By definition, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is defined as [b]unlawful[/b], malicious killing—you have to kill them, you have to have been intending malice towards them, you have to have deliberately meant to cause them harm (thus accidental workplace deaths don’t count unless you set them up intentionally; otherwise its just manslaughter), and you have to have been doing so unlawfully. Capital punishment and self defense are not murder because they are -lawful- killing of another human being; likewise with war, it is expected that killing enemy military personnel while in uniform is not a crime.
Abortion, likewise, cannot possibly be murder because it is legal. People may claim that it should NOT be legal, but it is, so it cannot possibly be murder by the definition of the term.
So it is true of taxation as well; theft, by definition, requires that the person taking the item does not have a legal right to it. Because of the nature of taxation, it cannot be theft if the tax is imposed by a lawful authority—they do have a legal right to that money. The same is true of fines—you are required to pay fines and it isn’t theft because it was a punishment imposed upon you by a lawful authority. Likewise, someone kicking you out of the house you rented or taking the car you borrowed from them when you don’t return it is not committing theft. All the same principle.
Affirmative action IS racist, and not only that, it is without question racist. Its sole purpose is to discriminate on the basis of race. It is of course a net evil; not only does it benefit those who do not deserve it, it harms those who have committed no injustice. Seeing as CIVILIZED people don’t believe in blood guilt and punishing people for things that they did not do, there is no question that affirmative action is wrong. Worse still, not only does it put underqualified people into positions where they are more likely to drop out or fail, it casts suspicion upon ANY person who could have possibly benefitted from affirmative action, thereby denegrating their own talents, with people just seeing them (possibly with resentment) as the “token minority” rather than as an equal who earned their way in with everyone else. Any time you screw up, its because you’re the token black dude, not because everyone makes mistakes, and if you DO screw up more than normal, or someone ELSE has done that, then you’re making everyone else that much more likely to carry racist thoughts forward.
There is no question that it is racist, evil, and wrong. So it is entirely correct to call it racist, and the term is unquestionably correct. People can rationalize it all they want, but there’s absolutely no moral difference whatsoever between letting an underqualified black person in because they’re black and letting an underqualified white person in because they’re white. It is perfectly legitimate to call it racist. People who don’t like it aren’t willing to cop to the reality because we KNOW it is wrong.
By definition, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is defined as [b]unlawful[/b], malicious killing—you have to kill them, you have to have been intending malice towards them, you have to have deliberately meant to cause them harm (thus accidental workplace deaths don’t count unless you set them up intentionally; otherwise its just manslaughter), and you have to have been doing so unlawfully.
Intending malice is not strictly a requirement. Killing someone because you (for example) believe that it will save their immortal soul is not malicious. Euthenasia is also still punished as murder in many juristictions even when it is done with the intent of mercy not malice.
I think they assume that intending to kill someone is ALWAYS malicious in the US, regardless of your personal convictions on the matter. But yes, you are correct that you could be charged with murder without actual malice on your part (not that it is really inappropriate—the fact that you’re being dumb doesn’t excuse you for your crime).
By the US definitions, assisted suicide is potentially murder due to your intent to kill, unless your state has an exception, though it is more likely to be voluntary manslaughter. Involuntary euthanasia is a whole different kettle of fish, though.
Affirmative action IS racist, and not only that, it is without question racist. Its sole purpose is to discriminate on the basis of race.
Yes, as the article pointed out.
It is of course a net evil; not only does it benefit those who do not deserve it, it harms those who have committed no injustice.
No. Not necessarily. It can be applied in non-evil ways; this is not always the case, but it is possible. Let me consider the case of South Africa, a country that is close to my heart (mainly because I happen to live in it).
For some significant time, the country was under a set of laws described, as a whole, under the name of Apartheid. These laws were racist, and evil, and punished the black majority for things that they did not do. In 1994 (yes, only nineteen years ago) this regime was decisively ended. And the black majority gained the vote, making it highly unlikely that it would return.
Affirmative action policies were then promptly initiated. Now, this was not a case of ‘blood guilt’ - this was a case of redressing wrongs that had continued right up until 1994. It wasn’t a case of ‘punish the descendants’ - it was aimed directly at the very same generation who had reaped the benefits of Apartheid themselves. (It’s also the rare case of affirmative action designed to benefit a majority instead of a minority).
Incidentally, the policies in question do state that if there is only one properly qualified person, then that person should be hired (but you should look very hard to make sure and keep the documentation handy). If you have a choice of qualified applicants, then you get to pick.
It’s not without its problems, but the core idea is not evil.
