| I do not think the dichotomy you outlined accurately describes how things work I mean, this is why we have developed the idea of a "protected class." Because you're correct that, at the end of the day, judgement is judgement and sentiment is sentiment and everyone is the hero of their own story. But to place the limits of proper action at sentiment is solipsism. So there is a set of protected classes which we, as a society, have decided are inappropriate reasons to discriminate against people. The quick reasons it is wrong to discriminate: sex, race, age, religion[1]. There are many reasons we allow people to discriminate: lack of money, being violent to employees, being unacceptably rude, setting off explosives, etc. These are all discriminatory practices that often involve moral judgement. We are always in the process of trying to decide if we should have a new protected class and how that class should be defined. I also suspect we will, at some point, talk about removing protected classes. Businesses should (and in fact always do) make moral judgements about their clients. The people at Github who chose to work with ICE decided it was morally right for them to do so. You can tell because they did it. They might say they were sad about it and had "moral qualms" but at some point it does seem like it comes down to yes or no. So do you think we should have a government agency class? Or perhaps a law enforcement class? I personally do not. [1] Some exceptions here, of course, a mosque does not have to hire a catholic priest who applies to be an imam. |
Unless you're Asian/Asian-American, of course. Then it is fine to negatively discriminate against you.
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/10/03/judge-rules-in-favo...