Socrates argues his case flawlessly, but the truth is that in the real world nobody who supports affirmative action begins with his priors. In particular, "businesses should maximise profit and anything that stops them doing this is bad" is something that absolutely nobody who supports affirmative action believes. The people who think that employment discrimination is bad don't get there because they're worried about business owners not operating as rationally self-interested profit-maximising agents.
Would it be possible to construct such a strong case against affirmative action, starting from liberal-left assumptions? You touched on it a little I suppose, when you pointed out that the justice system itself would be just as prone to discrimination as the business owners if not more.
A rational employer may decide not to hire an Egyptian because of what that hire does to the business's reputation. Customer's may not like purchasing olive oil from a clerk that "smells like a camel" (or some other stereotype) despite the objective performance of the clerk. Even if only a small fraction of customers are prejudiced against Egyptians, the employee would have to be much more competent than a Greek employee to make the employer more money.
Well, yeah. This is the whole reason why there was not only a push for anti-discrimination laws to begin with, but why none of the efforts to scuttle them have ever been successful. You can't do so without re-allowing precisely the same behavior that made people push for civil rights protections, and by far the people most likely to care about that have been open racists and sexists.
The case that Bryan's making is that even if you're committed to fighting racism and sexism, the costs of attempting to make discrimination illegal outweigh the benefits, because groups don't perform at equal rates, and there's no means of creating a system of equal representation that doesn't compromise merit.
Even during Jim Crow people were perfectly fine going to clubs with black performers. And people indeed bought olive oil from black clerks (in fact blacks were probably disproportionately service workers).
What they generally didn't like was having to live near blacks or share schools with them. Which....is still true today. People segregate residentially and via school boundaries on income and income approximates pretty close to race, especially as regards blacks. Which is why you get articles about how statistically residential and school segregation is as bad as its ever been at least in the North.
Don't a lot of awards in these cases not even involve juries? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like a hear about "a judge ruled" all the time.
Even in cases with juries, seems like judges and the legal profession more broadly would have a lot of influence on the outcome.
Isn't that what progressives are hoping for. That "the annoited" will use law to overturn the supremicist society? With judges playing the role of Philosopher King.
In the US, the parties in a civil trial have a right to a jury for anything significant. It is very rare to not use a jury.
A judge may rule on the law not the facts. A judge may throw out part or all of the case before it goes to trial because the parties did not plead something that the law can decide. For example if X sues Y for defamation because Y said, "I don't like X," the judge can throw out the case because that statement does not fit the legal standard for defamation. Often the facts are less ambiguous than the law. So, this is common.
Also, noteworthy cases are often appealed and may become noteworthy because of the appeal. The appeal does not appeal the jury's decision of facts, it appeals the judge's decisions of law. This biases new reporting toward more judge decisions than jury decisions.
Also, many cases are settled before a jury decision. Juries are unpredictable. It is in both parties interest to settle for something approximating the expected value of the outcome. This can happen at any stage of the case. After the judge rules on motions to dismiss is common because the expected value of the outcome is better known.
Dont think this would convince anyone against anti-discrimination laws. Im more inclined than most to agree with you and did not find this very convincing.
From what i can recall, most people think that EARNING PROFITS is what makes an employer discriminate, and that a jury is more trustworthy because they arnt trying ti earn a profit.
And from some conversations ive had, it seems that many people strictly dislike economic difference at all. Ive had concversatuons where i asked a leftist if they would think a rich persons house being cleaned by a poor worker was fine if the worker earned a better wage, and they thought it was still simply wrong and that they “should simply clean their house themselves like everyone else”
Also, many people think that earning money is engaging in our greedy base instincts and doesnt make people think properly, while being disinterested and in service of others makes you think properly.
So so unlike some previous socratic dialogues that Bc has written, this one is in a way trying to tackle at least 3 different arguments at once.
Depends what you mean by slavery. The practice in ancient Greece was complex with many strata of slaves. In the Greek sense slave doesn’t necessarily mean a person who is worked to death, mistreated or abused in the way that the National Socialists treated slave labourers in WW2. It’s nuanced. In modern societies slavery of any type is morally unacceptable (rightly so). We should not judge people in history by modern standards. The existence of slavery in the ancient world was so ubiquitous it went unnoticed in the same way as we now don’t notice people wearing pants. The slave system in Ancient Greece was more akin to serfdom, bondage or indentured servitude and much enslavement was a consequence of military conflict; a highly stratified/status driven society. Not sure that Socrates epistemological approach was undermined by the ‘water in which he swam’.
I feel like the statement “we shouldn’t judge people in history by modern standards” is quite weird
It seems like we should judge people regardless of when they live, simply on basis of their merit, e.g. hitler was bad and will be bad in the next generations even if future people advance their morality to unseen levels. And in case of various wise men of past, it seems like people sometimes mistake their achievements for an excuse for general wrongdoing. E.g. Socrates was great thinker for his times, and arguably one of the most decent people of his time, but still believed in a lot of pretty immoral stuff and we should indeed judge him for that
Socrates argues his case flawlessly, but the truth is that in the real world nobody who supports affirmative action begins with his priors. In particular, "businesses should maximise profit and anything that stops them doing this is bad" is something that absolutely nobody who supports affirmative action believes. The people who think that employment discrimination is bad don't get there because they're worried about business owners not operating as rationally self-interested profit-maximising agents.