Knowing what we know about human irrationality and xenophobia, affirmative action becomes necessary. Institutions have inertia with respect to their gender and race composition. Suppose for instance that in the past there was aggressive sexism which held women out of science. Suppose furthermore that women and men are perfectly with respect to all relevant psychological traits, such that in a fair world there would be an exactly 50⁄50 gender split. It’s irrational to think that once this overt sexism disappeared, the hiring rate would at once spring to it’s natural rate of 50/50%.
Instead there would be all sorts of inertial effects. People would associate science with men more than women. There would be a lack of scientific role models for women. Women would tend not to end up going into science, and when they did they would face further problems. The people hiring them would have an unconscious model of how a good scientist looks, behaves and communicates. This model would be gender biased. Existing scientists would simply be used to a male environment and a male style of communication, women would make them uncomfortable. Humans like those who are similar to them, and the existing, senior male scientists, would be better able to relate to, and inclined to mentor, male students.
Even in the (unrealistic) Absence of any conscious sexism, or any actual differences between the two groups, it would take god knows how long for the pre existing biases to equalize. This is grossly unfair to individual women born during the equalizing process, and bad on a societal level as well. Deliberate social engineering is justified. To speed the process up you introduce a slight bias in hiring procedures—where there is more than one qualified candidate, you pick the woman. There may even be benefits just from having people with less simliar thoughts doing science. Our ability to choose future winners is poor, and already full of biases. One more doesn’t hurt much, but it does do a lot of good over time. Obviously too much would be a bad thing. Candidates must still be qualified, but affirmative action isn’t evil.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
I think we all know the answer to this in our heart of hearts. They will always claim that they need it to combat bias against them, and because they “deserve” it because their parents/grandparents/whatever were disadvantaged.
As time goes on, the whites will feel that they are being punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, and will grow bitter and racist against the blacks, who have legalized discrimination against them.
Is that really the proper path forward?
An immediate program is one thing. But we both know that it will be held as long as possible by those it advantages.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
That is a potential failure mode, yes. People are aware of it. But one does not refuse to manufacture a car on the basis that it might, one day, hit a pedestrian.
It is not evil yet.
The current affirmative action policies are supposed to be temporary. If they are not, there is an additional line of defense against that failure mode; the policies state that the judicial services (for example) should ‘broadly reflect the demographics of the country’. That means that any group that gets unfairly discriminated against has a claim.
By definition, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is defined as [b]unlawful[/b], malicious killing—you have to kill them, you have to have been intending malice towards them, you have to have deliberately meant to cause them harm (thus accidental workplace deaths don’t count unless you set them up intentionally; otherwise its just manslaughter), and you have to have been doing so unlawfully. Capital punishment and self defense are not murder because they are -lawful- killing of another human being; likewise with war, it is expected that killing enemy military personnel while in uniform is not a crime.
Abortion, likewise, cannot possibly be murder because it is legal. People may claim that it should NOT be legal, but it is, so it cannot possibly be murder by the definition of the term.
So it is true of taxation as well; theft, by definition, requires that the person taking the item does not have a legal right to it. Because of the nature of taxation, it cannot be theft if the tax is imposed by a lawful authority—they do have a legal right to that money. The same is true of fines—you are required to pay fines and it isn’t theft because it was a punishment imposed upon you by a lawful authority. Likewise, someone kicking you out of the house you rented or taking the car you borrowed from them when you don’t return it is not committing theft. All the same principle.
Affirmative action IS racist, and not only that, it is without question racist. Its sole purpose is to discriminate on the basis of race. It is of course a net evil; not only does it benefit those who do not deserve it, it harms those who have committed no injustice. Seeing as CIVILIZED people don’t believe in blood guilt and punishing people for things that they did not do, there is no question that affirmative action is wrong. Worse still, not only does it put underqualified people into positions where they are more likely to drop out or fail, it casts suspicion upon ANY person who could have possibly benefitted from affirmative action, thereby denegrating their own talents, with people just seeing them (possibly with resentment) as the “token minority” rather than as an equal who earned their way in with everyone else. Any time you screw up, its because you’re the token black dude, not because everyone makes mistakes, and if you DO screw up more than normal, or someone ELSE has done that, then you’re making everyone else that much more likely to carry racist thoughts forward.
There is no question that it is racist, evil, and wrong. So it is entirely correct to call it racist, and the term is unquestionably correct. People can rationalize it all they want, but there’s absolutely no moral difference whatsoever between letting an underqualified black person in because they’re black and letting an underqualified white person in because they’re white. It is perfectly legitimate to call it racist. People who don’t like it aren’t willing to cop to the reality because we KNOW it is wrong.
