Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 9:22 amWe 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.

The judgement in these cases is that the the two roles were "of equal value". What is this if not a claim to objectivity? They have somehow evaluated both roles and found them to be equal. That is the basis for finding that the failure to pay these two roles equally amounted to sexual discrimination.

Let me put it this way, if the courts were recognise that it was only their subjective opinion that they were equal, they would have no business reaching the conclusion they did and ordering the employers to pay large sums in compensation. The courts judgement that the roles were of equal value is the correct view, the employ's judgement that they weren't was the incorrect view. There's no room for subjectivity here and mutual recognition of their differing value judgements.

No, I'm not confused.

Clearly, you are.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 10:01 am The judgement in these cases is that the the two roles were "of equal value". What is this if not a claim to objectivity?

It's just a claim. Or more accurately, it's a value-judgement. [Such things are wholly subjective, of course, but we already agree on that, I think?] There is no "claim to objectivity", that I can see.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:00 pm

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 10:01 am The judgement in these cases is that the the two roles were "of equal value". What is this if not a claim to objectivity?

It's just a claim. Or more accurately, it's a value-judgement. [Such things are wholly subjective, of course, but we already agree on that, I think?] There is no "claim to objectivity", that I can see.

Tell me what basis then the court has ordering these companies to pay compensation to the "wronged" employees? A subjective opinion?

Normally, court judgements are objective (as they are based on objectively verifiable facts). Yes, doubt is never completely eliminated in an absolute sense but still you have the principle "beyond all reasonable doubt".

A court has nothing objectively verifiable to go on when judging if two employment roles are of equal value. Nothing but a subjective opinion.

Can you imagine if an artist took an art dealer to court because they paid £1000 for someone else's painting but only £700 for theirs, and alleged it was because of sexual discrimination? Would it even make sense for a court to judge and decide if they are in fact of equal value? The subjective opinions of the court are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the opinion of the person who bought the art (i.e. the art dealer).

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 10:01 am The judgement in these cases is that the the two roles were "of equal value". What is this if not a claim to objectivity?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:00 pm It's just a claim. Or more accurately, it's a value-judgement. [Such things are wholly subjective, of course, but we already agree on that, I think?] There is no "claim to objectivity", that I can see.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:17 pm Tell me what basis then the court has ordering these companies to pay compensation to the "wronged" employees? A subjective opinion?

Are you asking me to describe the status quo, or to justify it, and (in either case) why? I'm no expert on such matters, but I think the court operates according to the authority given to it by society/government?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:17 pm Normally, court judgements are objective (as they are based on objectively verifiable facts). Yes, doubt is never completely eliminated in an absolute sense but still you have the principle "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Isn't there a bit of wishful thinking going on here? Eye-witness statements, for a start, are far from 'objective'. Their shortcomings are well-known and well-documented, I think? That's just one example. In practice, in the real world, I think "court judgements" are based on information that approaches factuality (?) and 'objectivity', but doesn't actually approach it all that closely? Doesn't the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" exemplify and acknowledge this shortcoming?

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:17 pm A court has nothing objectively verifiable to go on when judging if two employment roles are of equal value. Nothing but a subjective opinion.

I have no examples to offer, but I think this is not unique in the operation of a real-world court, is it?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 19th, 2025, 7:07 am

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 18th, 2025, 12:17 pmNormally, court judgements are objective (as they are based on objectively verifiable facts). Yes, doubt is never completely eliminated in an absolute sense but still you have the principle "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Isn't there a bit of wishful thinking going on here? Eye-witness statements, for a start, are far from 'objective'. Their shortcomings are well-known and well-documented, I think? That's just one example. In practice, in the real world, I think "court judgements" are based on information that approaches factuality (?) and 'objectivity', but doesn't actually approach it all that closely? Doesn't the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" exemplify and acknowledge this shortcoming?

It is categorically different. The question is whether there is an object fact of the matter to be determined. Did Harry murder David? Either he did or he didn't. There is a fact of the matter to be determined. Eye witness accounts may help us decide whether it did or did not happen. We are not interested in their opinions on what happened, only what they saw.

