Discrimination shouldn't be marginalised.
In modern society, most people believe that discrimination is undesirable. They think it leads to exclusion, harm and, eventually, adverse societal outcomes.
However, the argument that discrimination is negative or “hateful” may fall upon closer inspection. This is because what is positive or good can only be considered from an individual perspective and cannot be considered collectively. Individuals have consciousness, agency, choice and culpability -- groups don’t.
Therefore, it can only be individuals who decide what is good for them and what their actions will be. Determining what is good for the collective is impossible because collectives lack consciousness, agency, culpability, and the ability to choose.
Ultimately, groups are merely aggregations of individuals, which means the “greater good” is that which benefits each particular individual. The abstract notion of the greater good is precisely that: abstract. There is no such thing as a “collective good”.
Discrimination as a positive
Let’s consider an aspect of life everyone accepts as being self-evidently “good”: the ability to make one’s own decisions and to choose one’s actions in accordance with one’s preferences. The idea of freedom includes personal autonomy, the freedom of speech and the freedom of choice. When an individual avoids someone or prefers to be around a particular person, this would be considered “freedom of association”.
When it comes to "discrimination", most people have been led to believe that discriminating against someone based on personally chosen factors is unethical. In other words, if someone makes a personal choice to dislike or disassociate from someone, their reasons for doing so are immediately questioned. In modern society, it is considered appropriate to question someone’s intentions and the reasons for their actions.
In contrast, on socially accepted factors, it is deemed entirely correct to discriminate in modern society.
For example, it is considered ethical to discriminate based on race when it comes to personal dating habits, but when it comes to doing business with someone, it is considered unethical. The idea is that personal choices are one thing, but choices that affect others are quite another. The social contract and the obligation to collaborate with other members of society for the greater good are inherently smuggled into people’s considerations which again reinforces the point that currently, one’s individual preferences are being held in lesser regard than social expectations.
Moreover, a muddled understanding of the intersection between freedom, responsibility and duty persists. Bouncers are considered ethical if they refuse someone entry to a bar based on sexuality, but when bakers refuse to sell cakes to homosexuals, it is regarded as unethical.
The same goes for employers. They are welcome to discriminate against candidates based on education, intelligence, past experience, and language ability but are prevented from discriminating based on race, height, age or sex.
However, if the employer's office space happens to have tiny doors, the adjudication of whether height discrimination is ethical shifts again. Now, it would be considered ethical to discriminate based on height, given the restrictions imposed by the office space. The shifting of responsibility is always prevalent.
The persistent merry-go-round of varying ethical acceptability continues unabated until government law specifies what is socially acceptable. Once the government puts its policies into effect, social norms then follow.
Back to reality
It would seem a rethink is required.
Clearly, there are only three possible options. It is either the case that a) all forms of discrimination are unethical, b) all forms of discrimination are ethical, or c) some forms of discrimination are ethical, and some aren't.
Scenario A is false because discrimination on dating sites and nightclubs is clearly ethical. Surely, all individuals and business owners have the right to decide with whom they copulate or do business. Scenario C is also false because every instance of discrimination that could possibly be fathomed fits into a category of personal freedoms, which are innate human rights.
Therefore, what may be an ugly truth, but a truth nevertheless, is that all forms of discrimination -- the ability to allocate one’s time and money, speaking freely and disassociating from people for personal reasons -- are Natural human rights.
This means that anyone, for any reason, is fully justified to actualise any of their human rights at any time -- including freedom of speech and association.
For example, suppose someone decides to ignore all short people and relate only with tall people. In that case, this should be recognised as a personal choice rather than criticised for being discriminatory or offensive. The same should go for race, skin/eye colour, income status, sex, gender preference, class or any other category, whether it be immutable or not.
Suppose someone voices their distaste or condescension for someone. Regardless of the offensiveness, there should be an implicit understanding that people may speak freely and express themselves as they see fit. Anyone who considers this vulgar or rude can avoid looking and listening.
The understanding of innate natural human rights and their fundamental importance is slowly but surely being expunged, especially in English-speaking countries, with cases of racism and sexism being paraded as examples of poor-quality human beings venting “hate”.
These so-called bigots, heightists and racists are simply voicing their preferences with free speech and freedom of association and should not be insulted, threatened or prosecuted for doing so. Concepts like “hate speech” should be recognised as mere instances of free speech rather than offensive violence that necessarily incites further violence, bullying and suffering.
As the famous adage goes: “Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you.”
How great would it be if people actually believed it!?
Written by George Tchetvertakov
Written by George Tchetvertakov
