Discrimination question

[Crescentinus]

In our day and age, the word "discrimination" has been looked at with extreme hatred. Back in the day, it wasn't.
My question is, what is the difference between just and unjust discrimination?

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

In our day and age, the word "discrimination" has been looked at with extreme hatred. Back in the day, it wasn't.
My question is, what is the difference between just and unjust discrimination?

The difference is in whether the factors used to discriminate between one item and another.

Peace
James

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by JRKH

The difference is in whether the factors used to discriminate between one item and another.

Peace
James

Please elaborate. o:

[Neofight]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

In our day and age, the word "discrimination" has been looked at with extreme hatred. Back in the day, it wasn't.
My question is, what is the difference between just and unjust discrimination?

Test it against Mark12:28-34. Anything that does not stand up to it is "unjust".

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by JRKH

The difference is in whether the factors used to discriminate between one item and another.

Peace
James

I disagree. First, we must agree on what it means to discriminate. To me, discriminating means observing a difference. The OP is correct in that the word did not have a negative connotation in the past. In the '50s, for example, there was a cigarette ad on TV that claimed it was the "cigarette for discriminating smokers." Such an ad would not work today given the negative connotation. Came the '60s and the civil rights movement, and stamping out "racial discrimination" became the cause célèbre. People, being lazy, eventually dropped the adjective "racial", and "discrimination" became understood to mean racial. But then they started to notice that discrimination was all around them, but they didn't realize that most of it is desirable, but we haven't been able to sort it out. To prove the point, I asked my secretary if she didn't want me to discriminate between her good performance and another's poor performance come annual evaluation for cash bonuses. You can guess her response. But the negative connotation still persists. The word has such a bad reputation that we have reached the point where discriminating between good and evil is itself the worst kind of evil.

So, I could observe that someone has dark skin and another has light skin. Have I discriminated? Yes. Did I do something immoral in that observation? No.
_________________
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. No wonder our thinking is screwed up.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Please elaborate. o:

Sedonaman has done an excellent job below....

Originally Posted by sedonaman

I disagree. First, we must agree on what it means to discriminate. To me, discriminating means observing a difference. The OP is correct in that the word did not have a negative connotation in the past. In the '50s, for example, there was a cigarette ad on TV that claimed it was the "cigarette for discriminating smokers." Such an ad would not work today given the negative connotation. Came the '60s and the civil rights movement, and stamping out "racial discrimination" became the cause célèbre. People, being lazy, eventually dropped the adjective "racial", and "discrimination" became understood to mean racial. But then they started to notice that discrimination was all around them, but they didn't realize that most of it is desirable, but we haven't been able to sort it out. To prove the point, I asked my secretary if she didn't want me to discriminate between her good performance and another's poor performance come annual evaluation for cash bonuses. You can guess her response. But the negative connotation still persists. The word has such a bad reputation that we have reached the point where discriminating between good and evil is itself the worst kind of evil.

So, I could observe that someone has dark skin and another has light skin. Have I discriminated? Yes. Did I do something immoral in that observation? No.
_________________
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. No wonder our thinking is screwed up.

Peace
James

[PeterJohn]

In America, the difference is the general "loudest voice" consensus.
The "norm" is always defined, in a free(ish) society by general consensus.
Such examples are:
What is the definition of insane
What is to liberal
What is socially acceptable
Dress code/modesty
What is sexually acceptable
And many more.

We all play a part in what is normal by our actions and our opinion. We also individually as people, united in a community(or country) define what is good and bad, right and wrong and we most times don't even know that we are doing it. Politicians know about this as do many interest groups. Some of the best ways to normalize anything today, is to portray it in movies, music and TV. Youth is an important group to target when trying to change the way a community views one thing or another. They are easily-er influenced because they are trying to "fit in" and have yet to define themselves in mature adult life. So basically, if you want to change your communities views, influence the youth, who don't typically make "stands" on issues yet and when that youth becomes the chaperoning generation (usually between 25-50 years old) they set the standard for what is normal and acceptable.

In conclusion,
The difference between "just" and "unjust" discrimination is based on a mix of media, public opinion and law, governed by the youth of the last generation. I can't TELL you what is just or unjust discrimination because our chaperoning generation says that if I do, my opinion is biased because I'm a crazy religous nut who needs to base his opinions on unproven theories and the "live and let live" philosophy of the 60's-70's and NOT on the proven ancient teachings of my religion.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

I disagree. First, we must agree on what it means to discriminate. To me, discriminating means observing a difference. The OP is correct in that the word did not have a negative connotation in the past. In the '50s, for example, there was a cigarette ad on TV that claimed it was the "cigarette for discriminating smokers." Such an ad would not work today given the negative connotation. Came the '60s and the civil rights movement, and stamping out "racial discrimination" became the cause célèbre. People, being lazy, eventually dropped the adjective "racial", and "discrimination" became understood to mean racial. But then they started to notice that discrimination was all around them, but they didn't realize that most of it is desirable, but we haven't been able to sort it out. To prove the point, I asked my secretary if she didn't want me to discriminate between her good performance and another's poor performance come annual evaluation for cash bonuses. You can guess her response. But the negative connotation still persists. The word has such a bad reputation that we have reached the point where discriminating between good and evil is itself the worst kind of evil.

