Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:52:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: discrimination
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To Robert.

> On the surface, I would say that idealistically most would
> like to be able to agree with your basic premise, *no discrim-
> ination against anyone for anything*.  I'm afraid that just
> isn't possible, never has been and never will.

        Actually, it is not even a good idea.  People commonly
equivocate between two senses of the term 'discrimination;' a
value-neutral sense which is nearly synonamous with 'distin-
guish,' and a value-laden sense which refers to inappropriate
ways of distinguishing among people.  To eliminate discrimin-
ation of the first type is not only impossible, it's foolish.
To call for an end to discrimination of the second type is to
utter a meaningless tautology.  A person who calls for an
end of discrimination based on sexual orientation because it
is discrimination is begging the question.

        However, the burden of proof for determining whether
some group of individuals is to be denied certain liberties
granted to others is on the person who seeks to deny those
liberties.  We may presume that discrimination based on sex-
ual orientation counts as discrimination (sense 2) unless
reason is provided to the contrary.

        This debate has actually tended to be question-begging
on both sides.  Discrimination against homosexuals should only
be ended if it is wrongful discrimination.  And it should not
be ended if it is justified, but is it justified?

> You are refusing to acknowledge the existence of *absolutes*.

        I refuse to acknowledge the existence of absolutes val-
ues.  Values are relational properties--relating objects of
evaluation to desires.

> There ARE such things as right and wrong.

        True.  And your condemnation of homosexuality does
not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with it.


> For us, as a society, to defend and/or accept wrong as right
> is surely to place our country on a path of self destruction.

        Is it any better to accept what's right as wrong?  Any-
thing which blurs the true distinction between right and wrong
is going to cause problems.  Those who (mistakenly) take homo-
sexuality to be wrong, and thus condemn people that are not
worthy of condemnation, deny liberties to people for whom the
deprivation of liberties is unjustified, are themselves accept-
ing wrong as right--and are starting us down whatever road that
this places us upon.

> If homosexuality is fine, is incest . . .

        When voluntarily participated in by two consenting
adults--sure.

> . . . bestiality . . .

        When the animal is not harmed, sure.

> . . . pedophilia?

        If it did not cause harm to the child, sure.

> We cannot assume that we are able to determine at will the
> values by which we should live.

        No, what we need to do is to determine by means of reason
applied to the available evidence.  This is hard work.  It is
much easier for an individual to simply decide according to
how he feels about something in making value judgments.  "Does
the thought of X upset me?  Then it must be wrong."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU