How about another thought experiment. We know from DOJ crime statistics that virtually all armed robbers are men. If you own a liquor store, you can protect yourself nearly 100% from armed robbery simply by refusing to allow men into your establishment. Would that be acceptable? No? Why not? Let’s take it a step further: DOJ stats also t…
How about another thought experiment. We know from DOJ crime statistics that virtually all armed robbers are men. If you own a liquor store, you can protect yourself nearly 100% from armed robbery simply by refusing to allow men into your establishment. Would that be acceptable? No? Why not? Let’s take it a step further: DOJ stats also tell us that Blacks are statistically more likely to commit armed robbery than whites. Should store owners be allowed to deny Black men entry on that basis? Can we discriminate against a group of people based on what they might do (but almost certainly won’t)? And to those who say, “But robbery is not a communicable disease!” I would answer, “So what?” When you’re being robbed—or shot—will that be any consolation? And if someone wants to argue that you’re less likely to be shot in a holdup than to die of COVID, I would respond that it probably depends on your age and where you live. What we’re talking about is discriminating in order to mitigate risk. Do the ethics of that depend solely on some sort of weighted equation, with the people we’re discriminating against on one side and the level of risk on the other? Against whom, then, are we allowed to discriminate, and why? What level of risk justifies that discrimination? Without specific answers to those questions, the pro-mandate crowd has no ethical argument.
How about another thought experiment. We know from DOJ crime statistics that virtually all armed robbers are men. If you own a liquor store, you can protect yourself nearly 100% from armed robbery simply by refusing to allow men into your establishment. Would that be acceptable? No? Why not? Let’s take it a step further: DOJ stats also tell us that Blacks are statistically more likely to commit armed robbery than whites. Should store owners be allowed to deny Black men entry on that basis? Can we discriminate against a group of people based on what they might do (but almost certainly won’t)? And to those who say, “But robbery is not a communicable disease!” I would answer, “So what?” When you’re being robbed—or shot—will that be any consolation? And if someone wants to argue that you’re less likely to be shot in a holdup than to die of COVID, I would respond that it probably depends on your age and where you live. What we’re talking about is discriminating in order to mitigate risk. Do the ethics of that depend solely on some sort of weighted equation, with the people we’re discriminating against on one side and the level of risk on the other? Against whom, then, are we allowed to discriminate, and why? What level of risk justifies that discrimination? Without specific answers to those questions, the pro-mandate crowd has no ethical argument.