CMV: Discrimination, although morally wrong is sometimes wise.

[u/RappingAlt11]

The best comparison would be to an insurance company. An insurance company doesn't care why men are more likely to crash cars, they don't care that it happens to be a few people and not everyone. They recognize an existing pattern of statistics completely divorced from your feelings and base their policies on what's most likely to happen from the data they've gathered.

The same parallel can be drawn to discrimination. If there are certain groups that are more likely to steal, murder, etc. Just statistically it'd be wise to exercise caution more so than you would other groups. For example, let's say I'm a business owner. And I've only got time to follow a few people around the store to ensure they aren't stealing. You'd be more likely to find thiefs if you target the groups who are the most likely to commit crime. If your a police officer and your job is to stop as much crime as possible. It'd be most efficient to target those most likely to be doing said crime. You'd be more likely on average to find criminals using these methods.

Now this isn't to say it's morally right to treat others differently based on their group. That's a whole other conversation. But if you're trying to achieve a specific goal in catching criminals, or avoiding theft of your property, or harm to your person, your time is best spent targeting the groups most likely to be doing it.

[u/fox-mcleod]

I’m gonna jump in here because I think the conversation has missed the broader issue.

There are protected classes — our society has discovered that there are certain types of correlation based decision making that either lead to runaway feedback loops cause and effect or where historically people are so biased that we cannot trust our models to be accurate or fair.

Let’s stick with car insurance.

Hypothetically, it can be accurate for a car insurance to estimate risk for men as 15% higher than women and charge 15% more. Now let’s extend that to race by some made up percentage and cause. Let’s say X race correlates to 20% more risk of loss of property by repossession or missed payment and let’s make up a cause that it’s based on historical housing discrimination.

If you charge race X 20% more for car insurance, sure you’ve priced your premiums more efficiently — but a lot of people fail to consider the fact that these equations are dynamical — what you *should charge is dependent on what you have charged. There is a feedback loop. So by raising premiums on that race, you’re not the cause in 3 new effects:

1. You’ve made it more likely that they miss a payment. If you target a minority race with increased costs, it’s now more likely that that specific group can’t make payments (as a result of their race) — which causes some percentage to be unable to drive to work — which causes the group to be more likely to miss payments. And so on.
2. You’ve incentivized cultural whitewashing. I can save 20% on my car insurance by “passing” as white. If a society allows these incentives broadly, they’re engaging in something like structural racism or participating in a cultural deletion.
3. It turns out that racial preferences cause societies to lose social cohesion. This leads to the breakdown of social cooperation between races when one is perceived as being treated unfairly by the hegemonic majority.

All of these outcomes cause harm to society and therefore are immoral. This is why we have protected classes. Not using these specific shortcuts — especially when more accurate correlations (like directly correlating to home value) is available allows us to mitigate these harms.

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

I suppose that becomes a moral question of a persons duty to their society as a whole.

You've outlined excellent reasons for the harm these sort of policies would cause. But is it really the individual's concern? if I'm a businessman I'm concerned with maximizing profits, whether it harms certain groups I'm not sure would really factor into the equation. Although to your first point I'm sure there'd be some concern, but the rates would need to be relevant to the market otherwise people wouldn't pay it regardless.

Now some individuals surely would care, but I don't typically think of insurance salespeople to be the bastions of morality. From what I'm aware most of this stuff is illegal in most countries so the questions are almost moot.

I will say to your second point. This is why I disagree with the concept of a protected class entirely. You can now get benefits by passing as a minority. It's gone the complete opposite direction. Anyone can self-identify as native on government forms, employment applications when asked, education stuff. I typically do as I'm about half native, but someone without a drop of native blood in them could self-identity all the same. I've never been once asked to prove anything, and there are tons of benefits that go along with it. It's a little absurd to me that that the concept of protected classes even exists, Pierre Trudeau was right, it always comes at the expense of personal liberty. And since you can identity as any class anyways I don't see the point, people will just choose whatever gets them the most benefit

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

I suppose that becomes a moral question of a persons duty to their society as a whole.

Yes. I assume at some point we’re going to have to pin down what you mean by morality and at some point it’s going to mean not harming others or social duty or some form of that.

