Discrimination What Is It and Is It Always Wrong

Reflection Papers: All of the Details! Ethics is one of the main branches of philosophy, and one the main purposes of philosophy is to help us become better thinkers, so that we may live better lives–excellent lives! And this is the main goal of Reflection Papers: To help us think better so that we may live better. What’s more, Reflection Papers will increase our skills in the following areas: • Knowing what is true vs. what is false. • Knowing what is right vs. what is wrong. • Knowing what is wise vs. what is foolish. Each Reflection Paper: • consists of two sections for you to complete: 1) The Main Idea #1 section, and 2) 2) The Main Idea#2 section • A well-written section consists of at least 250 words. • Thus, a well-written Reflection Paper consists of at least 500 words. • Please note: the word count applies only to the body of your work, and not to your heading, title, etc. For both Main Idea sections, you may choose any two of the main ideas you’d like. Your goal is to show us how these two ideas from the reading (or video) specifically connects to your own life, or how these ideas apply to your life, or how they’ve been helpful to you, or how they’ve been relevant to your life, etc. This way, you will gain a good grasp of some really important philosophical ideas, and you’ll be able to connect these ideas to your life in a meaningful way Regarding the layout of the paper: • Please keep your paper single-spaced • Please use separate paragraphs rather than turning in one gigantic paragraph that will cause my eyes to bleed and give me brain freeze. • Below, I’ve included two examples of what Reflection Papers should look like. The topics covered in these two papers are not covered in our ethics class. • To make it easier on all of us, please stay as close to the layout of the examples (below) as possible. If you have questions, let me know as soon as possible, and we’ll find a time to meet that works for the both of us. I am always happy to help! *Example #1* Reflection Paper #1: Scientology 1) Main Idea#1: Scientology’s view of humanity Overall, I’m not sure what to think of Scientology’s teaching that human beings are basically good. I was raised Catholic, so I was taught that all humans are born with original sin, and this idea does seem to have some evidence. All we have to do is to observe toddlers to see that no one needs to teach them to be selfish or mean–it’s already in there! And not just that, has anyone ever claimed to be perfect, without any moral flaws? From the best of us to the worst of us, we are all broken and twisted in some way. That is, we all do stuff that we know we shouldn’t do…and sometimes we do it on purpose. However, thankfully, there’s more to our story than that. We also do a lot of good stuff as well. When I look inside of myself, I find that my thoughts and desires are a mixture of good and bad. But what explains the fact that we are capable of both good and evil? Is it engrams that I obtained from my past lives? Is it original sin passed on from Adam and Eve? Or is it a combination of nature and nurture, like many psychologists claim? Or perhaps some other option? I definitely need to spend some time researching these issues to find out what the truth is. Main Idea #2: Scientology’s view of therapy Though I’m not a Scientologist, this sounds similar to my experience in counseling. I’ve been seeing a therapist for three years now, and she has helped me get through some really rough patches in my life. Like auditing, she helps me to dig deep into my past, so she can help me process and heal from some of the painful experiences of my life, most notably my parents’ divorce when I was eight. For years I was haunted by guilt, thinking that my parents split because they weren’t happy with me. But over time, my therapist has helped me to see that I am not responsible for my parents’ happiness with each other. And though I don’t think I’ve been “cleared” from all of the damage I experienced from their divorce, I feel like I’ve been freed from a good deal of anger and bitterness that I felt toward my parents. And because of this healing, I feel free once again to pursue a relationship with both of them that is deeper and more meaningful. Furthermore, I’ve realized that though I may have been harmed by others in the past, I don’t need to be a slave my past. Along with my therapist, I have found a good deal of “therapy” just from talking with my two closest friends. Two years ago, I went through a break-up, and it shattered me. My two best friends were with me every step of the way: to listen to me, to hug me, and even to cry with me. At times, they sat with me in silence. And even though they didn’t say anything during those times, just their mere presence made all the difference in the world. Just them being their brought much healing to my heart and soul. *Example#2 Reflection Paper #2: The Importance of Critical Thinking 1) Main idea #1: Ethos, Logos, Pathos As I think about some of the purchases I’ve made in the past, I’ve come to see that taking ethos, logos, and pathos into consideration could’ve really helped me make better decisions as a consumer. For example, when I was in high school, the reason why I bought the latest iPhone XS was because the “in crowd” had it, and I wanted to be “part of the club.” In other words, I was persuaded by pathos, the emotion of it all. As it turned out, it was a waste of money for me. I didn’t even use half of the features the phone offers, and I could’ve saved a good deal of money by buying a more modest cellphone that would’ve still suited my needs. That is, like many areas in life, I need to be persuaded by logos (i.e. persuasive reasoning), rather than emotions (pathos), when I am buying stuff. Another example was when I was trying to get in shape. One night, I was watching television, and I saw a commercial for The Shake Weight. In the commercial, they claimed that they had done scientific research on their product to prove that the Shake Weight was a much more efficient way to get buff. What’s more, the guys in the commercial were very muscular. These factors gave me confidence in the product and I was persuaded to purchase it. Needless to say, I was disappointed when the Shake Weight did not make me look like one of the guys in the commercial. I trusted the product based on ethos, as I thought it was being promoted by a reliable authority (scientific research) and people who had gained amazing results by using it. Both of these experiences have made me realize that though ethos and pathos play a very important role in persuasion, I always need to consider the logos (the reasons and evidence) before making a final decision. 