As long as his membership isn’t going to interfere with his ability to do the job I’d like to think I would hire him.
Least convenient possible world. His beliefs will not interfere with his ability to do his job. How bad of a group does he have to be a member of before you’re willing to forgo hiring?
Are you really willing to bite that bullet? What if the person was a member of an anti-vaccination group? Or a racist group?
My answer to your question is, “It depends.” because really it does depend on a lot of other things, such as how many other comparable candidates there are. Given typical circumstances, I draw the line just before enthusiastic religious belief, like in my hypothetical. If it was an easy decision, I wouldn’t be posting about it.
This is getting cartoonish since it is extremely unlikely that the most qualified candidate for a given position maintains membership in an avowedly racist organization. But yes, again with the proviso that the candidate’s beliefs somehow don’t impact their ability to do the job, I would hire racists. Why wouldn’t I exactly? Just as a way of saying “Booo racism!” or “Booooo religion!”? Who is even reading my signaling other than myself? Am I supposed to think that by depriving a highly qualified person of a job opportunity, and thereby hurting myself, I will damage the group they are a member of or lead them to rethink their beliefs?
My answer to your question is, “It depends.” because really it does depend on a lot of other things, such as how many other comparable candidates there are. Given typical circumstances, I draw the line just before enthusiastic religious belief, like in my hypothetical. If it was an easy decision, I wouldn’t be posting about it.
I think we’re gonna start bumping up against terminal values pretty soon. I don’t see how not hiring the enthusiastically religious is an efficient use of the lost income that results from your inefficient hiring practices.
This is getting cartoonish since it is extremely unlikely that the most qualified candidate for a given position maintains membership in an avowedly racist organization.
What would you do if a large percentage of population had such membership, so that it became quite likely?
Even if I only cared about economics, their beliefs affect how well I can do my job. I doubt I could sit across from an antivaxxer and get anything useful done. How picky one can be is determined by the number and quality of candidates.
My quality of life is also affected by the people I interact with daily. To use a silly example: I hate brussel sprouts. If someone said, “Oh I love brussel sprouts! I cook them every day at lunch!” that would affect how much time I’d want to spend around that person.
These seem like arguments that could conceivably be used to defend any kind of discrimination in the workplace. I suppose the justifications for making some groups protected and others not are meta and involve things like the Veil of Ignorance so we won’t go into them. But this makes discussing workplace discrimination on the object level seem pretty boring to me since the criteria for when discrimination is acceptable appear almost totally subjective.
I am bothered by how “discrimination” has become an inherently offensive word. Choosing an employee among many is by definition an act of discrimination; what matters is what you base your discrimination on—whether it’s something relevant to their role or not.
Mere lexical conservatism? Not quite. Policy discussions should revolve around which type of discriminations are permissible and which are sufficiently harmful that they should be banned; but the “discrimination = bad” has made this step all but impossible.
Hence you get people honestly, and correctly, arguing that to favour younger, or older, people is a form of discrimination. But then, rather than asking “did this employer have a legitimate reason for preferring a particular age group for the job?” (hopefully followed by “is it going to be harmful if people keep doing it?” and “do we have the means to stop it?”), they just slap the label “ageism” on it and are convinced that they have just proved that it’s a Bad Thing®.
This is getting cartoonish since it is extremely unlikely that the most qualified candidate for a given position maintains membership in an avowedly racist organization.
Transexuals pick their gender based on their feelings, and they fully have a right to do that in my opinion. But lets say that currently the costs for that kind of change are too high for most people and pick a different example:
How in the world will I get any work done with a commie in the office?
How in the world will I get any work done with a atheist in the office?
How in the world will I get any work done with a eugenicist in the office?
How in the world will I get any work done with a republican in the office?
How in the world will I get any work done with a Jew in the office?
ect.
Are you really willing to bite that bullet? What if the person was a member of an anti-vaccination group? Or a racist group?
I’m pretty much with Jack in that in principle, I would avoid discriminating on group affiliation / ideology, except when it could be expected to directly affect job performance; I wouldn’t hire a member of an anti-vaccination group as a doctor, or a racist as a human resource manager.
Also, someone who brings up ”… and as I was saying at the Klu Klux Klan meeting the other day …” at a job interview probably isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. More generally, mentioning member of a controversial group at a job interview is a sign of lack of social skills (especially the social skill known as “lying”), which would probably impact job performance (again, it depends of the job. Crazy opinions for say graphic artists are not very surprising or very problematic).
I wouldn’t hire [...] a racist as a human resource manager.
Nearly all jobs involve interacting with other people, who may be of the race that the racist would have a problem with. Would you be willing to hire a racist for any such job?
Crazy opinions for say graphic artists are not very surprising or very problematic.
What classifies jobs into this group where crazy opinions aren’t a big deal?
What if the person was a member of an anti-vaccination group? Or a racist group?
This person is sending very bad signals about himself, signals most people will not ignore. But they don’t actually say anything about his job performance (in this hypothetical case)!
Incredible, I’m very lucky he is probably severely undervalued in the labour market. By hiring him I am getting a bargain.
I attach no metaphysical badness to him getting paid by me because a boycott on hiring people who use their money for ill is impossible to enforce. Someone else will profit from hiring him (and I have no guarantees this person who profits won’t use the difference to work against things I value).