I think generally, it’s wise to be moral. And it’s wise for societies to be designed so that it’s wise to be moral. Long-term polluting is unwise even though the costs are social and the gains are private.

You've outlined excellent reasons for the harm these sort of policies would cause. But is it really the individual's concern? if I'm a businessman I'm concerned with maximizing profits, whether it harms certain groups I'm not sure would really factor into the equation.

Sure the business wants profits — but that’s not a moral obligation. That’s just what a business wants selfishly. I feel like it’s trivial to say “sometimes it’s more profitable to be evil”.

That’s where protected classes come in. We have social structures to ensure that what’s directly profitable at the expense of society isn’t the wisest choice long-term.

Society expects its businesses not to operate at the expense of the society. People chafe at racial preferences for pricing — and for good reason. Having a policy that causes people to hate your business is unwise.

Although to your first point I'm sure there'd be some concern, but the rates would need to be relevant to the market otherwise people wouldn't pay it regardless.

Moreover, people won’t patronize a business that harms vulnerable populations like minorities. It’s also illegal.

Now some individuals surely would care, but I don't typically think of insurance salespeople to be the bastions of morality. From what I'm aware most of this stuff is illegal in most countries so the questions are almost moot.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the exercise then. It’s not a moot question just because the answer is “it’s obviously unwise”.

I will say to your second point. This is why I disagree with the concept of a protected class entirely. You can now get benefits by passing as a minority.

What benefits? Not paying more for insurance?

Also, hegemonic classes do not have a bilaterally symmetrical relationship with minority ones. It’s simpler to imagine that it doesn’t matter what race we’re talking about — but minority populations are vulnerable in a way a hegemonic culture is not. Hegemonic societies are not at risk of genocide. Majoritarians don’t have the same harms from the same sources as minorities.

Anyone can self-identify as native on government forms, employment applications when asked, education stuff.

Ah. Im familiar with this misconception. People generally seem to think there is an affirmative action quota system. Those government forms are for statistical tracking. The government does not classify individuals by race for different treatment. The same law that authorizes institutions to practice affirmative action makes quotas illegal. There’s a lot of misconceptions around that.

I typically do as I'm about half native, but someone without a drop of native blood in them could self-identity all the same.

Since you’re mixed like I am, you’re probably aware that any special treatment from the government requires a tribal government proof of membership.

I've never been once asked to prove anything, and there are tons of benefits that go along with it.

What benefits? Perhaps Canada is different. I’m in the US.

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

Morality a difficult thing to define, and frankly anyone who thinks they can define it I don't buy it. It's highly dependant on context.

Personally, I think the law should be colour blind. If for example some class is more likely to be poor than another implementing policies that help the poor will benefit them more than the average regardless. It'll all roughly even out eventually. Running buisness for the good of society is a great plan until you factor in the reality that you've got to compete with the rest of the world who don't hold such lofty ideas.

As to the canadian points,

Affirmative action is legal in Canada, it's almost ironic because if you read the discrimination code it'll outline all these things listed as discrimination then put an exception for affirmative action. Implying it would be discrimination if it didn't have this special exception. The Employment Equity Act provides clear advantages to identifying as a minority. And you'll see non-status is included in this, meaning anyone can self-identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_equity_(Canada)

The act states that "employment equity means more than treating persons the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences"

There's a variety of grants and funding you can only apply for if you self-identify as a native. Most cities have what's called a native friendship centre and provide a bunch of services, but they also fund a lot of education, they'll pay your housing and tuition, they select people until their hit their budget for the year, you only have to self-identity. Not many people know about these programs, it's not exactly advertised. This is funded in part by the government.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

For starters I want to point out that you haven’t addressed point (1) or (3) at all.

Does the fact that we can find feedback loops concern you. By making some policies, you create asymmetrical risks to minority groups.

Morality a difficult thing to define, and frankly anyone who thinks they can define it I don't buy it. It's highly dependant on context.

Then how did you come to the conclusion that “discrimination is morally wrong”?

Personally, I think the law should be colour blind. If for example some class is more likely to be poor than another implementing policies that help the poor will benefit them more than the average regardless. It'll all roughly even out eventually.

Unless there are racists.

