Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I am not searching for any sort of objectivity here.

Sorry, you referred to the making of an objective comparison between two jobs, or their 'value'.

[Fried Egg]

I am not searching for any sort of objectivity here.

Sorry, you referred to the making of an objective comparison between two jobs, or their 'value'.

Yes, that's what the tribunals are doing.

[LuckyR]

It's my understanding that currently gender discrimination in the West takes the form of the glass ceiling, not true wage differences.

[Sy Borg]

Today, there is a school of thought that goes directly against MLK/standard liberalism, that sees race, gender, and sexuality as the most important parts of a person.

Today, there is a school of thought that sees race, gender, and sexuality as parts of a person.

There has never been a time in human history where people did not appreciate that there were different genders.

That's very absolute-sounding, but it seems perfectly reasonable.

Awareness of race started when the first person from one race met someone of a different race.

Why are you perpetrating this myth? There is no such thing as "race", in the sense you use it here. Ask a biologist.

It shouldn't require a philosopher to ask, in a pantomime-patronising tone, "was it skin-colour you meant, dear?" 😉

Anthropology is one of the most tainted of sciences today, its narratives hijacked by political activism and idealism rather than reason and logic. The "experts" in this field are no longer reliable, consistently underplaying the atrocities perpetrated by indigenous people and the good done by colonising peoples.

First, the "experts" told us that race is important. There was significant discrimination. Then were told that race does not exist. Discrimination reduced. Now we are told that race is the most important thing about a person (eg. BLM), and discrimination is reversed (US has over 70% whites, a group that comprised less than 5% of total corporate hires).

Race obviously exists. A Japanese couple are not going to give birth to a red-headed, freckled white baby. Nor is a Congo couple. It's not just skin colour but facial features, body size and shape, muscle mass etc.

This should be non-controversial, because Eskimos need different physical qualities to Sub-Saharan Africans, who will need different qualities to ME desert people, Australian aborigines, etc. If your race developed in the cold, then you need light skin to absorb vitamin D, etc. If your race developed under a hot desert sun, you'd need black skin to avoid cancer. If your race developed in ultra cold areas, they will need a flatter nose.

The different races developed due to long term historical isolation for other groups. They evolved away from each other, attributes to suit their environment, their geography and climate.

I prefer race-blindness, but today that view is considered to be racist because I ignore white privilege and historical imbalances (presuming that all was in balance beforehand, which of course, is insane thinking).

Problems come when these factors are rated as the most important ones, over competence, intelligence, decency, talent, etc.

Problems come, I think, when we attempt to compare human beings. To actually attempt a comparison of a whole person with another person.

No one cares about the whole person but your Mum. What an absurd extrapolation by you.

Your employer does not care about "whole people". Your employer cares about someone's ability to do a job.Race, gender, and sexuality are usually unimportant compared with experience, knowledge, skills, talent and the ability to work productively with others.

[Pattern-chaser]

Awareness of race started when the first person from one race met someone of a different race.

Why are you perpetrating this myth? There is no such thing as "race", in the sense you use it here. Ask a biologist.

Anthropology is one of the most tainted of sciences today, its narratives hijacked by political activism and idealism rather than reason and logic. The "experts" in this field are no longer reliable, consistently underplaying the atrocities perpetrated by indigenous people and the good done by colonising peoples.

That is your opinion. There are many who do not share it. I am only one of them. Those who authored and edited this Wikipedia entry seem also to agree with me. They offer many references to scientific and other papers.

Race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society. The term came into common usage during the 16th century, when it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those characterized by close kinship relations.

By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

Also,

The "experts" in this field are no longer reliable, consistently underplaying the atrocities perpetrated by indigenous people and the good done by colonising peoples.

it seems fair to observe that "colonising peoples" should be more clearly and accurately described as "invaders". "Colonising" sounds so friendly, as if the, er, 'immigrants' are coming for a little holiday, and maybe to help out while they stay? Colonisation is land-theft; invasion. Consult the history of any empire; "colonisation" is a rather nasty euphemism, I suggest.





Anyone wishing to read more might find this article useful: "Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue — Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out" — Megan Gannon & LiveScience — published in Scientific American, February 5, 2016. To my layman's eyes, there is no evidence of "taint", "political activism" or (political) "idealism". Decide for yourself.

[Pattern-chaser]

Race obviously exists. A Japanese couple are not going to give birth to a red-headed, freckled white baby. Nor is a Congo couple. It's not just skin colour but facial features, body size and shape, muscle mass etc.

