as “War”.

So far nobody has figured out a way to make either History or War stop.

3

I’ve always wondered if a Hollywood movie producer could be sued for race and sex discrimination because his movie script called for “a black man”…

4

Duck Duck Goose, you may be right but then why so many complaints about historical figures who did not share our present day values?

Tracer, I have seen arguments about this but I do not remember exactly. I believe there was some argument not long ago because a black actor was doing Hamlet or something of the sort. What was interesting was that the same people who defended a black person doing the Prince of Denmark, were saying white people should not play Indians, only indians should do indians.

But let’s try to get back to the substance of my OP. Does anyone have a good explanation other than the utter stupidity of humans?

5

Discrimination can also happen on a religious level, as well, and few choose to challenge that. The Mormon church, for example, will not allow non-members or even members without a temple recommend into their temples, not even for weddings.

So what’s the difference between religion/race/nationality discrimination? Well, religion is an earthly reward (or punishment, if that’s your perspective) for spiritual faith. You can’t be all religions at once, of course. Nationality is the country to which you (ideally, in any case) owe your allegiance to. It’s where you have your ties, your roots, your culture.

Racial discrimination was based mostly on misconstruements and ignorance. Back in the day (the 1800s), black slaves weren’t viewed as human beings… so what’s the big deal about not treating them like human beings, the slave owners thought? During the early 1900s, right when the Civil Rights movement was about to take off, blacks were seen as inferior in every way to white people, physically, mentally, morally, etc. Nowadays, it’s pretty well established that the only real difference 'tween the two races is skin pigmentation.

The only way I’d accept the notion that illegal immigrants are heros and revolutionaries is if the ignorance and immorality of the concept of “borders” can be shown… I don’t see a problem with a system designed to keep order (and, for the most part, it works… 'cept in the case of the Middle East, it seems). Basically, the Border works both ways: it affects both parties involved equally (“YOU stay out and YOU stay out, too”). Racial discrimination is more of one side taking dominance over another side.

And I must say, this has been, to date, the most difficult post I’ve typed. Maybe 'cuz I’ve been awake for seventeen hours after only four hours of sleep…?

6

Discrimination is allowed in the case of a bona fide occupational qualification. If a script features a black man, obviously a black male is more qualified for the role than a white female. You’d be laughed out of court if you tried to sue.

7

An inequality of conditions does not necessarily equate to injustice. The fact that many Mexicans are impoverished is not justification to allow them to enter our country and make themselves at home. That logic would allow a poor inner city youth to just decide to set up camp in your living room because you have a nicer house.

Citizenship accords many privileges, but it also carries responsibilities. Aside from retail sales tax, most illegals pay no taxes at all, while still reaping many of the benefits of publicly funded programs.

I certainly understand why a poor family would come to the US to try and better their conditions, and I do not fault them for this. However, to say that deporting them is discriminatory is hardly reasonable. They get deported because they broke in, the same way the squatter in your living room gets the boot.

8

The only difference I see is that the people you are refering to entered this country illegally. Where African Americans are indeed Americans, they were born here. I being the bleeding heart liberal that I am can see no profit in denying these people medical care and help, but then I am not living in a state where they are crossing into this country daily in droves. But I also think the argument that they are taking jobs from Americans just doesn’t hold much water either. They get to this country and when they do find work it is doing jobs that typical modern day Americans find demeaning and too low paying. So I personally can’t see where they are hurting the American job market.

Years ago I was trained as a part-time EEO counselor. One of the first things they explained to us during training is that discrimination is something that everyone does everyday. When you go to lunch and choose Wendy’s over McDonald’s you discriminate. When you buy a Ford Escort instead of a Chevy Cavalier you discriminate. Discrimination in itself is not evil. It’s just become a buzzword for the practice of commiting an injustice based on a person’s age, sex, ethnic background, race, religon, etc.

I wouldn’t call what is going on with our country and illegal aliens discrimination. I don’t think it has anything to do with their ethnic background. It has everything to do with their illegal entry.

Needs2know

9

Ptahlis, needs2know… you are missing my point entirely and you are making my point!! fifty years ago it was also illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus or to buy a house in a white neighborhood. Yet, today we say that people who supported that legality were wicked and immoral. You are realling missing the point I am trying to make which is that what is wrong today maybe rightgeous tomorrow.

You are making my point because you cannot see the relativity of the situation. Is there anyone who can see what I am trying to say?

10

While morality may or may not be relative (that’s another discussion altogether, are there moral absolutes?), I agree with sailor that people should be judged by the standards of their times.

e.g. if I read that poet Ovid believed that lightning bolts were hurled by Jupiter from the skies, I will be more forgiving towards him towards, say, Rita Dove if she defended the proposition that lightning bolts were hammered by Vulcan and hurled out of the sky.

But there comes a point where people can justly be censured for their beliefs.

e.g. I live in a country that allows slavery (for example the USA) at a time when neighbouring countries (for example Europe, and by neighbouring I really mean the countries that are most similar from a cultural and societal point of view) have made slavery illegal.

Or another example, I am Governor X in a state and propose to fight the federal government who wants to integrate state schools.

When the “intelligentsia” (for want of a better word) and/or public opinion raise certain issues of morality, and you argue in favour of (or against) those ideas, then I believe you are fair game for being judged for your positions.