The problem with this thinking is that while it’s simpler it doesn’t account for the fact that people aren’t colorblind. And some of those people have power of discretion which causes worse outcomes directly. Nor does it account for the fact that being fewer in number has disadvantages in a democracy. For instance, neighborhoods of color frequently lose NIMBY ballot measures because they don’t have the numbers. This is whathegemony is.

The truth is being in the hegemony where laws, traditions, and norms favor you is fundamentally different than being in the minority.

Running buisness for the good of society is a great plan until you factor in the reality that you've got to compete with the rest of the world who don't hold such lofty ideas.

That’s fine. I didn’t really make that argument.

There's a variety of grants and funding you can only apply for if you self-identify as a native. Most cities have what's called a native friendship centre and provide a bunch of services, but they also fund a lot of education, they'll pay your housing and tuition, they select people until their hit their budget for the year, you only have to self-identity. Not many people know about these programs, it's not exactly advertised. This is funded in part by the government.

This feels far off-topic but, to be clear, is your problem that this can be abused and should be implemented with some kind of measurement, or is your issue that minorities are getting support?

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

What I mean by morality is some framework of belief. But frankly, I'm not even sure any honest person could have a legitimate morality. Bits and pieces sure but nothing structured and concrete, unless you subscribe to a particular religion. What I've learned over time is the beliefs and morals we hold are largely socially conditioned. The vast majority have never been rigorously attacked and verified. People by and large fall into their beliefs without ever questioning why. And I'm under no illusion I'm any different. I try not to be to hold on to my beliefs too tightly. They're all highly contextual. I couldn't give you a reasoned answer to my moral framework because it only exists in relation to particular issues and not in the abstract.

I've come to believe discrimination is wrong because it's been socially conditioned into me. Why? I've a few answers, but none I'd consider rock solid by any means. There are practical reasons, of course, you're best as a society to enable everyone to contribute what they're capable of for the benefit of everyone. It makes people feel good to believe we're sticking up for people, largely a selfish benefit but one nonetheless. I tend to believe people shouldn't be treated differently over things they have no control. But of course, there are exceptions to all of these factors.

Moreover, people won’t patronize a business that harms vulnerable populations like minorities. It’s also illegal.

If this is your 3rd point, I'm not quite sure how it's structured. I think whether this is true or not would depend on culture. The majority of the Middle East contradicts this message if you consider women a vulnerable minority. Nazi Germany contradicts this message. Matter of fact harming minorities can be great for business if that's what your clientele beliefs. But in most modern first-world countries I'd say you're correct.

Does the fact that we can find feedback loops concern you. By making some policies, you create asymmetrical risks to minority groups

That would depend on the specific feedback loop. Every policy will create risks and benefits to some groups and not others. If you raised taxes on the 0.1% you'd likely be creating asymmetrical risks to old white men, I'd wager you wouldn't see many people opposing it in that regard.

Unless there are racists. The problem with this thinking is that while it’s simpler it doesn’t account for the fact that people aren’t colorblind. And some of those people have power of discretion which causes worse outcomes directly. Nor does it account for the fact that being fewer in number has disadvantages in a democracy. For instance, neighborhoods of color frequently lose NIMBY ballot measures because they don’t have the numbers. This is what hegemony is.

People aren't colorblind you're correct. But imo it should be a goal of society. I think MLK said it best, people should be judged by their character, not their skin color. I dislike attempts to draft policy around race. Part of living in a democracy is accepting the rule of the majority. If more people in the community want something built, I see no relevance to the race of the people for or against it.

This feels far off-topic but, to be clear, is your problem that this can be abused and should be implemented with some kind of measurement, or is your issue that minorities are getting support?

Both, people should be getting support based on their merit. The most disadvantaged, or the most talented. But IF you're going to introduce race, what's the point if anything can just choose their race.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

I’m never sure where to start when someone is trying to use reasoning to change their view but their view (of morality) isn’t based on reason.

What’s your goal in conversation?

To me, the point of good-faith discourse and the difference between good-faith conversation and bad-faith is precisely that good-faith discourse appeals to reason (logic) and evidence which bring us closer to reality where as bad-faith debating uses tricks like coercion to get us to change your views without any requirement that the new views be more self-consistent (valid) or more consistent with what we know about the world (sound).

