DEBATE 500: Business Discrimination

Re: Utilitarianism A. ProblemsUtilitarianism posits that the best course of action is that of which yields the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. However, Con hasn't explained why it's better to follow the wishes of the greater number vs. the lesser number. Why should we presume that the majority's satisfaction is that of which is morally permissible? Murray Rothbard asks: suppose that the vast majority of people in a society hate and revile redheads, and greatly desire to murder them; and suppose further that there are only a few redheads extant at any time. Must we then say that it is "good" for the vast majority to slaughter redheads? And if not, why not?Con's proposed standard of utilitarianism supports discrimination -- for if the majority of people wish to discriminate, discrimination would be perfectly ethical by Con's very own standard. Decades ago, society determined that black people were not equal to white people and deprived them of their basic rights. Con is suggesting that segregation was moral. After all, it provided the greater satisfaction for the greater number. But did it provide the greatest GOOD? Distinguishing between arbitrary standards like happiness, goodness and satisfaction can be problematic for the utilitarian. "Indeed, utilitarianism implicitly assumes these subjective desires to be absolute givens which the social technician is somehow duty-bound to try to satisfy. But it is common human experience that individual desires are not absolute and unchanging. They are not hermetically sealed off from persuasion, rational or otherwise; experience and other individuals can and do persuade and convince people to change their values" [1]."Utilitarianism cannot be supported as a groundwork for property rights or, a fortiori, for the free-market economy. A theory of justice must be arrived at which goes beyond majority rules, because then "majority rules" therefore can serve as the basis for dismantling the very same propositions. There are 2 fundamental principles for justifying individual (and property) rights: 1. the absolute property right of each individual in his own person, his own body; this may be called the right of self-ownership; and2. the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy.This might be called the homestead principle - the case in which someone, in the phrase of John Locke, has mixed his labor with an unused resource" [2].The principle of Self-Ownership "asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to 'own' his own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation. Consider, then, the alternatives - the consequences of denying each man the right to own his own person" [2]. In other words: slavery. B. Compatibility Some advocates of free-market economics are able to reconcile utilitarian ethics with laissez faire principles, such as the famous austrian Ludwig von Mises. Mises was a utilitarian in ethics, although a Kantian in epistemology, and suggested he could make only one narrow value judgment. So while he wishes to fulfill the goals of the majority, he does not presume to know the goals of everyone. And thus, he would allow for discrimination in the free market. "Granting in this variant that the economist may not make such advocacy, he takes his stand as a 'citizen' willing to make value judgments. But he is not willing to simply assert an ad hoc value judgment; presumably he feels that a valuing intellectual must present some sort of ethical system to justify such value judgments... True to his utilitarian position, his value judgment is the desirability of fulfilling the subjectively desired goals of the bulk of the populace" [3]. Essentially the argument is that in order to satiate the demands of the majority (make sure the most people are happy), the best way to do that is to allow for freedom and for people to make decisions for themselves since there is no objective, agreed upon moral consensus. Rather than force a Christian baker to bake a gay couple's wedding cake, and a gay baker to bake a Westboro Baptist Church member's wedding cake, the compromise to maximize utility would be freedom. By forcing the Christian baker to bake a gay couple's wedding cake, only one of those parties is happy (the couple). If the gay couple had to find another service provider, they would still get their cake, and the other party would voluntarily consent, thereby having two happy parties (verses one). Even if there were no one to trade with the gay couple, so the gay couple went home unhappy, there would only be one unhappy party there as well. In other words, Con has failed to show how MORE utility (satisfaction) is present through the use of force. Re: Framework Con writes, "Having a business required to treat their customers with equality and permit anyone to purchase their products is necessary to ensure society reaches the maximum amount of happiness and efficiency." That is false. If a gay couple ordered a cake from a Christian baker, and the baker refused the gay couple service, the couple could find another provider. In the end the gay couple and the baker would be happy. By forcing the baker to make the cake, the baker would be unhappy and the couple would have to fight (which is not pleasurable) to have the cake made, OR, know that the baker did not want to trade with them anyway which is not pleasurable. For example we know that companies like Hobby Lobby, Chic-Fil-A, Urban Outfitters and the Salvation Army are not supportive of gay rights. As a gay person, I would not enjoy trading with those companies and I am not forced to. I can use my bigotry to affect trade whereas business owners cannot. That is not equal and does not necessarily provide greater satisfaction. Re: Businesses and Positive Rights Con writes, "The business is meant to benefit society as it would result in a mutual benefit for all parties involved." That is also false. The business is meant to benefit the owner and the owner/s have no immediate or inherent responsibility to society at all. For example, if I have apple trees in my yard and my neighbor has orange trees, we might create a business (trade) of swapping apples and oranges. That business is meant to benefit us -- we have no obligation to benefit anyone else. We can add blueberry farmers and lemon farmers to the business, but we have no obligation to include peach farmers or make sure peach farmers receive of any net benefits if none of us want any peaches. If others have nothing to trade/contribute, we are certainly under no obligation to ensure that our trade benefits them as well. Contract agreements (trade) are meant to benefit the individuals involved. Society as a collective benefits from the opportunity for individuals to trade peacefully and without force, aggression and coercion. Yet Con wants to impose force, aggression and coercion in the market. Con states, "Once a business has publicly advertised their product and/or service available for sale to the public, they are then obligated to sell to the public, regardless of their feelings." This is nothing but a bare assertion that repeats the status quo. Indeed it is a circular contention, as I am specifically arguing that this standard should not be enforced. Con mentions problematic circumstances, such as hospitals discriminating and their exclusion having a negative impact. If we have positive rights, other people have positive duties (to take certain actions). Con is responsible for arguing that we should FORCE people to take those actions -- even when the proper actions are not always clear or agreeable. Yet I'd like to repeat his own hypocritical standard. Consider in medicine when the positive rights of patients conflict with the negative rights of physicians; for example, in the case of assisted suicide. If enough practitioners opt out as a result of conscience, a right granted by conscience clause statutes in many jurisdictions means they do not have to provide that service. In other words, it's discrimination via majority demand. But this also allows for the opportunity for a hospital or doctor's discriminating and exclusion. An individual health practitioner's right to conscientious refusal is important; there are dozens of medical dilemmas facing physicians [4]. Re: Economic HarmsCon claims that discrimination has significantly harmed some groups more than others. First, his example ignores some of my arguments from the last round, most notably justifiable discrimination based on correlated data. For example, if a trend has been observed where black people are not sufficiently paying back their loans, it would make sense for a lender to impose a tax based on skin color without having (or caring) about any other relevant data. After slavery had ended, there were little to no opportunities for blacks in society to get ahead. Thus various societal factors (including legal barriers) made employment difficult. Why wouldn't lenders or people who take risks through trade consider all of the data in making their decision? It would make sense to discriminate or be suspicious based on race. Second, these examples do not account for my previous arguments on capitalism. People who choose to discriminate in business lose out on profits they would have reaped otherwise. ConclusionHeads up: I'll wrap up with the Economics and Business arguments (and how that affects society) in the final round. SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...