To raise the issue originally mentioned by sailor: discrimination on the basis of nationality. It is very possible that in the future that will be seen as being abhorrent, (in fact one of the tenets of communism was the abolition of borders), but it is a fact that right now it is practiced in every nation of the word (as far as I know), so I wouldn’t judge too harshly people that support those laws.

11

sailor:

I see what you’re saying. Then again, being a Libertarian, I don’t support barring entry to the country. Far as I’m concerned, if they’re willing to walk, run, swim, drive, or whatever to get here, we should let them in. If they misbehave, we put them in jail, just like other citizens. This country became great because of the influx of people who wanted a better life and were willing to work for it.

And yes, I agree that it is discrimination, although not as repulsive as some of the discrimination we’ve had in the past (and present, for that matter).

And the standard of the times certainly should have bearing on how we judge people, if we insist on doing that.

-VM

12

Sailor, the only way to avoid this discrimination would be to create a single world government.

Otherwise Tanzanians would be able to vote for the President of the USA, botswanan’s could collect welfare and The Chinese government would be in violation of the US constitution when it denied its own citizens free speech.

If we one day have a single World Government that taxes all people of the world equally and treats everyone equally, then yes, I suppose that the citizens of that new world order would think that we were primative fiends for failing to share the wealth. I see your point.

13

MrZambezi, I do not think you need a World Government to achieve freedom of movement for people, after all, people can move freely among the different states in the USA (which have different governments, taxes, etc) and among the different countries of the EU (also different governments, taxes, etc).

I think what you mean is that if there is a huge disparity in the standard of living, then you would get massive migrations.

But, to a certain point, this would be good as countries with efficient systems would grow faster. If it gets out of hand, it becomes unmanageable.

I think freedom of movement among the USA, Canada and Europe would not result in any huge migrations and would probably be beneficial.

But I guess the main point I am trying to make is not that discrimination should disappear today (I am a practical person) but rather that it has always existed and it is very stupid to denigrate past historical figures by today’s standards.

I would go even further with this. The notion of visas, passports, etc. is quite recent in history and 200 years ago people had much more (legal, if not practical)freedom to move than today. Those people who we condemn for discriminating on the basis of race were much less discriminating on the basis of place of birth than we are.

14

You’re right I did miss your point. But then I think that I have a more realistic perspective on let’s say the irony of the Constitution and how it related to women and blacks. There’s just no point in disparing over it now that I do have the vote. Those guys were working within the system of their day. To make them out to be evil doers is silly. Hitler I can call evil, Thomas Jefferson, I don’t think so.

Talking about Mexican illegal immigrants. I already think it’s rather nasty for states to deny them medical help, etc. They are very poor desparate people. Fellow human beings after all. I wouldn’t mind if a portion of my state taxes was used to help someone like that out. Will the whole of public opinion change more along this vein…I wouldn’t hold my breath on it. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like many Americans are just getting more and more selfish, dog-eat-dog, and self righteous about that very attitude. It just isn’t fashionable to have compassion for your fellow man anymore.

Needs2know

15

Okay sailor, if your main point was about moral relativism then I agree. In fact I would say it’s almost a virtual certainty if current trends play out that in a hundred years our time will be looked at as one of great bigotry toward homosexuals, who will have their relationships recognized as legitimate as any hetero relationships.

Also, you should realize that it works the other way as well. Societies can become more discriminatory and look back on other times as being hotbeds of moral depravity. Victorian England was one such era where the sexual practices of classical Greece and Rome were utterly abhorrent to the current morality.

16

I think discrimination is always OK–it’s just sometimes illegal.

I also think that having the option of taking full accountability of your retirement options is OK–also illegal.

17

Sailor: How about this - discrimination based on nationality is morally acceptable because a nation is based upon a social contract amongst the citizens of that nation. Just as Pepsi does not have the right to demand entry into a contract between Coke and a football stadium just because joining that contract would benefit Pepsi, an immigrant does not have the right to demand entry into the social contract without going through the hoops set out by that nation.

I don’t agree with our immigration policy as it exists now, but not on moral terms (well, one moral term - the haphazard enforcement of the laws). Instead, I believe that open immigration would be a cultural and economic boon.

That being said, I do believe that countries do have a right to restrict who may become citizens, so long as the rules are applied fairly and justly. I only say that, if they do impose restrictions, they are not acting in their best interests.

V.

18

SuaSponte wrote:

Sailor: How about this - discrimination based on nationality is morally acceptable because a nation is based upon a social contract amongst the citizens of that nation.

Is it? I just happened to be born here. As did most of us. A contract usually implies the parties understand and agree to its terms. The vast majority of people are citizens (of whatever nation) by circumstance, not by choice. Some people get lucky, some don’t.

Sailor, I would argue that ethics and rights and laws are entirely relative. Right and wrong are ultimately what we make them to be. So yes, morality will always be a product of our time, and we will always believe ‘our’ moral system to be better than that of other times and other places because it’s out nature to think well of ourselves.

19

I thought this was going to be an offshoot of my racist scholarships thread.

20

Sailor, I am confused. In the OP you were talking about denying rights based on nationality. Is movement between countries a right? Freedom of speech and religion, the right to property and , gun ownership I can see.

But I get your point. I don’t generally agree with moral relativism. I reserve the right to find the acts of my predecessors abhorrent, but any judgement should be tempered with some understanding of the circumstances.

But if I lived in a poor country, I would certainly be arguing that the rich countries owed me all of their goodies.

(I know, it show a lack of compassion to refuse to give medical care and welfare to every single person who sneaks across the borders. I am morally reprehensible.)