What is discrimination (discrimination)?

What is discrimination (discrimination)?

%uA9 Williams Institute-UCLA

Leviathan Press:

Whether the differential treatment is reasonable depends only on whether the judging system is established. Reasonable differential treatment is called tailoring to individual conditions, and vice versa is denounced as discrimination. But who should establish such a judging system? How to build? Is the first consideration of maximizing collective interests? Or should the basic needs of the individual be considered first? The answer to this question will certainly not be simple enough. Moreover, when many individuals are classified as a group, this has become a problem that has to be faced head-on.

The topic “discrimination” discussed in this article is more likely to be directly translated into the word “discrimination” in Chinese, but such translation inevitably entails subjective value evaluation.

(Although it will not be a problem in many contexts, such as when discussing sexism)

Therefore, in many places in this article, we will replace it with the word “different mind” to focus on the meaning of the word “differentiated treatment”. What is discrimination? When people make ethical choices, they may include certain considerations that should not be included. On the issue of discrimination/discrimination, we subconsciously associate race or sexual orientation. After all, no one should be prohibited from getting something because they are black or homosexual. In some cases, age can even be a factor in ethical decision-making. For example, children are not considered to have the ability to make rational choices and therefore cannot have democratic voting rights. So how do we decide what is Fair and differentiated treatment ,what is Discrimination What? What are the criteria for identifying the two? Individual theory Some philosophers say that discrimination means disrespect for the individual. “Individuality” is the core of John Stuart Mill’s theory, so “individualism” is largely based on Mill’s viewpoint. ” Self-creation “It is the core of Mill’s utilitarianism. Only by understanding it can we understand the relationship between individuality and discrimination. For Jeremy Bentham, the first-generation utilitarian philosopher, whether it is human or not Every being has the same value. This starting point avoids the trap of “moral egoism”: Because we are equally important, I cannot put my interests above yours.

Utilitarian and liberal philosopher John Stewart Mill (1806-1873). %uA9 Literary Hub

But the actual result of this definition of good is that we are always asked to help others. Sooner or later we will feel the burnout of being dominated. After all, there will always be someone who lives worse than me and needs help.

A few centuries ago, due to the high cost and inconvenience of traveling at the time, people had almost no opportunity to get involved in the lives of those far away. Now, we can directly influence them, and we have many choices in how to help others. We are morally obligated to help others, but doing so also means giving up personal development.

If a person has three hours of leisure every night, in order to maximize the good, he/she is morally obligated to spend these time to help those in need. However, that seems to hinder these people from developing their life goals and hobbies.

I might like to listen to jazz music and think it cultivates my personality. When I chose to volunteer in a homeless shelter, there was no time to listen to jazz. After all, we have assumed that I have met my survival needs, and I’m talking about leisure time here. Utilitarianism claims that we should maximize the good, so it is asking us to help the homeless rather than pursuing our own hobbies.

But this is not to say that I should sacrifice my personal development for others. In utilitarianism, everyone is equal. The need of a tramp is more important than my hobby. We should maximize happiness, so we need to prioritize the needs of others, and then consider our own desires.

Mill saw a solution to this problem: He believed that personality was similar to music and virtue, and it was part of individual growth. But in further clarifying the exact details of individual growth, he emphasized the “human experience”.

In this sense, Mill’s individualism has a profound anthropocentric meaning, that is, the happiness of humans is higher than that of animals. Personality refers to the ability to know and then act. Mill believes that this is an ability that non-human animals do not possess.

%uA9 Smithsonian Magazine

Some people claim that animals can also be defined as individuals. For example, the moral philosopher Tom Regan once said that from a biographical perspective, animals are indeed “the subject of life”, that is, they are not only alive, but also experiencing life. In other words, animals also need to “become” animals.

Most animals have a very different way of life from plants like trees. Animals experience some things, and the things that satisfy their needs are of great significance to them. Biographical life can vary in quality. After all, the subject of life is not just like a tree with only needs, it also has demands and desires.