2) Main idea #2: The Two-Step Critical Thinking Method of Philosophy This way of thinking has really helped me when I am interacting with others on social media. For example, I love to debate politics, and I was recently embroiled in a debate on Facebook with a friend (named Mike) who opposes the new seatbelt law, which states that drivers and passengers are required to wear seat belts, and if they refuse to do so, they are subject to a fine of $25 or more. I believe that this law is just, as it will help to save thousands of lives throughout the year. Mike, on the other hand, believes that it impinges on our personal liberties. Throughout our discussion, I consistently employed the two-step method, asking him what he believes, and why he believes it. It was amazing to see how, at times, Mike was not able to justify his beliefs with good arguments. After going back and forth for thirty minutes, Mike admitted that he needed to do more research and find more evidence to support his view. At the same time, I was not able to answer all of Mike’s challenges with compelling responses, which made me realize that I needed to do some more homework on my view as well. So, I’ve started researching this issue a bit more, and have found evidence that supports my view…and Mike’s view as well! That is, during this past week, I’ve discovered research studies conducted by reputable organizations that provide evidence for my view, and I’ve also discovered reputable research studies that support Mike’s view. Man, finding the truth on any given issue is not always easy. But I will keep searching until I find it! Crash Course Philosophy: Discrimination Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsldtV4jWA0 I. Discrimination: What is it, and is it always wrong? We’re living in a world of “Black Lives Matter” versus “All Lives Matter”. A world where presidential elections hinge on people’s views regarding the building of walls. And We should be open about the fact that issues like these – ones that involve our beliefs about sameness, equality, and difference – are sensitive, and can easily arouse our emotions. One topic that always comes up in these conversations is discrimination. It’s one of those loaded words packed with negativity. Most people would probably tell you that discrimination is bad. But they probably do it, whether they realize it or not. So, are they allowed to, morally speaking? And do you do it? How can you tell if you do? Are there times when it’s OK to discriminate? Maybe even necessary? When you answer questions like these, it can be hard to keep emotions from taking over. So, it’s worth taking some time here, when our emotions are at an even-keel, and reason is in the driver’s seat – right where Plato said it belongs – to think carefully about discrimination and what it really means. Morality demands that individuals, acts, or states of affairs that are the same should be treated the same. But we don’t always do that. Discrimination is the favoring of one group – or member of a group – over another group, or other member of it, in the absence of any morally relevant differences. Morally relevant differences are things that would actually justify unequal treatment. Like, if you work for an airline and you’re hiring a pilot, you can favor a person with sight over a blind person, because when the job is flying a plane, sight matters. You’re not discriminating against a blind person because they’re blind, but because they are literally unable to do the job. And someone who looks like me would be a fairly awful candidate to go undercover with, like, the Haitian mafia, which means skin color can matter, although very rarely. So, there are cases where we can see clear justifications for favoring members of one group over another. And there are plenty of equally obvious cases where favoritism seems clearly unjustified. II. Cases of Discrimination But what about the not-so clear-cut cases? What if there really are reasons why you might want to discriminate, but those reasons are relevant in one instance, and not another? So, let’s look at some tough cases. Contemporary American philosopher, Peter Singer, offers the example of a restaurant owner who doesn’t want to hire an African American because his clientele is racist. He’s afraid that many of his customers will stop coming to his restaurant rather than be served by an African American. So, the restaurant owner himself doesn’t hold racist beliefs, but he worries the decision to be “color-blind” in hiring will harm his livelihood. It might make us uncomfortable to admit, but in certain parts of the country, this restaurant owner’s concerns are not at all unfounded. Or consider a woman who refuses to be treated by a highly-qualified gynecologist, simply because he’s male. Now, what about a woman who refuses to be treated by a qualified gynecologist because he’s Asian-American? Or say there’s an all-male company that hires a qualified woman over an equally qualified man in the interest of fostering diversity in the workplace. Or a bakery that refuses to make a Nazi-themed cake for a customer who’s a white supremacist? Some of these cases you probably agree with, some of them you probably don’t. Your gut intuition might be to applaud the bakery for refusing to make a Nazi cake. But think about