Funkyterrance wrote:
Man, did you have to add the raping part, rofl? The fiscal and physical pummeling would have been sufficient.
I'm not going to be an ass and nitpic your definition of biased because you're right, choosing one thing over another for any reason is bias. Is it the result of a slippery train of thought? I think maybe.
I offer you an analogy:
Millions of people eat meat in the US every day but a good majority of them would have a very hard time killing an animal for food. In fact, I would daresay that many of those people might very well switch to a vegetarian diet if they were forced to do this on a daily basis. Does this mean that all those people who eat meat are wrong to do so? This is how I feel about the dude not hiring mister blue. It's a disconnection between the act and the repercussions/benefits and a widely accepted way of dealing with issues that we find unpleasant/worthy of avoiding.
It depends on the costs of punishment (forcing them to not eat meat)--which is unclear in your analogy, so I'll assume that no external organization imposes a punishment (e.g. the State). Also, we have a misunderstanding on 'force.' By 'force,' I mean coercion imposed by the state (or someone like Henry), thus being forced to do something, which is an involuntary act. For example, if one cannot so easily get meat because for some reason the division of labor has collapsed, then in one sense, they are 'forced' to eat less meat and more veggies, but if no organization is forcing them to substitute meat for veggies, then the exchange is voluntary, thus they are not actually being forced to eat meat--in my sense of the word.
However, if the state enacts a law which forces them to not eat meat but to eat only veggies, then this is coercion; this is an involuntary act. In my examples, I speak of 'being forced to do something' as being required by the state's law which is enforceable by punishment.
So, let's tie this in. If the law 'encourages' one to commit an involuntary act, and failure to obey comes with a punishment (i.e. you must hire A, thus discriminate against B), then obviously the law forces one to discriminate, and reinforces this bias against B. Therefore, your meat-veggie analogy does not involve the same types of 'force'. In yours, people are voluntarily choosing to eat less meat (or no meat) and instead eat more veggies--because it has become too difficult to get meat. In my analogy, and in cases regarding 'anti-discrimination' law, people are actually forced to obey; otherwise, they suffer the punishment. They must discriminate, and the law and lawmakers must be blamed for causing this discrimination.
Funkyterrance wrote:For the record, I think that both examples are equally wrong but the majority finds them both obviously O.K., that is, unless they are Mr. Blue. So what is right? The thing that is considered O.K. by the majority or the thing being considered if you're sitting in Mr. Blues POS car in the parking lot after the job interview?
What is right depends on the circumstances of the exchange. The exchange involves two parties: the employer, who demands someone for the job, and the potential employee, who wants to supply the job. Both potential employees are equal in productivity, so both are good fits for the company. Regardless of who the employer hires, if the reasoning was moral, then either exchange would be moral. So, if the employer hired Mr. Orange, then this is moral. If he hired Mr. Blue, then this is moral. In either exchange, it is voluntary, and no one is being attacked, nor is anyone's property rights (their bodies included) is being violated.
If the employer hired Mr. Blue because the deciding factor was that his skin color is blue, then this isn't right because promoting racism or discrimination on the basis of one's skin color should not allowed---However, in no way would I favor any law which punishes that employer for being racist. The State need not be concerned with these affairs, and if you wish to ask me more about this, then please do, but I need to keep this post short.
Now let us consider: Henry the Hateful or the State when either actually forces you to choose Mr. Blue and discriminate against Mr. Orange. This exchange is not voluntary because you are actually forced to make a discriminatory exchange. Coercion is involved. Therefore, this exchange is immoral. If you want a free and/or fair society, you can't have laws applied unequally on the basis of one's skin color.
