Kayla,
My reason for mentioning the formerly racist Southerner was, in part, to address your absolute claim that “no one” but assholes discriminates against customers on the basis of race. Of course, that’s assuming that your definition of “asshole” includes only deliberate and not habituated racists. If you believe that an asshole is someone who holds an unsavory opinion, regardless of how he came to hold it, then my example isn’t very useful.
By “reasoned discourse” I mean any discussion carried out politely (if not in a friendly manner) and in good faith. All of the arguments you mentioned are capable of falling into my category of reasoned discourse.
As for the modification of skin color, you’re correct that spending a great deal of time under the sun can temporarily change a person’s natural pigmentation. That’s a fair point. To the extent, then, that a group of naturally white customers consistently tan themselves, I suppose the discriminatory shop owner’s discrimination moves from being less to more legitimate, according to my earlier argument.
By “homosexual lifestyle” I mean any lifestyle defined in part by homosexuality.
Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Can you post the relevant thread so we can get some context?
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Blaggard, are you referring to the thread of which mine is a spin-off? If so, I included a link to it in my OP.Blaggard wrote:Can you post the relevant thread so we can get some context?
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Ah ok sorry brain fart, I see that now. The thread title is the original thread. No worries.i_another wrote:Blaggard, are you referring to the thread of which mine is a spin-off? If so, I included a link to it in my OP.Blaggard wrote:Can you post the relevant thread so we can get some context?
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
I think this is one of the areas in which philosophy does itself no favours. If there is any such thing as rights, then a persons right to live as they choose is matched by someone else's right to be offended. The question as I see it is, am I simply going to put up with people getting upset by other's harmless characteristics? I have no say in Arizona, but it is the sort of thing I have resisted in the UK.i_another wrote:So in this thread I hope to create an opportunity for a discussion that allows for a more direct consideration of homosexuality within the context of Arizona's proposed legislation. To that end, we may want to think about the following questions:
- Is this an issue about rights?
- If so, what rights are at stake and why are they to be considered "rights"?
People use 'acceptable' as they do 'rights'; as if there were some non-human criterion that gives it import. It is clearly 'acceptable' those who make decisions in Arizona. If the people of Arizona have any sense, they will make it clear to the legislators that they want nothing to do with such petty mindedness.i_another wrote:[*]To what extent can a political community legitimately use the law to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable human characteristics, behaviors, etc.?
[*]Is a law like SB 1062 acceptable on any grounds, or is it patently and thoroughly unjust?[/list]
I don't think that follows. If you allow people to discriminate on the basis of the choices they make, can you then provide criteria for what sort of conscious behaviour can with 'greater legitimacy' be discriminated against, or is it a free for all?i_another wrote:But despite the existence of internal impulses, human beings nonetheless make moral judgments about the conscious behavior and voluntary activities of others; and whether or not we agree with their conclusions, we can, I think, acknowledge that their discriminatory attitudes operate within a sphere of greater legitimacy than those who discriminate on the basis of race and skin color.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Hi Uwot,
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say, with respect to rights, “This is one of the areas in which philosophy does itself no favours.” Could I bother you either to rephrase or elaborate on your position?
With respect your last question, and from a purely practical standpoint, I suppose you could say that I’m in favor of allowing private shop owners to discriminate on the basis of whatever criteria suits them. To clarify the section of my post you quoted, my distinction between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination was largely theoretical. In other words, even if we’re able to agree in discourse on a line of demarcation between the two categories (legitimate vs. illegitimate), as a matter of practical policy I’m likely to remain inclined toward what you labeled a free-for-all. Whether a shop owner’s discriminatory opinion is legitimate or illegitimate, I believe his liberty to sell to whom he pleases is of a higher order than a customer’s desire to have his goods or services upon demand.
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say, with respect to rights, “This is one of the areas in which philosophy does itself no favours.” Could I bother you either to rephrase or elaborate on your position?