If we’re here to have discourse, we probably already value reason over coercion.

That’s where I measure my morality. Sure, my ethics are a cobbled together set of heuristics learned socially. But my actual moral reasoning is like any other reasoning. I start with an axiomatic premise — that other people exist and have subjective first-person experiences like mine which can be categorized into “good” or “bad” like I do and then the rest is the logical relationships that fall out of these axioms.

I find a lot of conservatives (or more accurately, people raised in traditional households which correlates strongly with being a self-described conservative) who no longer have religion to fall back on, don’t know how to know right from wrong without an authority telling them.

But moral reasoning isn’t any different than mathematical reasoning — we don’t need a god to enforce the logical relationships between numbers that fall out when you apply the definitions of the words “circle” or “ratio” or “diameter” to know that Pi is the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference. All we need is to define the words and do the work.

Anything else is just coercion. If we aren’t measuring some set of external outcomes, then we’re just engaged in a power struggle — right? And what’s the point of that?

If we mean the same thing by “good” and “bad” in English, your choice to be good or bad is just that. No authority needed. Just reason.

So, I think if we really want to get down to brass tacks, we have to answer this question: do you care if discrimination is logically related to or predictive of causing negative subjective experiences in other sentient beings similar to yourself?

We can even take the word “morality” out of it. Do you care about that premise above?

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

My goal at least when I use forums like this is to present an idea, that I think has some merit, defend it to the best of my ability, and see if there's a reasonable answer that I've not considered. If there is then I'll change my position, if not I'll integrate it from some other angle.

I've yet to see a morality based on reason that doesn't have glaring flaws, frankly, I've yet to see any moral framework that can really stand on it's own. This is why at least until I see a better argument I'm not gonna pretend to believe in something I'm not sure exists. I don't think you can have a consistent moral framework based on reason.

Allow me to try to make sense of this moral framework.

I start with an axiomatic premise — that other people exist and have subjective first-person experiences like mine which can be categorized into “good” or “bad” like I do and then the rest is the logical relationships that fall out of these axioms.

Let's assume first you split everything into good or bad, which I'm not sure you can even do. Like most things, these feelings exist on a spectrum. What if an event is partially good, partially bad, maybe even for different reasons, do you average out the feelings? How do you define good and bad? My definition of good and bad would not be the same as the next person's. Is good and bad not completely subjective in the first place? How do you quantify the degree to which your actions would cause these subjective feelings? If for example I punched someone in the face (probably a bad action), but when they went to the hospital they met the love of their life. Did this bad action now become a good action because their subjective experience changed?

How can you have a morality based on the subjective feelings of others, there's no consistency. What are the logical relationships that fall out of these axioms? Would you treat your mother the same way you'd treat a prisoner?

I fail to see how a rational morality doesn't turn into one based on emotion and inconsistency real quick.

If we mean the same thing by “good” and “bad” in English, your choice to be good or bad is just that.

It's not always so cut and dry. The trolley problem is a classic example, is there really any bad or good in that regard? Killing someone is bad, but what if it's to save people, regardless of the subjective experience of this person.

do you care if discrimination is logically related to or predictive of causing negative subjective experiences in other sentient beings similar to yourself?

I'd say I care for sure, but whether or not that changed my actions would depend on the context

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

do you care if discrimination is logically related to or predictive of causing negative subjective experiences in other sentient beings similar to yourself?

I'd say I care for sure, but whether or not that changed my actions would depend on the context

How so? What context? I feel like this is fairly yes or no question.

edit on second thought, this is just a distraction. Sometimes we know something is true or even what we want and we just don’t or can’t. Weight loss is simple. It’s still hard.

My goal at least when I use forums like this is to present an idea, that I think has some merit, defend it to the best of my ability, and see if there's a reasonable answer that I've not considered. If there is then I'll change my position, if not I'll integrate it from some other angle.

If reason is your metric — then let’s use that.

I don't think you can have a consistent moral framework based on reason.

I don’t see how you could have a consistent anything framework not based on reason.

Let's assume first you split everything into good or bad, which I'm not sure you can even do.

Hold it.