Intending malice is not strictly a requirement. Killing someone because you (for example) believe that it will save their immortal soul is not malicious. Euthenasia is also still punished as murder in many juristictions even when it is done with the intent of mercy not malice.
I think they assume that intending to kill someone is ALWAYS malicious in the US, regardless of your personal convictions on the matter. But yes, you are correct that you could be charged with murder without actual malice on your part (not that it is really inappropriate—the fact that you’re being dumb doesn’t excuse you for your crime).
By the US definitions, assisted suicide is potentially murder due to your intent to kill, unless your state has an exception, though it is more likely to be voluntary manslaughter. Involuntary euthanasia is a whole different kettle of fish, though.
I think Titanium meant you have to intend to kill them.
Yes, as the article pointed out.
No. Not necessarily. It can be applied in non-evil ways; this is not always the case, but it is possible. Let me consider the case of South Africa, a country that is close to my heart (mainly because I happen to live in it).
For some significant time, the country was under a set of laws described, as a whole, under the name of Apartheid. These laws were racist, and evil, and punished the black majority for things that they did not do. In 1994 (yes, only nineteen years ago) this regime was decisively ended. And the black majority gained the vote, making it highly unlikely that it would return.
Affirmative action policies were then promptly initiated. Now, this was not a case of ‘blood guilt’ - this was a case of redressing wrongs that had continued right up until 1994. It wasn’t a case of ‘punish the descendants’ - it was aimed directly at the very same generation who had reaped the benefits of Apartheid themselves. (It’s also the rare case of affirmative action designed to benefit a majority instead of a minority).
Incidentally, the policies in question do state that if there is only one properly qualified person, then that person should be hired (but you should look very hard to make sure and keep the documentation handy). If you have a choice of qualified applicants, then you get to pick.
It’s not without its problems, but the core idea is not evil.
Of course, this does not apply to all societies.
Knowing what we know about human irrationality and xenophobia, affirmative action becomes necessary. Institutions have inertia with respect to their gender and race composition. Suppose for instance that in the past there was aggressive sexism which held women out of science. Suppose furthermore that women and men are perfectly with respect to all relevant psychological traits, such that in a fair world there would be an exactly 50⁄50 gender split. It’s irrational to think that once this overt sexism disappeared, the hiring rate would at once spring to it’s natural rate of 50/50%.
Instead there would be all sorts of inertial effects. People would associate science with men more than women. There would be a lack of scientific role models for women. Women would tend not to end up going into science, and when they did they would face further problems. The people hiring them would have an unconscious model of how a good scientist looks, behaves and communicates. This model would be gender biased. Existing scientists would simply be used to a male environment and a male style of communication, women would make them uncomfortable. Humans like those who are similar to them, and the existing, senior male scientists, would be better able to relate to, and inclined to mentor, male students.
Even in the (unrealistic) Absence of any conscious sexism, or any actual differences between the two groups, it would take god knows how long for the pre existing biases to equalize. This is grossly unfair to individual women born during the equalizing process, and bad on a societal level as well. Deliberate social engineering is justified. To speed the process up you introduce a slight bias in hiring procedures—where there is more than one qualified candidate, you pick the woman. There may even be benefits just from having people with less simliar thoughts doing science. Our ability to choose future winners is poor, and already full of biases. One more doesn’t hurt much, but it does do a lot of good over time. Obviously too much would be a bad thing. Candidates must still be qualified, but affirmative action isn’t evil.
Are the blacks ever going to give up the right to being selected over whites, now that they have the majority of votes in the country? Or is it just going to be a permanent bias?
I think we all know the answer to this in our heart of hearts. They will always claim that they need it to combat bias against them, and because they “deserve” it because their parents/grandparents/whatever were disadvantaged.
As time goes on, the whites will feel that they are being punished for things that their parents or grandparents did, and will grow bitter and racist against the blacks, who have legalized discrimination against them.
Is that really the proper path forward?
An immediate program is one thing. But we both know that it will be held as long as possible by those it advantages.
That is a potential failure mode, yes. People are aware of it. But one does not refuse to manufacture a car on the basis that it might, one day, hit a pedestrian.
It is not evil yet.
The current affirmative action policies are supposed to be temporary. If they are not, there is an additional line of defense against that failure mode; the policies state that the judicial services (for example) should ‘broadly reflect the demographics of the country’. That means that any group that gets unfairly discriminated against has a claim.
Well, somebody missed the point of this post...