With respect your last question, and from a purely practical standpoint, I suppose you could say that I’m in favor of allowing private shop owners to discriminate on the basis of whatever criteria suits them. To clarify the section of my post you quoted, my distinction between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination was largely theoretical. In other words, even if we’re able to agree in discourse on a line of demarcation between the two categories (legitimate vs. illegitimate), as a matter of practical policy I’m likely to remain inclined toward what you labeled a free-for-all. Whether a shop owner’s discriminatory opinion is legitimate or illegitimate, I believe his liberty to sell to whom he pleases is of a higher order than a customer’s desire to have his goods or services upon demand.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
I don't think there is any point appealing to rights. What are they and where do they come from? What we are really talking about is people's wishes: the customer's wish to be treated with respect and the service provider's wish to treat whomsoever they wish with contempt. It seems ridiculous that the latter's wish should be protected by law in a civilised country.i_another wrote:Hi Uwot,
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say, with respect to rights, “This is one of the areas in which philosophy does itself no favours.” Could I bother you either to rephrase or elaborate on your position?
I'm not clear about the details; is the law intended to replace one that demanded shop owners sell to everybody? Why was it felt necessary to legally protect shop owners desire to discriminate?i_another wrote:With respect your last question, and from a purely practical standpoint, I suppose you could say that I’m in favor of allowing private shop owners to discriminate on the basis of whatever criteria suits them. To clarify the section of my post you quoted, my distinction between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination was largely theoretical. In other words, even if we’re able to agree in discourse on a line of demarcation between the two categories (legitimate vs. illegitimate), as a matter of practical policy I’m likely to remain inclined toward what you labeled a free-for-all. Whether a shop owner’s discriminatory opinion is legitimate or illegitimate, I believe his liberty to sell to whom he pleases is of a higher order than a customer’s desire to have his goods or services upon demand.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
a lot of assholes are habituated rather than deliberate I am not sure what that has anything to do with iti_another wrote:My reason for mentioning the formerly racist Southerner was, in part, to address your absolute claim that “no one” but assholes discriminates against customers on the basis of race. Of course, that’s assuming that your definition of “asshole” includes only deliberate and not habituated racists. If you believe that an asshole is someone who holds an unsavory opinion, regardless of how he came to hold it, then my example isn’t very useful.
all of the argument against homosexuality i mentioned fall apart on slightest scrutinyBy “reasoned discourse” I mean any discussion carried out politely (if not in a friendly manner) and in good faith.
at this point i think most people who offer them are not offering them in good faith
one branch of my family has a history of being accused of trying to pass for white in the pre civil rights - despite thinking of themselves as white and not having any black ancestors that anyone knows aboutAs for the modification of skin color, you’re correct that spending a great deal of time under the sun can temporarily change a person’s natural pigmentation. That’s a fair point. To the extent, then, that a group of naturally white customers consistently tan themselves, I suppose the discriminatory shop owner’s discrimination moves from being less to more legitimate, according to my earlier argument.
one of the ways they dealt with that is avoiding exposure to sunlight - they would get a heavy duty tan very easily
i was not even aware of this bit of family history until a summer of working as a lifeguard and getting a heavy duty tan
now i can switch race just on the basis of what i do with my hair - if my hair are in corn rows (as they usually are) i tend to be seen as 'black'
using your reasoning - if anyone decides to discriminate against me it is my own damn fault, no one is forcing me to do my hair in any particular way and I can always smear spf 50 sunscreen on my self
so anyone regularly having sex with someone of the same gender is living the lifestyle?By “homosexual lifestyle” I mean any lifestyle defined in part by homosexuality.
not sure i see how the term is useful
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Discrimination is a form of punishment. It is not the right of any individual to punish another under the guise of 'liberty'.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
When referring to politics in America, the term "rights" is usually related to natural rights. There are of course a number of different competing rights. Negative versus positive rights is enough to keep SCOTUS busy.
Natural rights is very much bound up in the political philosophy of John Locke. Locke's account of natural rights appears to be presented as a particular historical epoch. That is, a time when men lived in a state of nature, before any form of government. Unlike Hobbes, Locke gives a positive view about human nature in this state of nature. He sees men as being naturally cooperative and peaceful.
Unfortunately, situations will always come about whereby some people suffer wrong at the hands of others, so immediately the problem arises as to how this problem can be satisfactorily solved without the need for revenge and/or harsh punishments that do not fit the crime.