Some things may be objectively important to a tree, such as it needs sunlight and water. But these things are not important to the tree itself, it has no subjective life. Animals and our needs are different, but they also have desires. These needs constitute the basis of rights, and rights constitute a moral code. Just like humans, animals have the right to live or have the right to freedom (factory farming is prohibited).

%uA9 Campaign US

Reagan’s view is not satisfactory. Since we have the ability to redefine the scope of ethics, why should we add animals to our definition halfway? In the latter case, we are likely to regard animals as an add-on to ourselves. Look at WASPI (Full name Women Against State Pension Inequality, a British organization established in 2015 to protest the gender injustice in the establishment of the National Pension Fund, translator’s note) women know the problem of this method.

These women claimed that the British government had manipulated women’s pensions and that their gender unfair treatment constituted discrimination. They raised some problems. For example, the total pension for women who quit their jobs to raise their children is much lower than that for men. The main goal of the organization is to make people aware of the unfair effects of changes in the state pension age (SPA) on women.

At first, the operation of this system was mainly to meet the needs of men. Although it has been adjusted to meet the needs of women, it still disappoints one after another. This is because when new problems arise, it is not a gender-centric adjustment. Therefore, it is much simpler to rebuild a new system that is applicable to everyone than halfway reform.

Frankly speaking, the way some philosophers incorporate animals into their anthropocentric theories is ridiculous. For example, on the issue of animal morality, Kant has a notorious derogatory attitude. Kant’s ethics is rooted in “rationality.” In other words, people are valuable because they are rational. Animals are just experimental feed. For Kant, the reason why people who are mean to animals are immoral is also because these people are also likely to be mean to humans.

Christine Korsgaard proposed Animals have a certain degree of “minimal rationality” , Hoping to incorporate them into Kant’s ethics.

She noticed that the prey is aware that the predator is a creature that moves between other objects, so it shows a certain degree of spatial awareness (a kind of primary self-awareness) when avoiding the predator’s field of vision. As a modern Kantian, Kosgard did not want to degrade non-human animals to a position of low morality like Kant did. After all, for Kant, animals are nothing more than props that constitute human practice.

%uA9 Adam Dean

But why are animals as important as humans? We should affirm the value of their existence because of their own characteristics, not their similarity to human beings. It would be ridiculous if some people say that women are valuable like men, or that people of color are valuable like white people.

In the same way, Joel Marks said: ” Just as humans do not need to show their similarities to other animals to prove their intrinsic value, animals do not need either. ”

Why do pigs have to be like human beings to be included in the scope of morality? Why should women be like men? Marcos justly asserted for this that this statement reverses the correlation to some extent: It is not that other animals are as important as humans, but that humans are important because we are animals.

Rights theory

Non-human animals seem to meet the ethical requirements of rights theory rather than personality theory. Many non-human animals, especially those we eat, seem to be sentient.

They have obvious needs (such as adequate food) and obvious desires (such as socializing or independent living). They are emotional and conscious beings. Although just as we cannot be completely sure whether there is consciousness other than ourselves, we cannot be completely sure whether non-human animals are conscious. But they seem to be conscious.

%uA9 NPR

In most cases, rights are manifestations of desires and needs, and the right to life and the right to be free from violence reflect the desire to survive and avoid pain. Then why should we put the rights of human animals above non-human animals?

If rights are manifestations of desires and needs, then both human animals and non-human animals have the right to survive-they are both units of individual rights. A person who wants to eat animals certainly has the right to sustain life. However, humans can live without eating meat. And a lot of evidence shows that vegetarianism can be very healthy. But if a human chooses to eat non-human animals, he/she violates the animal’s right to life. This view is based on the modern animal rights movement.

In most cases, discrimination is denying rights, but this cannot be generalized. There are several problems in understanding differences in terms of rights: First, the discussion of rights is not as instructive as it seems to be on moral issues. It seems that rights can become our normative guide to the behavior of non-human animals. If animals have the right to live, then we should not eat them. But we humans often put the satisfaction of our own desires above the rights of animals.