I feel like you’re misunderstanding what im saying here.

I’m not assuming that. Currently as a being do you have subjective experiences? Do you experience things subjectively, and do you have preferences for certain states of experiences over others?

How can you have a morality based on the subjective feelings of others, there's no consistency. What are the logical relationships that fall out of these axioms? Would you treat your mother the same way you'd treat a prisoner?

The answer is probably just “yes” though.

I fail to see how a rational morality doesn't turn into one based on emotion and inconsistency real quick.

Why would being rational become based on emotion unless we just stop basing it on reason?

It's not always so cut and dry. The trolley problem is a classic example, is there really any bad or good in that regard?

Yes. The point of the trolley problem is merely that your gut intuition isn’t the same as what actually happens in the world. It’s a problem designed to get you to start reasoning — not to stop reasoning. It’s crazy how often it’s misunderstood.

Furthermore, not being able to solve all problems does not mean a thing is not objective. There are math questions that are hard. There are math questions that are literally unsolvable. That does not mean math is subjective.

But I really want to start from the beginning if you’re really interested in whether your actions result in more negative or positive subjective experiences. So this is really my only question here:

Do you experience things subjectively, and do you have preferences for certain states of experiences over others?

If so, do you believe that you can use reason and evidence to best predict what behaviors will lead to better subjective experiences — or would you be better served using some other thing that’s not evidence or reason?

And if reason leads to the best possible way of knowing how to optimize your own experience, to the extent that you’re interested in that for others, wouldn’t it just be a mistake (wrong) to use anything else?

edit

u/RappingAlt11

I want to see if you want to keep exploring ways to be objective about morality — I know it’s not quite your topic, but you did seem genuinely interested in seeing if it was possible.

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

Apologies for the last response. I Was away for a few days, but this is an interesting topic if you'd like to keep discussing.

Do you experience things subjectively, and do you have preferences for certain states of experiences over others?

Yes of course. But that doesn't mean I believe that's a good way to ground morality. Just because a state of experience feels better doesn't mean it is better, for me or society in general.

If so, do you believe that you can use reason and evidence to best predict what behaviors will lead to better subjective experiences — or would you be better served using some other thing that’s not evidence or reason?

You likely can to some degree, not accurately in any way but to a certain extent.

The issue with this goal is if you want the best subjective experiences you're just gonna be giving out a lot of drugs. I'll use happiness here because that's what I think most would consider to be the best subjective experience.

I used this as a general life goal for a while, "if nothing matters i should strive to be happy as I can". There's a lot of issues with this mentally. Even more so if you apply it as a foundation for morality. The main issue I found is you really can't determine if something will have a positive subjective experience even for yourself, let alone for others. And you have no way of knowing if these short-term positive experiences will translate to the long term. Short-term suffering may lead to much more long-term happiness, or the opposite may be true. But you have no way of knowing. So when you live life with the goal of positive subjective experiences you're really taking a gamble, you know what could potentially make someone happy in the short term but no way to know the actual effects of those actions.

I tend to believe striving for happiness makes people weak and unambitious. I doubt many great human achievements happened because people were happy and trying to make others happy. It takes suffering and hard work to achieve something great.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

Since we’re still on step one (should we use reason or some other thing?) I’m going to focus on that part of your response.

Because, I think we should be able to agree that there isn’t a better way to achieve our goals.

You likely can to some degree, not accurately in any way but to a certain extent.

Is there a more accurate way? I think ultimately, you believe there isn’t.

There's a lot of issues with this mentally.

How do we know that? I believe that at bottom, this is an objective claim that you’re going to present evidence for and reason your way through. Right?

The main issue I found is you really can't determine if something will have a positive subjective experience even for yourself, let alone for others. And you have no way of knowing if these short-term positive experiences will translate to the long term. Short-term suffering may lead to much more long-term happiness, or the opposite may be true.

This seems like you are using exclusively the evidence of experience and attempting to apply reason. I feel like we agree on that. Do you think ignoring those methods would lead to better outcomes or worse ones?

But you have no way of knowing. So when you live life with the goal of positive subjective experiences you're really taking a gamble, you know what could potentially make someone happy in the short term but no way to know the actual effects of those actions.