Basically, this is where government comes into play. It is the role of a particular arm of government to arbitrate in an impartial way as to how an individual has been wronged and the best way to address this wrong. The legislative arm of government tends to work with positive and negative rights. Anti-discrimination legislation can be seen as both a positive and negative right. This is especially true if we argue that the right to not be discriminated against imposes a negative obligation upon others (as well as government). This position is further strengthened if you argue that this negative right is also a natural right.
What gives natural rights their strength is the reluctance on the part of SCOTUS to impose limitations on such rights. They have done so in the past, but there needs to be a very good reason for doing so. For example, freedom of speech is regarded as a natural right, but it isn't an absolute right. The government has a compelling interest in making sure it is not absolute.
Rights are generally seen as something that governments can give and take away with legislation. The important point about natural rights is that they existed (according to Locke) prior to there being any form of government.On this basis such rights cannot be done away with by the stroke of a pen.
Natural rights is very much bound up in the political philosophy of John Locke. Locke's account of natural rights appears to be presented as a particular historical epoch. That is, a time when men lived in a state of nature, before any form of government. Unlike Hobbes, Locke gives a positive view about human nature in this state of nature. He sees men as being naturally cooperative and peaceful.
Unfortunately, situations will always come about whereby some people suffer wrong at the hands of others, so immediately the problem arises as to how this problem can be satisfactorily solved without the need for revenge and/or harsh punishments that do not fit the crime.
Basically, this is where government comes into play. It is the role of a particular arm of government to arbitrate in an impartial way as to how an individual has been wronged and the best way to address this wrong. The legislative arm of government tends to work with positive and negative rights. Anti-discrimination legislation can be seen as both a positive and negative right. This is especially true if we argue that the right to not be discriminated against imposes a negative obligation upon others (as well as government). This position is further strengthened if you argue that this negative right is also a natural right.
What gives natural rights their strength is the reluctance on the part of SCOTUS to impose limitations on such rights. They have done so in the past, but there needs to be a very good reason for doing so. For example, freedom of speech is regarded as a natural right, but it isn't an absolute right. The government has a compelling interest in making sure it is not absolute.
Rights are generally seen as something that governments can give and take away with legislation. The important point about natural rights is that they existed (according to Locke) prior to there being any form of government.On this basis such rights cannot be done away with by the stroke of a pen.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Sorry for the delay, folks. I have a number of competing responsibilities in the so-called “real world” that keep me from replying as frequently as I’d like to, but let me see if I can make a few adequate replies now.
Uwot: Many thanks for clarifying your earlier point for me. Is it fair, then, to say that your view of all rights is that they are entirely conventional and not natural? If so, very well; however, on what non-conventional basis would you found your subsequent statement concerning the absurdity of a law that allows shop owners to discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc.? Your use of the word “civilized” seems to imply a transcendent standard by which to judge the relative merit of different “wishes” (i.e., the wishes of the customer vs. the wishes of the shop owner). Doesn’t prioritizing the wishes of the customer imply that it is somehow just or right to prefer his wishes over the wishes of the discriminatory shop owner? Perhaps this doesn’t necessarily lead to the establishment of rights; I’m not yet sure. But it seems to incline in that direction.
In answer to your last question, the Arizona bill’s overt purpose was to enable business owners lawfully to deny service to customers on the basis of religious conscience. SB 1062 didn’t specifically replace any existing law; though if it had passed, and had a restaurant owner refused service to a black customer on the basis of the customer’s skin color, it’s likely Arizona’s law—in that particular instance—would have been in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which a federal statute. The ulterior purpose of the bill was to protect business owners from potential lawsuits by homosexuals who had been denied goods or services. The 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't include homosexuals, but conservative legislators in Arizona feared an outcome similar to the one in Colorado, in which a judge ordered a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Kayla: Perhaps, but even so, “a lot” is not quite the same thing as “all.” At any rate, the distinction between habituated and deliberate assholes doesn’t have to do with anything, if you don’t want it to. As I said earlier, depending on how absolute your definition of “asshole” is (and it seems nearly all-encompassing in terms of racial discrimination), there may be no point in addressing this matter further. I’ll simply remind you of my original, twofold reason for addressing your “asshole” comment in the first place: 1) to highlight our different approaches to assessing assholery, and 2) to voice my concern that such labels are regrettably becoming more frequent as a means to foreclosing reasoned discourse over controversial topics. That’s all.