However, although meat is not just needed for humans, it is indeed essential for carnivores like dogs. Does killing chickens and feeding dogs constitute discrimination? Roger Scruton gave a similar moral ambiguity case in the book “Green Philosophy”:

“The gamekeeper must protect the environment and the animals that thrive in it. In order to protect the birds that nest on the ground, he must control foxes and badgers. But animal rights activists must come here to stop all killings. In the end the prey birds also fled here, and the hunting ground was taken over by scavengers, and it became a mess of mismanagement.”

Scruton bluntly denied the feasibility of animal rights protection. On this topic, he was never shy to express his feelings. But he did get to the point.

%uA9 Bali Safari Park

Discussions based on rights cannot help us to develop a hierarchy of rights. If we claim that all animals have the right to survive, how do we manage an ecosystem of predators and prey? Some animals live by eating other animals. If we prevent hunting because the prey has the right to survive, then we may be destroying the balance of the ecosystem.

Secondly, there are theoretical problems with this statement. Does deprivation of rights necessarily constitute discrimination? When a woman who murdered her partner is imprisoned, she may lose her right to freedom. However, this seems to be another example of fair differentiation.

The third problem with this statement is that the anthropocentric foundation of moral rights is not strong. What kind of people should be granted rights? If we only allow humans to have rights, we will face criticism from anthropocentrism. After all, in the rights debate, there is no clear standard for what can be considered into the scope of rights.

Some people think that only humans have reason, so only humans have rights. But some animals also have autonomous consciousness, such as chimpanzees. not to mention, In fact, only some people can be considered rational. The rationality of human cubs is not fully developed, so should they be given only partial moral rights? The fetus only has the possibility of being rational, after all, it is unlikely to form a moral code in the womb. And those who have been in a vegetative state for a long time? Are they no longer worthy of being included in ethical considerations?

%uA9 Tenor

Joel Feinberg made a very influential argument in the abortion debate. to him, The possibility of owning a right does not directly mean that the right has been acquired. All British residents over 18 years of age who have not been imprisoned can become prime ministers. But the Prime Minister can only have one person.

I may have the potential to become a mother, and my mother may also have the right to maternity leave. But I can’t ask for maternity leave at the company arbitrarily without a child.

The angles we are talking about are all trying to learn from the human-oriented concepts of “rights” and rational-centered “individuals.” The theories we study here are based on certain abilities of non-human animals, whether they have or not, rather than what they actually do.

Sufficiency and necessity

Disrespect some people’s personality or deny their rights constitutes discrimination (discrimination) Sufficiently unnecessary condition.

for example. Imagine a sexist law maker who claims that women should stay at home. He wants to prohibit women from entering “public spaces”, an act that neither respects women’s personality but also violates the right to freedom. However, this only satisfies the fully unnecessary premise of discrimination.

Contextual relevance

These historical descriptions of discrimination only touch the surface of the problem and fail to explain why some current events are wrong. Similarly, the immorality of circus animal performance is not just because it goes against nature, the problem is far from the case.

Naturalistic fallacy

The lives of contemporary people are clearly different from the lives of our ancestors. But does this mean that urban life is morally wrong? Bears performing circus tricks are brought from nature to artificial environments, but humans have also experienced environmental migration. We used to hunt and gather fruits, and then we started farming, but now we live in a mechanized society.

We brought the bear out of its natural environment, but this Not necessarily Is wrong. After all, like wildfires or natural disasters, when the environment becomes harmful or dangerous, many animals will be taken away from their environment.

Likewise, dressing animals is not fundamentally wrong—some pets may indeed need specific clothes. Canine anti-anxiety shirts can help dogs calmly through stressful situations such as campfire nights by clinging to them. If the plane crashes and falls into the ocean, it is also correct to put on a life jacket for the dog.

