Everybody discriminates, including virtue signallers who discriminate against people and things they, themselves, don't discriminate against. The law doesn't deal with morals, and we can discriminate to our heart's content against anyone or anything if we have a reason other than just dislike. Easy. Anyone who says differently is a liar and a fool

Sam, you say: "The moral law demands that I treat every individual as a free person equal to everyone else".

I have no objections with this moral law but what I want to know is, where do you think this "moral law" comes from?

Is it something that Kant or someone else made up, or is it just some free-floating thing that just happens to exist in the universe, or is it perhaps something given by God? Is there another alternative?

Surely this is crucially important. If Kant or some other human being simply made up "the moral law" what imperative is there for anyone to care what he/they made up if it is in someone's interests to ignore such made-up moral law?

If the moral law is something that just happens to exist in the universe, again, what imperative is there for anyone to take any notice of it? If someone disobeys such moral laws is that person thereby offending the atoms that make up the universe? Does that make any sense?

If the moral law should come from a God who has created us then surely that is the only way that such moral laws have any meaning or significance.

speaking of morals and humans rights without referring to the Maker of man's conscience is just one man's opinion against another.

I am impressed by the depth of Kant's thought, it definitely warrants further reading.

Yet, assuming the author represents Kant correctly, "Kant denies that we can have any such knowledge about others or even ourselves". The Upanishads face the same issues, but conclude that we CAN have this knowledge, and also discover our autonomy in the process. Not that it is quick and easy, not that it is common, but this is still possible and still, the only worthwhile pursuit for our lives.

Our true nature is autonomous - and freedom is possible by realising this. Our rationality, however, is not autonomous but still part of the world of phenomena. Identifying as "rational beings" (or "rational agents"), while better than identifying with our base inclinations, is still short of recognising who we truly are.

Indeed, we ought to treat others as "an end-in-itself", but this does not mean to treat their human persona as an end-in-itself, it means the true others, who they really are!

«Immanuel Kant lays the foundation for recognizing the inherent dignity of every individual – and discrimination is indeed an affront to human dignity.»

While I accept Kant's "inherent dignity of every individual", there is no such thing as "human dignity". The two are quite different - our inherent dignity is due to our divine nature, not due to our human nature.

Similarly, discrimination does not violate morality so long as it is only between our human qualities, rather than between us and others. It is OK to discriminate against the PERSON of another, so long as you do not identify the actual infinite and autonomous other with their finite, heteronomous personality.

I do not need a scholarly analysis to know that discrimination for whatever jusification, is wrong! We discriminate against the poor for being poor, the blacks for being black, the crippled for being crippled, the old for being old, the gay community for being born gay! And by our own action of free will and choice!

The poor are a special case, given it's those who work with their hands and minds tha create all the nation's wealth!

And the poor are those we deprive of their fair share.

Why? Well, if we didn't discriminate in this manner, we would not incentivise them to go work for substandard wages and many enterprises would go to the wall.

Therefore, this servitude for virtual slave wages must continue! I mean, we can't all be the PM on half a mill a year?

Thus we preserve privilege for the undeserving rich and powerful and or those who carved the log cabin they were born in from the wilderness, with their own bare hands. Some excuse their own biases and discrimination, by claiming, well we all do it!

Even if that just isn't so? Continue to use that justification to continue to discriminate at will without aforethought for the consequences, for their, easy as, targets!

What's morally wrong with discrimination? Everything! And you know it!
Alan B.

Dear Alan,

Even a rabbit discriminates between a carrot and a piece of chalk!

All of the philosophical BS that Kant wrote is just waffle.

There is nothing inherently wrong about racial discrimination. Australia is already racially discriminating against future Sudanese and Somali immigration on the perfectly logical grounds that as definable groups, these nationalities are very disproportionately represented in welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour. It is funny that "refugees" from Hong Kong are being promoted as being the sort of industrious and hard working people that Australia needs, which suggests right away that the people from other nationalities, cultures and religions don't measure up to the Asian standards.

Non indigenous Australians are discriminated against by state and federal governments who give special privilege's to "indigenous" Australians, even ones with blue eyes and blond hair. Government justify this racial discrimination by claiming that they are trying to "close the gap" between indigenous and non indigenous Australian lifestyle outcomes.

OK, so if governments can justify racial discriminations for a valid reason, then the whole principle that racial discrimination is inherently evil just went right out of the window. You don't have to be Kant or Socrates to figure that out.

As ttbn so clearly stated, everybody discriminates, including the same leftist morons who claim that discrimination is utterly evil.

Dear LEGO,

The idea that it is wrong to discriminate between people is not Kant's, but the author's interpretation of Kant.