As for the counterarguments laid against those who criticize homosexuality, if they’re as unquestionable as you imply they are, then I suppose there’s no point in considering them further.
Regarding your last two points: fault and defining homosexuality. If by “fault” you mean the word in its earlier form (i.e., blemish, flaw, etc.), then yes, you could say that a customer who is denied goods and services by a business owner is “at fault,” according to whatever criteria the business owner uses to make his distinctions. If, however, you mean “fault” in the sense of moral culpability, then no, that’s not my argument. As for the definition of homosexuality, sure, I think “regularly having sex with someone of the same gender” is a sufficient if not necessary definition. I would probably go further, however, and say that homosexuality obtains in a number of erotic and semi-erotic manifestations.
AS: I’m not convinced that discrimination is necessarily a form of punishment. When I choose to eat pizza for lunch rather than cheeseburgers (a tough decision!), I am not discriminating for the purpose of punishing the burger shop owner; I am simply making a choice among competing options and preferences.
Gingko: Thanks for contributing your thoughts on Locke. You suggested that a natural right may exist with respect to not being discriminated against by other members of society. I’m skeptical of this, but also interested in hearing an argument in its favor.
Uwot: Many thanks for clarifying your earlier point for me. Is it fair, then, to say that your view of all rights is that they are entirely conventional and not natural? If so, very well; however, on what non-conventional basis would you found your subsequent statement concerning the absurdity of a law that allows shop owners to discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc.? Your use of the word “civilized” seems to imply a transcendent standard by which to judge the relative merit of different “wishes” (i.e., the wishes of the customer vs. the wishes of the shop owner). Doesn’t prioritizing the wishes of the customer imply that it is somehow just or right to prefer his wishes over the wishes of the discriminatory shop owner? Perhaps this doesn’t necessarily lead to the establishment of rights; I’m not yet sure. But it seems to incline in that direction.
In answer to your last question, the Arizona bill’s overt purpose was to enable business owners lawfully to deny service to customers on the basis of religious conscience. SB 1062 didn’t specifically replace any existing law; though if it had passed, and had a restaurant owner refused service to a black customer on the basis of the customer’s skin color, it’s likely Arizona’s law—in that particular instance—would have been in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which a federal statute. The ulterior purpose of the bill was to protect business owners from potential lawsuits by homosexuals who had been denied goods or services. The 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't include homosexuals, but conservative legislators in Arizona feared an outcome similar to the one in Colorado, in which a judge ordered a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Kayla: Perhaps, but even so, “a lot” is not quite the same thing as “all.” At any rate, the distinction between habituated and deliberate assholes doesn’t have to do with anything, if you don’t want it to. As I said earlier, depending on how absolute your definition of “asshole” is (and it seems nearly all-encompassing in terms of racial discrimination), there may be no point in addressing this matter further. I’ll simply remind you of my original, twofold reason for addressing your “asshole” comment in the first place: 1) to highlight our different approaches to assessing assholery, and 2) to voice my concern that such labels are regrettably becoming more frequent as a means to foreclosing reasoned discourse over controversial topics. That’s all.
As for the counterarguments laid against those who criticize homosexuality, if they’re as unquestionable as you imply they are, then I suppose there’s no point in considering them further.
Regarding your last two points: fault and defining homosexuality. If by “fault” you mean the word in its earlier form (i.e., blemish, flaw, etc.), then yes, you could say that a customer who is denied goods and services by a business owner is “at fault,” according to whatever criteria the business owner uses to make his distinctions. If, however, you mean “fault” in the sense of moral culpability, then no, that’s not my argument. As for the definition of homosexuality, sure, I think “regularly having sex with someone of the same gender” is a sufficient if not necessary definition. I would probably go further, however, and say that homosexuality obtains in a number of erotic and semi-erotic manifestations.
AS: I’m not convinced that discrimination is necessarily a form of punishment. When I choose to eat pizza for lunch rather than cheeseburgers (a tough decision!), I am not discriminating for the purpose of punishing the burger shop owner; I am simply making a choice among competing options and preferences.