So, I could observe that someone has dark skin and another has light skin. Have I discriminated? Yes. Did I do something immoral in that observation? No.
_________________
To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. No wonder our thinking is screwed up.

Hmmmmm, I am observant in regards to differences. I do this in just about anything. So, does this mean that I'm on the right track when I say that I have discriminating tastes and I discriminate justly? o:

My mom had raised me not to discriminate, but she didn't tell me the difference between just and unjust discrimination.

[PeterJohn]

I had an interesting thought after I posted.

If someone or the general consensus of people state that discrimination is wrong, and those that discriminate are in the wrong, then they themselves are discriminating against discriminaters. It's a self defeating philosophy just like saying "you can't force your morals on someone else" which in itself is, forcing morals on someone else.
Basically, non-discrimaters are only discriminating against those who disagree with what has become the norm. So, if you disagree with the norm your unjustly discriminating.
It seems that today if you are a catholic, your a bigot.

Sorry, I have a chip on my shoulder. The philosophy of America bugs me. Live and let live seems to be destroying our country.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

Hmmmmm, I am observant in regards to differences. I do this in just about anything. So, does this mean that I'm on the right track when I say that I have discriminating tastes and I discriminate justly? o:

My mom had raised me not to discriminate, but she didn't tell me the difference between just and unjust discrimination.

When your mother came to pick you up from school, did she discriminate when choosing which kid to pick up?

Using my definition, it is difficult to think of a case where discrimination by itself has a moral dimension. It is only when I act [or fail to act when I should] on my observation that there is a possible moral factor. So I am essentially "discriminating" between observing and acting.
_________________
"We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less." – Parents against the Gifted and Talented Education [GATE] program.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

When your mother came to pick you up from school, did she discriminate when choosing which kid to pick up?

Using my definition, it is difficult to think of a case where discrimination by itself has a moral dimension. It is only when I act [or fail to act when I should] on my observation that there is a possible moral factor. So I am essentially "discriminating" between observing and acting.
_________________
"We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less." – Parents against the Gifted and Talented Education [GATE] program.

She did. o:

You raise a good point. o:
Growing up, I used to believe that discrimination is an evil. That was, until I had read the Catechism's entry on homosexuality. The experience was and still is mind-blowing.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by PeterJohn

I had an interesting thought after I posted.

If someone or the general consensus of people state that discrimination is wrong, and those that discriminate are in the wrong, then they themselves are discriminating against discriminaters. It's a self defeating philosophy just like saying "you can't force your morals on someone else" which in itself is, forcing morals on someone else.
Basically, non-discrimaters are only discriminating against those who disagree with what has become the norm. So, if you disagree with the norm your unjustly discriminating.
It seems that today if you are a catholic, your a bigot.

Sorry, I have a chip on my shoulder. The philosophy of America bugs me. Live and let live seems to be destroying our country.

Very good. Like so many other liberal ideas, it fails to meet its own requirement.
_________________
“Laws, people must learn, particularly laws stated in sweeping terms, are dangerous things.” – Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by PeterJohn

I had an interesting thought after I posted.

If someone or the general consensus of people state that discrimination is wrong, and those that discriminate are in the wrong, then they themselves are discriminating against discriminaters. It's a self defeating philosophy just like saying "you can't force your morals on someone else" which in itself is, forcing morals on someone else.
Basically, non-discrimaters are only discriminating against those who disagree with what has become the norm. So, if you disagree with the norm your unjustly discriminating.
It seems that today if you are a catholic, your a bigot.

Sorry, I have a chip on my shoulder. The philosophy of America bugs me. Live and let live seems to be destroying our country.

This, tells the truth about the liberals who hate discrimination and preach tolerance.

[Crescentinus]

I have another question then which is related to this one.
How do I tell my friends (in layman's terms) that discrimination is not an evil? o:

[Gaber]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

In our day and age, the word "discrimination" has been looked at with extreme hatred. Back in the day, it wasn't.
My question is, what is the difference between just and unjust discrimination?

dis·crim·i·nate/disˈkriməˌnāt/
Verb:
Recognize a distinction; differentiate.
Perceive or constitute the difference in or between.
Synonyms:
distinguish - differentiate - discern


The highest Path in Yoga is the Path of Discrimination. Since human experience is comprised of the ability to tell differences, to perceive contrast, to discriminate is simply to be able to tell a difference. Your question might be more accurately what one might discriminate according to.