Decriminalizing Discrimination
How to Oppose Bigotry Without Sacrificing Individual Autonomy
Discrimination is widely regarded as inherently negative in contemporary discourse, associated with bigotry, prejudice, and unjust treatment. However, this broad condemnation overlooks important distinctions and the ethical significance of voluntary association and agency. A more nuanced perspective reveals that discrimination, in a precise technical sense, is essential to rational decision-making and personal freedom.
Understanding Discrimination:
At its core, discrimination means the act of making distinctions based on criteria. Every rational decision inherently involves discrimination—choosing friends, partners, employees, or even what to eat involves discriminating between options based on relevant or desirable traits. Thus, discrimination per se is morally neutral or even beneficial when criteria are justifiable and aligned with legitimate goals.
Justified vs. Unjustified Discrimination:
The ethical question hinges on whether discrimination is justified or unjustified:
Justified Discrimination: Selecting based on relevant, goal-aligned criteria (competence, merit, compatibility).
Unjustified Discrimination: Selecting based on irrelevant or prejudicial criteria (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation).
However, this distinction alone doesn't resolve whether unjustified discrimination should be prohibited legally or discouraged through voluntary means.
Defining Harm and Coercion:
Harm, as explicitly defined, is the reduction in an agent’s capacity to pursue their goals or preferences—the diminishment of voluntary agency. Coercion, similarly, is defined as a credible threat of harm intended to gain compliance.
Given these precise definitions, does unjustified discrimination constitute harm?
Employment Context: Initially, unjustified discrimination in employment appears harmful, restricting access to economic opportunities. Yet upon deeper consideration, no individual inherently holds an entitlement to a particular employment opportunity. If an employer declines to hire someone, even arbitrarily, it does not coercively reduce the applicant’s agency. The rejected candidate remains free to pursue other opportunities.
Mating and Dating: Clearly, in personal and romantic contexts, discrimination—even if arbitrary—is not harmful. Preferences are inherently subjective, and no obligation or entitlement exists for romantic involvement.
Membership in Private Clubs: Private clubs or social groups may exclude individuals based on arbitrary criteria (personal tastes, shared interests, cultural affinity). While such exclusion might appear unjustified externally, these organizations' existence relies on shared subjective preferences, and no individual's agency is coercively reduced, as no entitlement exists to membership.
Anti-Discrimination Laws and Freedom of Association:
Freedom of association explicitly includes the right to choose or exclude association members voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws directly violate this freedom by compelling association, inherently involving coercion and thus constituting actual harm by restricting voluntary agency.
This perspective does not endorse arbitrary prejudice or bigotry; rather, it asserts that coercive measures are ethically unjustifiable and pragmatically counterproductive.
Non-Coercive Approaches to Discourage Bigotry:
Societies committed to voluntary agency can and should discourage bigotry through robust non-coercive methods:
Social and Economic Consequences: Voluntary ostracism, reputation effects, and consumer choices can powerfully incentivize inclusive behavior.
Transparency and Accountability: Open, transparent communication and reputation systems enable informed voluntary decisions.
Education and Cultural Influence: Non-coercive persuasion, education, and cultural leadership effectively shape societal norms and personal ethics.
Institutional Innovation: Voluntary, inclusive organizations naturally outcompete discriminatory entities, demonstrating the practical superiority of merit-based selection.
Analogies and Clarifications:
An analogous ethical stance can be drawn regarding adultery. One might strongly oppose adultery on moral grounds while simultaneously rejecting coercive laws against it as intrusive and harmful to personal agency. Similarly, opposition to unjustified discrimination is compatible with opposing coercive anti-discrimination laws.
Conclusion:
Discrimination is essential to rational choice and voluntary association. While unjustified discrimination may be ethically objectionable, coercive prohibitions violate fundamental ethical principles of voluntary agency. Non-coercive measures—social, economic, cultural, and educational—are ethically coherent and practically superior tools for promoting fairness and reducing prejudice without undermining individual autonomy.