Gingko: Thanks for contributing your thoughts on Locke. You suggested that a natural right may exist with respect to not being discriminated against by other members of society. I’m skeptical of this, but also interested in hearing an argument in its favor.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
i_another wrote:
Gingko: Thanks for contributing your thoughts on Locke. You suggested that a natural right may exist with respect to not being discriminated against by other members of society. I’m skeptical of this, but also interested in hearing an argument in its favor.
You are probably right to be skeptical. Some people would argue that natural rights don't even exist; there was no Lockean "state of nature" at any time during history. All rights that exist are rights bestowed upon us by organized society. It all depends on how you want to make an argument.
Anti-discrimination legislation can be seen as having both positive and negative elements. I am not a lawyer, but I guess that doesn't stop someone from trying to argue that such legislation touches on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so it can be seen as a claim to universality when it comes to all peoples.
The challenge to this particular of anti-discrimination will probably come from natural rights theorists. Most likely in the form of the natural right to religious freedom. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Yes, and thank you to Ginkgo for pointing out the difference. I think the situation is different in the UK to the US and possibly Australia. Here as 'subjects' rather than citizens it is much more apparent that any 'rights' out ancestors managed to wrest from the aristocracy have been hard won. Despite their excellent pedigree, I see nothing 'natural' about Locke's rights.i_another wrote: Is it fair, then, to say that your view of all rights is that they are entirely conventional and not natural?
I wouldn't.i_another wrote:If so, very well; however, on what non-conventional basis would you found your subsequent statement concerning the absurdity of a law that allows shop owners to discriminate against their customers on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc.?
i_another wrote:Your use of the word “civilized” seems to imply a transcendent standard by which to judge the relative merit of different “wishes”
Yes. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't think there is any transcendent standard of ethics; I think instead it is merely deplorable that people should demand legal support for their dislike of fellow humans who mean them no harm.
Well again, 'just', 'right', 'civilised' are loaded terms; it doesn't help philosophy to use concepts of dubious ontology, that's for science to do. It's ironic that such 'natural rights' should be attributable to the empiricist John Locke.i_another wrote:Doesn’t prioritizing the wishes of the customer imply that it is somehow just or right to prefer his wishes over the wishes of the discriminatory shop owner?
I happen to think that a wish to be treated with as much dignity as anyone else is entirely reasonable.
As I said, it has been our experience that if you want any rights, you have to fight for them.i_another wrote:Perhaps this doesn’t necessarily lead to the establishment of rights; I’m not yet sure. But it seems to incline in that direction.
Indeed. I don't think even that should be encouraged.i_another wrote:In answer to your last question, the Arizona bill’s overt purpose was to enable business owners lawfully to deny service to customers on the basis of religious conscience.
Thank you for the information. Frankly, I don't think it reflects very well on any of the parties involved.i_another wrote:...conservative legislators in Arizona feared an outcome similar to the one in Colorado, in which a judge ordered a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Re: Spin-off: The AZ Bill, Rights, and Inclusion/Exclusion
Gingko,
I’m actually sympathetic to the notion of natural rights; I’m just not convinced (yet) that the Lockean version includes a natural right of protection against arbitrary discrimination in the marketplace. It’s possible Locke would permit a law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section II), which prohibits business owners offering “public accommodations” from denying goods and services to prospective customers on the basis of race and skin color. If he did, however, I believe he would do so on the basis of “peace” (his word) in civil society, not as a matter of natural right. This gets close, I think, to what AS mentioned earlier concerning excellence as a competing good vis-à-vis rights. Still, I think there’s a good argument to be made that Locke would at least hesitate in fully embracing such a law, given his preoccupation with the protection of private property.
I’m actually sympathetic to the notion of natural rights; I’m just not convinced (yet) that the Lockean version includes a natural right of protection against arbitrary discrimination in the marketplace. It’s possible Locke would permit a law like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (section II), which prohibits business owners offering “public accommodations” from denying goods and services to prospective customers on the basis of race and skin color. If he did, however, I believe he would do so on the basis of “peace” (his word) in civil society, not as a matter of natural right. This gets close, I think, to what AS mentioned earlier concerning excellence as a competing good vis-à-vis rights. Still, I think there’s a good argument to be made that Locke would at least hesitate in fully embracing such a law, given his preoccupation with the protection of private property.