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