I find the philosophy of Kant too interesting to be wasted on contemporary political issues. His main point, according to this article, was:

"Watch it, respect the other because we have no way to know what they are, so perhaps they could even be divine".

It turns out that Kant's suspicion is in fact the reality - we ARE divine, we ARE infinite, we all ARE worthy of every respect.

The author jumped to political conclusions by claiming:
"Discrimination therefore violates the very core of Kantian moral theory. When I discriminate against another person or group, I am saying that they do not count as much as I do."

- There's the error: while Kant was speaking of who we are, the author applied Kant's words to our person (or group of persons). Persons are limited and weak, persons have blemishes, some persons can have better and worse qualities than other persons, so it is OK in principle, sometimes even necessary, to discriminate between persons, for example between honest persons and dishonest persons.

What is not OK, is to discriminate between who you truly are and who others truly are. Why so? Because you and others, though wearing different bodies and different personalities, are in fact one and the same, You are God and so are They - "thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself: I am the Lord" [Leviticus 19:18].

So always ask yourself: "am I discriminating between racial qualities, or between God who wears one skin-colour and the same God wearing another skin-colour?". You alone know the answer and there is no need to report it to anyone but yourself.

Dear Yuyitsu.

There are no Gods or "spirits" and although some philosophy is good becasue it is just plain common sense, most of it is just ephemeral navel gazing, a hobby in which you seem to excel.

Discrimination,

is merely one of many things that make up a humans persona or psyche.
It is integral and intangible, but most of all, it's part and parcel of who/what we are.
The answer to whether discrimination is morally wrong, is simple.
Absolutely not!
I believe that if someone has a belief or sense of another person, they should be free to relate that to or about them.
Discrimination, like freedom of speech, is an intangible, if used in the right context merely delivers a message, as in the same way we discuss or relate by verbal intercourse.
There will always be discussions and controversy over what is discriminating, and it is prevalent everywhere because it IS part of our make-up.
As far as it being morally wrong, well that, as always, depends on who is asking or observing, as to how that person feels about the situation in question.
As some have already stated, as an example the govt is discriminating against the non blacks by even considering this morally AND ethically wrong fallacy called "closing the gap".
To the blacks and greys it's a God-send, to everyone else, or 99% of the population, it is an affront.
In this day and age, full of very emotionally sick and childish, weak minded, mis-guided fools, prepared to rid themselves of what pride, ethics and morals we once had and believed in, and now trend towards virtue signalling, and finger pointing, not to mention completely and quickly, becoming an irrelevance, discrimination is a necessary part of life.
It helps us to explain ourselves, it only becomes an issue when someone decides it is an issue.
No different than abusing/insulting someone, it's merely part of our means of communication, that absolutely must ignore emotions.

Altrav. We reserve the right to be bigots, fundamental fanatics, white supremacists, misogynists? Is that what you are saying?

Freedom of speech is a right! But hardly for those who hide behind anonymity to post their poison or BS misinformation or scientifically disproved opinions?

None worse than those claiming to be Christian, but first in the queue to hurl (the first stone) those spittle-flecked hate speech at those who dare to be born differrent. That said, we can always agree to disagree, agreeably!

Yutusitu. A Rabbit discriminates between a carrot and a peice of chalk!?

Is that your best effort at identifying what discrimination is?
You betcha the Rabbit is going to chose between a carrot and a piece of chalk! And doesn't need anything more than the nose that knows to spot the difference, long before the taste test confirms it
Alan B.

Alan,

I believe I have made myself clear.
I do not hide behind anything other than common sense and the reality that humans are emotional creatures and as I am so much more aware of my surroundings and people in general, I reserve the right to remain anonymous.
You are living proof of my reasoning.
You and others like you, are too emotional and as such too subjective to be trusted not to act on your decisions and ideologies.
You lack wisdom, maturity and therefore, experience.
If you have experienced life, you would not make such irrational and childish comments or hold such ridiculous beliefs and ideologies.
I don't know how old you are, BUT, if you are old enough to want to be on a forum, you should be old and mature enough to be able to engage in mature, cohesive and intuitive reasoning, which you obviously lack if your past comments and attitudes are anything to go by.

Well, there's discrimination and there's differentiation.

So how do we tell the difference between them, i.e. differentiate them ?

Do we 'differentiate between' A and B ? And 'discriminate against' X or Y ?

Presumably, Kant would suggest that you have to have very strong reasons to discriminate against something ? Its mere existence, say of a social group, that it should have fewer rights or be put under special surveillance because it is different, would be nowhere near reason enough to avoid an accusation of pig-ignorance.

Joe

Dear Alan,

«Is that your best effort at identifying what discrimination is?»

No.