The specific circumstances determine the morality of dressing animals. In these cases, it also reflects the characteristic that morality depends on context. As we have seen, deprivation of rights may not constitute discrimination. For example, women who have committed heinous crimes and are deprived of their freedom are treated fairly and differentiated. Whether it is discriminatory differentiation or fair differentiation depends on the specific context.

The Boston Globe

A typical example is a scandal in which priests sexually assaulted children and young people in the Boston area. The Boston Globe linked the seemingly isolated cases of sexual abuse to the “mysterious disappearances” of priests in the area who quickly moved to other parishes to escape justice.

Like other citizens, Catholic priests certainly have the right to retain privacy and live peacefully. However, preventing crime takes precedence over protecting privacy. We can see that although there is indeed a hierarchy of rights, these rights are fluid in the hierarchy and depend on context.

Due to the nature of their crimes and abuse of power, Father Boston lost the right to have a private life. But if priests are deprived of their right to privacy just because they identify with themselves as males or Catholics, then they will again focus on characteristics that are not related to the current issue.

Examples of aliens

To further illustrate this point, we can consider the possibility of aliens visiting the earth. For these aliens, humans are the most delicious food. Aliens think that their telepathy ability makes them superior to human animals, so why don’t they eat us?[Bernard Williams made a similar view in The Human Prejudice].

Well, we might think that it is a good thing that aliens have telepathy. We will even be jealous of them. This is not to say that telepathy itself is not good, but that these abilities cannot determine our moral value. We still shouldn’t be eaten. Correct In terms of morality, what is important is a certain characteristic or environment, not the ability itself.

%uA9 FES Connect

Telepathy is not the basis of moral values. We have never had this ability before, and it doesn’t matter to us. Our lives have real intrinsic value because we cherish our lives. Humans may not have the ability to telepathy, but this has nothing to do with his/her own conscious experience.

Because a creature can’t telepathically decide to eat them, this constitutes a kind of discrimination. So, why do we eat animals because they are irrational? Jeremy Bentham gave a similar example when he said: “ The question is not’Can they reason about logic’, nor’Can they talk’, but’Will they suffer?’ ”

When someone thinks that women should be restricted to the private sphere, they consider factors such as gender that have nothing to do with their ability to perform in the public sphere. Similarly, paying attention to the number of biological legs, language ability, or social life ability are all things that have nothing to do with moral stance.

In a specific context, factors such as age may be the basis for judging fair differentiation or discrimination. It is hard to imagine that discrimination based on race would constitute a case of fair differentiation. Perhaps considering that the impact of COVID-19 on people of color is far more serious than that of whites, we should give priority to treating people of color rather than white patients.

Although most people believe that a 10-year-old child should not have the right to vote, age itself should not constitute an obstacle to their access to justice. This is not to say that considering age itself is wrong, but when dealing with current problems, we are considering whether it is an appropriate factor that can ease the situation.

How to determine the relevance of a factor in the context? This is the difficulty. Some philosophers say that species is a related factor, but for me that is not. Thinking back to Bentham’s words, What I believe is that we should not hurt those who will suffer.

Text/medium

Translated / Yushu

Proofreading/Bunny’s Lingbo Microstep

This article is based on the Common Creation Agreement (BY-NC), published by Yusuan in Leviathan

The article is only the author’s opinion and does not necessarily represent Leviathan’s position

The editor has something to say:

The article has a very enlightening thought for me: that is, when it comes to dealing with animal rights, why do animals have to have characteristics similar to humans before they are considered important?

The cow shed tears before being slaughtered, the sheep witnessed the fear of the same kind being slaughtered, the elephants gathered together to mourn the death of their companions, the dolphins had a smiling face and so on-these phenomena are culturally isomorphic for humans, and This easily makes us overlook the intrinsic value of the species itself, as well as the specific reference context. In this sense, both extreme animal protectionism and anthropocentrism are actually making similar mistakes.

Once we think about the boundary of human self, we may realize that only when we humans incorporate other species into a community to consider, will we gain the possibility of protecting human “self”.

Contribution email: [email protected]

Favorites

Report