their reasons for turning down that job; probably a deep personal conviction that Nazi ideology is appalling, so they don’t want to contribute to its endorsement and celebration. But what if instead of a Nazi cake, it was a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? And what if the owners of the bakery have a deep personal conviction that same sex marriage is appalling, and they don’t want to contribute to its endorsement and celebration? Do you support their refusal too? III. Responses to Those Cases Now, you might hold the view that we should all have the freedom to do whatever we want. Business owners can discriminate because of their personal convictions, or to maximize profits, or just because they’re straightup racists. The problem with this view is that it gives a great deal of freedom to only some people – namely, those in power, those who own the businesses and control the money. And the more freedom they have to act as they choose, the less freedom the people they’re discriminating against will have. So, if we actually want a 1 country that’s free for all of its citizens, the freedom to act against some of our citizens is going to have to be held in check. And that means reining in the freedom to discriminate. Now, there’s obviously a lot of disagreement about when discrimination is ok and when it’s not. Contemporary American philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, offers this rule of thumb: Discrimination that favors a historically underprivileged class is more likely to be acceptable than discrimination that favors a historically privileged class. The reasoning, she says, is that those who have historically been denied privilege could use the advantage. So, if a woman is getting hired over a man, well, that’s not a big deal, considering that men have been hired over women so many times in the past. As long as a historically underprivileged group continues to suffer from the disadvantages of the past – even if those disadvantages are not currently being imposed on them – Jarvis Thomson says a little special treatment is okay. Not everyone agrees with this view, however. Like contemporary American philosopher, Robert Nozick, who we talked about last time. After all, what if I happen to be a member of a historically privileged class? That’s not my fault. So why should I have to be passed over for jobs because of my gender and my pale skin? Isn’t that also unjustified discrimination? One response to Nozick is to argue that justice isn’t always the same as being fair. If I’m a white guy passed over for a job that I’m qualified for, that sucks, and it’s unfair. But the reason it feels unfair to me now is because I’ve reaped the spoils of white male privilege for so long. When you’re already so far ahead, it can feel really bad to be held back and asked to wait for others to catch up. But if we’re actually aiming at equality, that’s exactly what the people at the front are going to have to do. Now let’s go back to the gynecologist cases. Many people’s intuition is that women should be able to choose against male gynecologists, because being examined by a man in such an intimate way might make a woman feel uncomfortable. Yet, many people might report the same level of discomfort being examined by someone of another race. These cases tug at the feelings we have about our personal beliefs, and what happens when those private things butt up against the public sphere. You might think that every individual should be free to choose, and choose against, doctors for whatever personal reasons she might have. IV. Views on When to Discriminate But we should also consider what these discriminatory mindsets are really based on. The reason customers might not want an African American to bring food to their table is the same reason that a patient might not want to be examined by an Asian-American doctor, fear of the unknown. But we know, intellectually, that these fears are unfounded. Spend some time around people who are different from you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, and you realize that, despite those differences, there’re actually a lot more similarities than there are differences. So, the restaurant owner from Case #1 could allow his patrons to decide who they’ll be served by, and not give the African American applicant the job. Or, he can say, “this is my new employee, so if you want to eat here, you’re going to have to get over yourself and your racism.” And this might cost him some business, but, over time, his customers will get over themselves and probably be a little more accepting of other races as well. Which is exactly what happened, by and large, when racial discrimination in hiring became illegal. It might seem unfair that a small business owner should have to take on that fight, though. Why is it his job to educate his racist clientele? Likewise, when it comes to discriminating against customers, or job applicants, is there a difference between a business being able to choose who they do or don’t hire, and who they do and don’t serve? How do we balance this right – if it is one – against a person’s right to be employed, and served? One response is to say that people have a negative right to employment, and to service – that is, people can’t be stopped from obtaining those things. But that does not entail a corresponding right to this job, or to be served at this business. Like, we don’t all have a right to any particular job. And similarly, businesses don’t have to serve everyone. You don’t have a right to tickets to a sold-out concert. And if there’s still a line at the ice cream stand when closing time rolls around, the business has a right to turn customers away. So, it seems like it matters why you’re being denied the job or service. Is there a morally relevant reason for the discrimination? Think back through the cases. After reflecting on what we’ve talked about today, has your response to any of those cases changed? And if so, why? It’s an issue that deserves your thought. 2 …