What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded.

Svante Pääbo is a biologist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

Can we draw a conclusion here? I think we can. Race obviously doesn't exist.

[Fried Egg]

Different groups of people can be thought of as different (in the sense that there are differences in the observable characteristics) in the absence of genetic differentiation.

A most obvious example of that (and one actually pertinent to this thread) are men and women. To say that there can be no innate differences between men and women because there is no genetic differentiation would be silly, right?

Essentially, most people use the concept of race in a different and far less precise way than biological scientists do. Hence I think you two (Sy Borg and Pattern Chaser) are talking past each other to some extent.

[Sy Borg]

Awareness of race started when the first person from one race met someone of a different race.

Why are you perpetrating this myth? There is no such thing as "race", in the sense you use it here. Ask a biologist.

Anthropology is one of the most tainted of sciences today, its narratives hijacked by political activism and idealism rather than reason and logic. The "experts" in this field are no longer reliable, consistently underplaying the atrocities perpetrated by indigenous people and the good done by colonising peoples.

That is your opinion. There are many who do not share it. I am only one of them. Those who authored and edited this Wikipedia entry seem also to agree with me. They offer many references to scientific and other papers.

Race is a categorization of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society. The term came into common usage during the 16th century, when it was used to refer to groups of various kinds, including those characterized by close kinship relations.

By the 17th century, the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits, and then later to national affiliations. Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

Also,

The "experts" in this field are no longer reliable, consistently underplaying the atrocities perpetrated by indigenous people and the good done by colonising peoples.

it seems fair to observe that "colonising peoples" should be more clearly and accurately described as "invaders". "Colonising" sounds so friendly, as if the, er, 'immigrants' are coming for a little holiday, and maybe to help out while they stay? Colonisation is land-theft; invasion. Consult the history of any empire; "colonisation" is a rather nasty euphemism, I suggest.





Anyone wishing to read more might find this article useful: "Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue — Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out" — Megan Gannon & LiveScience — published in Scientific American, February 5, 2016. To my layman's eyes, there is no evidence of "taint", "political activism" or (political) "idealism". Decide for yourself.

This gives me the opportunity to expose atrocities done by indigenous people that are not taught at universities because it does not accord with the noble savage myth, a myth that you obviously believe.

Did you know that Aboriginals routinely practiced infanticide? It was their primary means of population control. You will not be taught this by the mainstream that you do implicitly trust.

Reporting of infanticide

In 1830, a European stockman told explorer Charles Sturt that two Aboriginal men had killed and eaten a child.

In 1881, James Dawson wrote about infanticide in Victoria, including that it was customary to kill the weakest twin.

In the 19th century, European observers reported that about 30% of Aboriginal infants were killed at birth.

Aboriginal Cannibalism & Infanticide was common
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh8_U01wwww


If you need more education in this area, exposing hard truths that academia quashes for political reasons, let me know. This is just one example.

[Fried Egg]

I would complain that this topic is being derailed but since nobody has taken the opportunity to defend what is happening with these equal pay cases, you might as well carry on.

[Pattern-chaser]

This gives me the opportunity to expose atrocities done by indigenous people that are not taught at universities because it does not accord with the noble savage myth, a myth that you obviously believe.

It seems there is no room for me to comment here, as you already know what I believe. I find it remarkable, that you can divine my innermost thoughts, when even I cannot.

While we're here, why don't you summarise my thoughts on Equal Pay, then my contribution here in this topic will be complete, and I need not contribute further?

[Pattern-chaser]

I would complain that this topic is being derailed but since nobody has taken the opportunity to defend what is happening with these equal pay cases, you might as well carry on.

Yes, I think it might be because the topic here, equal pay for equal work, is agreed by all. The only space for meaningful discussion is in the details only, isn't it?

[Fried Egg]

I would complain that this topic is being derailed but since nobody has taken the opportunity to defend what is happening with these equal pay cases, you might as well carry on.

Yes, I think it might be because the topic here, equal pay for equal work, is agreed by all. The only space for meaningful discussion is in the details only, isn't it?

I think the principle "equal pay for equal work" is something probably everybody can get behind, and I'm not challenging it with this thread topic.

But these cases are setting a precedent for new principles which go beyond the above (and generally agreed) principle:

1) That you can judge the comparative values of two different employment roles.
2) That minimising costs by reacting to market forces is not a "legitimate" business need.