All I am getting is a service for my money, I have no responsibility for what he actually does with the money, I mean I do usually think on ethical issues if we are moral agents.
Least convenient possible world. His beliefs will not interfere with his ability to do his job. How bad of a group does he have to be a member of before you’re willing to forgo hiring?
I wouldn’t forgo hiring anyone because of their political/social beliefs (assuming I live up to my own standards).
Now go the other way. What are the least offensive political/social beliefs someone could hold that would lead you to not hiring them?
Are you really willing to bite that bullet? What if the person was a member of an anti-vaccination group? Or a racist group?
My answer to your question is, “It depends.” because really it does depend on a lot of other things, such as how many other comparable candidates there are. Given typical circumstances, I draw the line just before enthusiastic religious belief, like in my hypothetical. If it was an easy decision, I wouldn’t be posting about it.
This is getting cartoonish since it is extremely unlikely that the most qualified candidate for a given position maintains membership in an avowedly racist organization. But yes, again with the proviso that the candidate’s beliefs somehow don’t impact their ability to do the job, I would hire racists. Why wouldn’t I exactly? Just as a way of saying “Booo racism!” or “Booooo religion!”? Who is even reading my signaling other than myself? Am I supposed to think that by depriving a highly qualified person of a job opportunity, and thereby hurting myself, I will damage the group they are a member of or lead them to rethink their beliefs?
I think we’re gonna start bumping up against terminal values pretty soon. I don’t see how not hiring the enthusiastically religious is an efficient use of the lost income that results from your inefficient hiring practices.
What would you do if a large percentage of population had such membership, so that it became quite likely?
Doesn’t change my answer.
Even if I only cared about economics, their beliefs affect how well I can do my job. I doubt I could sit across from an antivaxxer and get anything useful done. How picky one can be is determined by the number and quality of candidates.
My quality of life is also affected by the people I interact with daily. To use a silly example: I hate brussel sprouts. If someone said, “Oh I love brussel sprouts! I cook them every day at lunch!” that would affect how much time I’d want to spend around that person.
These seem like arguments that could conceivably be used to defend any kind of discrimination in the workplace. I suppose the justifications for making some groups protected and others not are meta and involve things like the Veil of Ignorance so we won’t go into them. But this makes discussing workplace discrimination on the object level seem pretty boring to me since the criteria for when discrimination is acceptable appear almost totally subjective.
I am bothered by how “discrimination” has become an inherently offensive word. Choosing an employee among many is by definition an act of discrimination; what matters is what you base your discrimination on—whether it’s something relevant to their role or not.
Mere lexical conservatism? Not quite. Policy discussions should revolve around which type of discriminations are permissible and which are sufficiently harmful that they should be banned; but the “discrimination = bad” has made this step all but impossible.
Hence you get people honestly, and correctly, arguing that to favour younger, or older, people is a form of discrimination. But then, rather than asking “did this employer have a legitimate reason for preferring a particular age group for the job?” (hopefully followed by “is it going to be harmful if people keep doing it?” and “do we have the means to stop it?”), they just slap the label “ageism” on it and are convinced that they have just proved that it’s a Bad Thing®.
Worst possible worlds do tend to be cartoonish.
-chuckles-
Well how in the world will I get any work done with a woman in the office? Clearly my misogyny makes it ok for me to discriminate against women. ;)
People don’t pick their gender based on argument and evidence.
Transexuals pick their gender based on their feelings, and they fully have a right to do that in my opinion. But lets say that currently the costs for that kind of change are too high for most people and pick a different example:
How in the world will I get any work done with a commie in the office? How in the world will I get any work done with a atheist in the office? How in the world will I get any work done with a eugenicist in the office? How in the world will I get any work done with a republican in the office? How in the world will I get any work done with a Jew in the office? ect.
I’m pretty much with Jack in that in principle, I would avoid discriminating on group affiliation / ideology, except when it could be expected to directly affect job performance; I wouldn’t hire a member of an anti-vaccination group as a doctor, or a racist as a human resource manager.
Also, someone who brings up ”… and as I was saying at the Klu Klux Klan meeting the other day …” at a job interview probably isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. More generally, mentioning member of a controversial group at a job interview is a sign of lack of social skills (especially the social skill known as “lying”), which would probably impact job performance (again, it depends of the job. Crazy opinions for say graphic artists are not very surprising or very problematic).
Nearly all jobs involve interacting with other people, who may be of the race that the racist would have a problem with. Would you be willing to hire a racist for any such job?
What classifies jobs into this group where crazy opinions aren’t a big deal?
This person is sending very bad signals about himself, signals most people will not ignore. But they don’t actually say anything about his job performance (in this hypothetical case)!
Incredible, I’m very lucky he is probably severely undervalued in the labour market. By hiring him I am getting a bargain.
I attach no metaphysical badness to him getting paid by me because a boycott on hiring people who use their money for ill is impossible to enforce. Someone else will profit from hiring him (and I have no guarantees this person who profits won’t use the difference to work against things I value).
All I am getting is a service for my money, I have no responsibility for what he actually does with the money, I mean I do usually think on ethical issues if we are moral agents.