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.