But when it comes to the comparative value of two different commodities, there is no objective fact. It is not simply that it's very difficult to calculate. It is that there is nothing to calculate. It only exists as a subjective concept (compared to a murder case in which there an actual objective fact of the matter to be determined.)

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 19th, 2025, 8:08 am The question is whether there is an object fact of the matter to be determined. Did Harry murder David?

Such cases are never that simple. This is not a binary decision, I hope, it's a search for justice, in keeping with applicable laws. Even murder is not just that; there are 'degrees' of murder in the US, and similar in other countries. Why do you continue to single-focus on laws and rules, and binary-thinking actions? This is the real world we're discussing, and it is a great deal more complicated than 'it's black or it's white! '

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 19th, 2025, 8:08 am Eye witness accounts may help us decide whether it did or did not happen. We are not interested in their opinions on what happened, only what they saw.

Here's an excerpt from one of many online references,

psychologicalscience.org wrote: Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume. The advent of DNA analysis in the late 1980s revolutionized forensic science, providing an unprecedented level of accuracy about the identity of actual perpetrators versus innocent people falsely accused of crime. DNA testing led to the review of many settled cases. According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

I'm not offering this as fact, stemming from some 'authority', but only as what one webpage says. I offer it because it says it better than I could, and seems a lot better informed too.

Pattern-chaser, you're getting side tracked with details irrelevant to my point.

In most forms of crime, there is an actual fact of the matter in question that the court is trying to ascertain. However unreliable or uncertain the methods are to reach that decision is not the point. That there is an objective fact that they are trying to reach is my point.

In these particular cases, there is no objective way to compare the value of two different commodities. It is not merely that the methods of trying to reach the facts are unreliable and uncertain. It is that there is no fact to reach.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 19th, 2025, 11:34 am Pattern-chaser, you're getting side tracked with details irrelevant to my point.

In most forms of crime, there is an actual fact of the matter in question that the court is trying to ascertain. However unreliable or uncertain the methods are to reach that decision is not the point. That there is an objective fact that they are trying to reach is my point.

Yes, I see your points. This is the trap of objectivity. We can take a quick look into the darkness of metaphysics (), and say that it is objectively TRUE or FALSE that we are brains-in-vats. And it's difficult to imagine a valid refutation of that literal statement. Or we can return to your more down-to-earth example, and say what you just did. Again, a refutation seems unlikely. But that's not the point.

The real point is that the *objective* evidence that would allow us to reach a logical and reliable *objective* conclusion simply isn't available. In your example, it's merely highly unlikely. I the more esoteric example, it's quite impossible. And that is the trap of objectivity. We can make all manner of theoretically-true 'objective' statements, but we cannot verify them, to the same 'objective' standard(s).

The upshot is that, although theoretically true, in practice such statements are actively misleading, because they hint at knowledge that we wish we possessed, but do not, and can not. They imply there is a truth there that we can access, and we can't. So what is the point is saying "That there is an objective fact that they are trying to reach is my point," when your assertion is unverifiable and therefore unreliable? The "objective fact" you refer to is not available to the court.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 19th, 2025, 11:34 am In these particular cases, there is no objective way to compare the value of two different commodities. It is not merely that the methods of trying to reach the facts are unreliable and uncertain. It is that there is no fact to reach.

Yes, we are agreed that this is a value judgement. It may be partly based on facts, maybe, but often that is not the case.

Mr Pattern-Chaiser,

Although this is a philosophy forum and I shouldn't be surprised to such conversations/arguments employed here, personally I am not interested in such meta-physical naval gazing (notice you don't see me posting in those sub-forums).

As far as I am concerned, it would be a legitimate activity of the tribunals to determine whether the employers in question made discriminatory decisions. This was the intention behind the 2010 Equality act. But it is well beyond their remit to attempt to adjudicate the subjective values judgements made by individuals and impute sexual discrimination to the extent that their judgements of value differed from that of the courts'.