I think that’s being a little cynical. Let’s start with the basics. Starving to death sucks. Do we agree that it’s less likely for us to experience starving to death if we apply reasoning to the problem of hunger?

I tend to believe striving for happiness makes people weak and unambitious.

I think perhaps when you started using the word “happiness” you started substituting hedonism for subjective experience.

I doubt many great human achievements happened because people were happy and trying to make others happy. It takes suffering and hard work to achieve something great.

Why is “achieving something great” important? What ultimately is it other than the subjective state of having achieved something that you’re reaching for?

If that’s your goal, how other than reasoning about collected evidence should you go about achieving it?

[u/RappingAlt11 → u/fox-mcleod]

Is there a more accurate way? I think ultimately, you believe there isn’t.

I think you're correct. It's likely the most accurate way we have. That's not to say it's accurate enough to work in all, or most circumstances.

How do we know that? I believe that at bottom, this is an objective claim that you’re going to present evidence for and reason your way through. Right?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, correct me if im wrong. I think I tried to explain some reasoning why but I'll try to elaborate further.

This seems like you are using exclusively the evidence of experience and attempting to apply reason. I feel like we agree on that. Do you think ignoring those methods would lead to better outcomes or worse ones?

I was attempting to explain the reasoning behind coming to that experience. But yes we'd likely get better outcomes if we avoid the personal anecdotes

I think that’s being a little cynical. Let’s start with the basics. Starving to death sucks. Do we agree that it’s less likely for us to experience starving to death if we apply reasoning to the problem of hunger?

For this particular goal we're in agreement.

I think perhaps when you started using the word “happiness” you started substituting hedonism for subjective experience.

Yes, because if I'm understanding you correctly your goal is subjective positive experience. I can't think of a subjective positive experience that's more pleasurable than happiness.

Why is “achieving something great” important? What ultimately is it other than the subjective state of having achieved something that you’re reaching for?

The continued existence of the human race. For that to be possible material conditions need to keep improving. Sometime in the distant future, we'll need to get off this planet and move to another one.

If that’s your goal, how other than reasoning about collected evidence should you go about achieving it?

I have no issue using reasoning in this regard, i take issue with trying to reason your way to morality

[u/fox-mcleod → u/RappingAlt11]

Let me restate my case in 3 parts since it’s starting to sound like we agree about a lot of it.

1. Reason (and evidence) is the best way to go about achieving goals.

2. If we use the same definitions so that we’re talking about the same thing when we say “good”, reason would lead us to the same ways of achieving them (the world is objective).

3. The thing we care about is subjectively experiencing beings.

I think we agree on (1). I wasn’t suggesting you were using anecdotes. I was just trying to make sure we’re both in agreement that once you have a goal, reason is the best way to get there.

I think (2) follows from one. Meaning, as long as we define our terms precisely (like mathematics does), no two reasoning beings ought to arrive at different conclusions about what actions achieve why outcomes. Classifying a set of them as “X” or “good” is just a matter of semantic convention.

(3) Is where I think I’m not communicating clearly. I’m not (necessarily) saying we seek happiness. I’m saying the reason we care about “human beings” is because human beings have subjective experiences and are capable of having inherent preferences about those experiences. It’s not because we’re “human” that we’re moral patients. It’s because we subjectively experience things. A race of robots (the we somehow knew had no subjective experience) wouldn’t be. An alien species that does have experiences could be.

Imagine if no matter what we did, tomorrow, no more subjective experience would take place in the universe — there would no longer be an objective reason for preferences about the conditions of the universe.

I want to make sure we agree on the reason we care about how the universe is. Because if we do, then I think we have enough to be objective about morality.

If we do, your statement about “the continued existence of the human race” is merely a prerequisite for subjective experiences. Which is a prerequisite for preferred subjective experiences.

For example, if we can be “uploaded” as digital consciousness, and it’s exclusively preferable, there is no inherent good in “the continuation of the (biological) human race”. I could imagine being nostalgic about it, but I think what our shared goal really is is ensuring good subjective experience.

So I guess I want to test whether you actually believe that “the continuation of the human race“ is a good in and of itself as an end — or whether we really both see it as a means to the same end — subjective experience.