Would it be possible to construct such a strong case against affirmative action, starting from liberal-left assumptions? You touched on it a little I suppose, when you pointed out that the justice system itself would be just as prone to discrimination as the business owners if not more.
It is possible to make a case against affirmative action but very hard. And i dont remember it.
Also yeah, profit is seen as evil by many people unless everyone gets it equally
How long after barriers to Jews getting into ivy league school were lifted did it take for them to be overrepresented?
How long after barriers to Black men getting into the NBA were lifted did it take for them to be overrepresented?
Jews were overrepresented in the Ivies even before restrictions on their entrance was lifted. As were blacks in pro-basketball.
A rational employer may decide not to hire an Egyptian because of what that hire does to the business's reputation. Customer's may not like purchasing olive oil from a clerk that "smells like a camel" (or some other stereotype) despite the objective performance of the clerk. Even if only a small fraction of customers are prejudiced against Egyptians, the employee would have to be much more competent than a Greek employee to make the employer more money.
Well, yeah. This is the whole reason why there was not only a push for anti-discrimination laws to begin with, but why none of the efforts to scuttle them have ever been successful. You can't do so without re-allowing precisely the same behavior that made people push for civil rights protections, and by far the people most likely to care about that have been open racists and sexists.
The case that Bryan's making is that even if you're committed to fighting racism and sexism, the costs of attempting to make discrimination illegal outweigh the benefits, because groups don't perform at equal rates, and there's no means of creating a system of equal representation that doesn't compromise merit.
Even during Jim Crow people were perfectly fine going to clubs with black performers. And people indeed bought olive oil from black clerks (in fact blacks were probably disproportionately service workers).
What they generally didn't like was having to live near blacks or share schools with them. Which....is still true today. People segregate residentially and via school boundaries on income and income approximates pretty close to race, especially as regards blacks. Which is why you get articles about how statistically residential and school segregation is as bad as its ever been at least in the North.
I couldn't get through the whole thing.
Don't a lot of awards in these cases not even involve juries? I'm not a lawyer, but I feel like a hear about "a judge ruled" all the time.
Even in cases with juries, seems like judges and the legal profession more broadly would have a lot of influence on the outcome.
Isn't that what progressives are hoping for. That "the annoited" will use law to overturn the supremicist society? With judges playing the role of Philosopher King.
In the US, the parties in a civil trial have a right to a jury for anything significant. It is very rare to not use a jury.
A judge may rule on the law not the facts. A judge may throw out part or all of the case before it goes to trial because the parties did not plead something that the law can decide. For example if X sues Y for defamation because Y said, "I don't like X," the judge can throw out the case because that statement does not fit the legal standard for defamation. Often the facts are less ambiguous than the law. So, this is common.
Also, noteworthy cases are often appealed and may become noteworthy because of the appeal. The appeal does not appeal the jury's decision of facts, it appeals the judge's decisions of law. This biases new reporting toward more judge decisions than jury decisions.
Also, many cases are settled before a jury decision. Juries are unpredictable. It is in both parties interest to settle for something approximating the expected value of the outcome. This can happen at any stage of the case. After the judge rules on motions to dismiss is common because the expected value of the outcome is better known.
Thanks :)
Dont think this would convince anyone against anti-discrimination laws. Im more inclined than most to agree with you and did not find this very convincing.
From what i can recall, most people think that EARNING PROFITS is what makes an employer discriminate, and that a jury is more trustworthy because they arnt trying ti earn a profit.
And from some conversations ive had, it seems that many people strictly dislike economic difference at all. Ive had concversatuons where i asked a leftist if they would think a rich persons house being cleaned by a poor worker was fine if the worker earned a better wage, and they thought it was still simply wrong and that they “should simply clean their house themselves like everyone else”
Also, many people think that earning money is engaging in our greedy base instincts and doesnt make people think properly, while being disinterested and in service of others makes you think properly.
So so unlike some previous socratic dialogues that Bc has written, this one is in a way trying to tackle at least 3 different arguments at once.
This doesn't work for me. Socrates wasn't even opposed to slavery.
Depends what you mean by slavery. The practice in ancient Greece was complex with many strata of slaves. In the Greek sense slave doesn’t necessarily mean a person who is worked to death, mistreated or abused in the way that the National Socialists treated slave labourers in WW2. It’s nuanced. In modern societies slavery of any type is morally unacceptable (rightly so). We should not judge people in history by modern standards. The existence of slavery in the ancient world was so ubiquitous it went unnoticed in the same way as we now don’t notice people wearing pants. The slave system in Ancient Greece was more akin to serfdom, bondage or indentured servitude and much enslavement was a consequence of military conflict; a highly stratified/status driven society. Not sure that Socrates epistemological approach was undermined by the ‘water in which he swam’.
I feel like the statement “we shouldn’t judge people in history by modern standards” is quite weird
It seems like we should judge people regardless of when they live, simply on basis of their merit, e.g. hitler was bad and will be bad in the next generations even if future people advance their morality to unseen levels. And in case of various wise men of past, it seems like people sometimes mistake their achievements for an excuse for general wrongdoing. E.g. Socrates was great thinker for his times, and arguably one of the most decent people of his time, but still believed in a lot of pretty immoral stuff and we should indeed judge him for that