I could have discussed discrimination in philosophical depth and bring in scripture to support why discrimination is one of the most important human faculties.

But instead I preferred to bring such a simple example that even a person with the brains of a rabbit can understand.

---

Dear Joe,

«Well, there's discrimination and there's differentiation.»

Discrimination is when one acts on their capacity to differentiate.

«Presumably, Kant would suggest that you have to have very strong reasons to discriminate against something ?»

This ultra-modern concept of "discriminate against" was unlikely to exist at Kant's time. Kant must have therefore used 'discrimination' only in it's original positive meaning. Strange indeed how such an important faculty came to be semantically-attached to the unfair mistreatment of others!

With discrimination:
* The rabbit eats the carrot and not the chalk
* The employer employs capable workers, not lazy ones.
* One chooses to obtain goods/services from honest traders and not from fraudsters.
* One votes for good and capable leaders, not the selfish.
* One chooses to do good rather than evil.

And the ultimate role of discrimination:

To tell and follow the Truth from untruths, the oasis from the mirage, the divine from the mundane, the Eternal from the transient, lasting joy from endless sorrow.

Here is a nice story about discriminating between gold and hot coals: http://eartstohear.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/baby-moses-and-the-burning-coal/

Yuyutsu,

I don't know where/how to begin.
I respect, accept, understand and yet question, your deep devotion to the thing you believe in or worship and hold so very obviously dear and committed.
Even though I was raised a Catholic, forgive me but, as I became more aware and inquisitive, I began to look deeper and question the Bible.
In doing so I kept coming up with examples of things that were not humanly possible.
What you have just offered regarding Moses, is one such example.
You see what I found was that the more I looked the more I found contradictions and flaws in many of the teachings in the scriptures.
Now I tried to put it down to errors in translation over time, after all the bible has had several re-writes and translations.
So I put some of it down to those factors, BUT, The evidence was beginning to weigh heavily in the direction of the whole GOD/Christianity story, being one of fiction and having been conjured up by some very imaginative minds, and embellished and fine tuned along the way.
So forgive me if I cannot accept now, as I also did not, many years ago, the idea that Moses or Jesus were sent by and communicated directly with GOD!
I know about the principal that we must believe and not that he must show himself and prove his existence.
Well, be it as it may, I rely on the truth, even if someone is prepared to accept a myriad of facts, as I've always said, facts alone do not tell the truth, only when they are placed in their correct order, location and time, will the truth be revealed, and not before.
I guess that's why there is the saying, for a jury, in coming to a decision, based on "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Yuyutsu, I don't believe religions pass this test of, "beyond a reasonable doubt", as it is obvious the stories, scriptures and all the writings and all that which is religion, leaves plenty of doubt!

Dear Altrav,

I appreciate your honesty.

First, you seem to take my example too far. I pointed to a nice story about discrimination to illustrate its importance: it is still is just a story.

There are four potential issues with scripture:
1) It might not be original, pure and untainted.
2) It may not be understood due to changes in language and culture.
3) It can be cryptic, relying on external information that we might either not have or not connect with the scripture.
4) It was never meant to describe the objective physical world.

In the last centuries, people tend to be more interested in the physical/objective layer of reality. This is the current fashion, but it was not always like that. The scripture most suitable for understanding this particular layer of reality are scientific papers (though they too might be tainted and/or cryptic). Expecting a scripture that was written at an age when not much importance was given to the physical/objective layer of reality, to accurately describe that layer, is bound to disappoint!

To avoid these pitfalls, scripture should be studied with a competent teacher, of a lineage of teachers-students that kept alive the knowledge within the scripture and the methods for its study.

I am not aware of such a lineage still existing today in regards to the bible.

I don't know about Moses (if he even existed), though I believe that Jesus did know God directly. But what IS God, which Jesus knew? without a continuous lineage of disciples, down from Jesus himself till today, whatever ideas are provided by others are mere speculations.
The "GOD" in whom you are unable to believe, is most unlikely to be he God which Jesus knew.

“The first is the principle of human dignity and it says, never treat another rational being merely as a means but always as an end-in-themselves.”

This doesn’t seem to make sense. Why on earth is my neighbour’s happiness and end in itself for me? In effect it is saying my goal in life is the happiness of every other rational person I happen to meet. Doesn’t really leave me much spare time.

“When I racially discriminate, I am denying the person's intrinsic self-worth, I am, in fact, denying their very right to exist, whether I know it or not."

Now there’s a stretch. I don’t hire a [whatever demographic] and somehow I am decreasing their value in the community. How so? I’m not the government, just some struggling business person looking for I what I see as valuable talent. Gees, and not only that but now he no longer has the right to exist. Wow! How did I manage that