To my mind, this is gross judicial over-reach that should be curtailed as soon as possible by either the abolition of the 2010 Equality Act, or at the very least modified and clarified so such miscarriages of justice (and common sense) do not happen.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑February 21st, 2025, 4:03 am Mr Pattern-Chaser,

Although this is a philosophy forum and I shouldn't be surprised to such conversations/arguments employed here, personally I am not interested in such meta-physical naval gazing (notice you don't see me posting in those sub-forums).

As far as I am concerned, it would be a legitimate activity of the tribunals to determine whether the employers in question made discriminatory decisions. This was the intention behind the 2010 Equality act. But it is well beyond their remit to attempt to adjudicate the subjective values judgements made by individuals and impute sexual discrimination to the extent that their judgements of value differed from that of the courts'.

To my mind, this is gross judicial over-reach that should be curtailed as soon as possible by either the abolition of the 2010 Equality Act, or at the very least modified and clarified so such miscarriages of justice (and common sense) do not happen.

I think it's much simpler than you seem to think? Imagine a world where red, and redness, exists, but that redness cannot be detected by any means, scientific or otherwise.

By analogy, within this thought-experiment example, you are offering the observation that "X is red". And we all know that it could be red, and that its redness is impossible to confirm. In this made-up example, we can see the pointlessness of your remark: why bother to assert a property whose presence or absence cannot be confirmed by any means at our disposal? What does it achieve?

Your assertion of redness appears to add a useful addition to the discussion, but it's really only a misleading distraction because redness is undetectable.

It's metaphysics, I suppose, but it's still pretty much down at the level of 'common sense', no?

It's really simple. If someone can do the same work, then they should be entitled to the same pay. Sex, race, religion, or whatever, should not come into the equation. And when they do, anti-discrimination law is there to provide redress. This is as it should be, IMO. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against this. On what possible basis could it be argued that blue eyed people should be paid less than brown eyed people? Similarly, on what reasonable basis could it be argued that being female, or black, or gay, or in your fifties, justifies you being paid less when you can do the same work? There is no way that I can see for it to be argued coherently that equal pay has gone too far or that anti-discrimination law over-reaches in such circumstances.

Lagayascienza wrote: ↑February 21st, 2025, 9:28 am It's really simple. If someone can do the same work, then they should be entitled to the same pay. Sex, race, religion, or whatever, should not come into the equation. And when they do, anti-discrimination law is there to provide redress. This is as it should be, IMO. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against this. On what possible basis could it be argued that blue eyed people should be paid less than brown eyed people? Similarly, on what reasonable basis could it be argued that being female, or black, or gay, or in your fifties, justifies you being paid less when you can do the same work? There is no way that I can see for it to be argued coherently that equal pay has gone too far or that anti-discrimination law over-reaches in such circumstances.

Forgive my asking, but have you read more than the title of this thread (the opening post at least)? If so, it should be clear that we're not just talking about people doing "the same work" here. But rather different work, somehow judged to be of equal value.

Whether or not you think the kind of cases we've seen recently are a good or bad thing, you should at least accept that they have gone beyond the original idea of anti discrimination laws (i.e. equal pay for doing the same job). Therefore, how can you say it is not coherent to even make the case that anti-discrimination law has gone to far or over-reached?

I am still waiting for someone in this thread to make a coherent case for the kind of judicial decisions that we've seen recently (see the opening post). And, with all due respect, I don't feel like I've got one yet out of Pattern-Chaser.

I did read the OP. I think your spiel re those cases, seen through the prism of laissez faire capitalism as it always seems to be with you, is probably wrong. I am going to try to find those cases you mentioned and read the judgements so I can get a clear understanding of the ratio decidendi. Then I shall comment on each of them here.

I notice that nowhere in the preceding 4 pages have you provided the case citations which makes it difficult to find the judgements. They will be in the form: abc vs xyz and the date. For example, Hornsby Shire Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2023] HCA 19. Would you mind providing those citations? Otherwise I could waste a lot of time trying to find the judgements. I presume you have the citations and have read the judgements. Or are you just going on media reports? We know how the right-wing media puts a particular spin on such cases and blows them out of proportion.