I would suggest to you that these new principles above (that are being embedded in our legal system) are far more controversial that the aforementioned "equal pay for equal work". And I cannot understand how anyone besides a card carrying socialist (such as yourself ) would support them.

I'm not just nit-picking over details. These are questions of principle.

[Pattern-chaser]

But these cases are setting a precedent for new principles which go beyond the above (and generally agreed) principle:

1) That you can judge the comparative values of two different employment roles.
2) That minimising costs by reacting to market forces is not a "legitimate" business need.

The first is contentious, and I'm not sure there is a clear argument for one side or the other. We judge "value" all the time, but no-one said it's easy to get it right, even some of the time.

Your second point hints at a wider topic, I think? It does to me, anyway.

What is the *purpose* of business or commerce? That's a big question, I admit, and the answers get bigger still. But that's what your item 2 says to me.

For me, the purpose — the raison d'etre —of a business is to provide its employees with a means to earn a wage by providing its customers with a product that they are happy to buy, for a price that exceeds the cost of provision. This rather goes against the profit-is-all mindset that seems almost universal, these days. In effect, I suppose that here, I'm criticising Capitalism itself. [Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! ...]

[Fried Egg]

But these cases are setting a precedent for new principles which go beyond the above (and generally agreed) principle:

1) That you can judge the comparative values of two different employment roles.
2) That minimising costs by reacting to market forces is not a "legitimate" business need.

The first is contentious, and I'm not sure there is a clear argument for one side or the other. We judge "value" all the time, but no-one said it's easy to get it right, even some of the time.

I think you're confusing subjective with objective judgements here. You subjectively put a value on apples that may differ from how much I subjectively value them. The price of apples at any given time and place reflects an aggregation of supply and demand and hence is determined by the market. But the price is not an objective evaluation and it changes continuously (to reflect changes to supply and demand).

No one attempts to objectively determine the value of apples in comparison to other commodities. You might look at the market that happens to value apples twice as much as oranges but that is not a reflection of something you can measure independently of the market. You can look at how easy it is to grow apples and oranges, how much labour is required in their production, etc. But they are just details that might affect the price but they don't impact how much you or I value the qualities of those fruits.

It is not merely difficult to objectively value any given commodity, it is impossible. Therefore no court should ever be able to decide that two different forms of labour are of equal value.

Your second point hints at a wider topic, I think? It does to me, anyway.

What is the *purpose* of business or commerce? That's a big question, I admit, and the answers get bigger still. But that's what your item 2 says to me.

For me, the purpose — the raison d'etre —of a business is to provide its employees with a means to earn a wage by providing its customers with a product that they are happy to buy, for a price that exceeds the cost of provision. This rather goes against the profit-is-all mindset that seems almost universal, these days. In effect, I suppose that here, I'm criticising Capitalism itself. [Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! ...]

Yes, this discussion could easily get a lot broader for sure.

But I am not saying it is the purpose of businesses to reduce costs. Only that it is a legitimate business need. Companies that let their costs get out of hand may soon go out of business (and we see this all the time).

Sure, that doesn't mean that cutting costs is always fine no matter how they do it. A company might reduce it's costs by dumping toxic waste in the nearest river (rather than disposing of it in a more environmentally safe way) for instance. But there is no such thing going on here. If the women wanted to be paid more, they could transfer from the shop floor to the warehouse. Assuming there's no discriminatory barriers to them doing just this, we can only conclude that they chose not to because they prefer the working conditions of the shop floor.

And now, thanks to judgements such as this, they don't even need to sacrifice their working conditions to get more money. They can just join the union and let them take their employers to court.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you're confusing subjective with objective judgements here. You subjectively put a value on apples that may differ from how much I subjectively value them. [...] It is not merely difficult to objectively value any given commodity, it is impossible. Therefore no court should ever be able to decide that two different forms of labour are of equal value.

No, I'm not confused. In fact, from where I'm standing, it looks like it's you who is confused. I am quite clear that the judgements we are talking about here are predominantly subjective. There is very little objectivity involved, that I can see. And I don't think that's an error. I think it reflects that real world, or at least the parts of it we are discussing here. These matters *are* subjective. Pretty much everything that is directly connected to humanity is like this, it seems.

Some of us yearn for certainty, for objectivity, but our yearning has no effect. It's just wishful thinking. There is an element of predictability about our world, for sure, but not (usually) enough to warrant the identification of something certain.

We humans make value judgements all the time, concerning just about anything and everything. It's what we do. And I don't think we're being dishonest here — no-one is trying to assert that these judgements are somehow objective.