Hacker News Reader

Comment by wesammikhail | Hacker News Reader

What is the difference between those classes of goods? What non-arbitrary rule should we use as a society to determine if a product/service can be targeted or not? Seems to me that every time this subject comes up, an arbitrary list of things are considered protected by whoever is making that point.

View on HN

> Seems to me that every time this subject comes up, an arbitrary list of things are considered protected by whoever is making that point.

It might feel that way to you, but it seems you haven't bothered to look into the history of why certain classes are protected against discrimination in housing, employment, medical treatment etc.

One of those reasons is to fight the tendency for discrimination to create second-class citizens[1]. Along with our society's past and its contemporary history, we also have a several millennia of written history to look back upon to see just how easily and willing we are to make life very bad for people who are discriminated against.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen

These aren't arbitrary judgment calls. There are laws.

And sure, the existence of those laws might be arbitrary. But the laws themselves are specific.

Except the existence of laws against racial/age discrimination in housing and employment are not arbitrary. Those laws were passed in response to actual and widespread discriminatory behavior in the mid 20th century.

OK, maybe arbitrary isn't exactly the right word. I meant that there's no indisputable link between ethics/morality and law.

You say that they "were passed in response to actual and widespread discriminatory behavior". That's true. But they wouldn't have been passed, notwithstanding discrimination, without enough political support (of one sort or another).

I mean, there's also been discrimination in health insurance rates based on preexisting conditions. And gender-based discrimination in vehicle insurance rates. The Affordable Care Act more-or-less restricted the first. But the second is still the norm in the US.

I would say the second one should be illegal.

There is plenty of ways to lawfully discriminate in this country. You can even still have discriminatory policies in employment if you can show it directly relates to the job.

I guess the poor guy did not ask about the law, that part was obvious. Some people choose to ignore the logic and morality and hide behind "this is the law" excuse, that does not help in this case: if the law is right, just explain how, if the law is broken, say it so.

Fair enough. But it's murky. I mean, it's arguable that any discrimination based on existential stuff -- such as gender, "race" and disability -- is immoral. Because it's just who you are, not something that you've chosen, something that you're responsible for.

Also, when it's about stuff like housing and services, there's not much basis for discrimination. Except for providing access to those with disabilities. And that seems fair.

When it's about employment, even if there are data that might justify discrimination, it's all about statistical distributions for populations. So there's too much uncertainty when you apply it to individuals. And there's also the fact that untangling innate/genetic and developmental/sociological factors is impossible.

For health and life insurance, basing rates on age and preexisting conditions clearly makes economic sense. Older people will likely cost more than younger people. And people diagnosed with cancer etc will likely cost more than people generlly. But for health insurance, there are social justice arguments that discrimination is unfair.

For vehicle insurance, it's undeniable that young men have more accidents than young women, and middle-aged people generally. And that old people people also have more accidents. At least two factors distinguish that from health insurance. First, there's the sense that people can choose to drive more carefully, and have fewer accidents. Also, there's the argument that driving isn't as essential as medical care.

> What non-arbitrary rule should we use as a society to determine if a product/service can be targeted or not?

Actual past experience with specific, widespread, and demonstrably harmful discriminatory practices.

Widespread discrimination in housing during the 20th century -- and the negative effects that had on certain communities -- resulted in laws prohibiting discrimination in housing ads.

Widespread discrimination in employment during the 20th century -- and the negative effects that had on certain communities -- resulted in laws prohibiting discrimination in employment ads.

BTW, these categories also make sense. Housing (i.e., schooling) and employment have a huge impact on your life outcomes in the USA. Choice of hair product, not so much.

There is actually a minimal agreed upon set of goods, espoused in the Universal declaration of human rights (or your country's equivalent).

For instance, travel services must be free from discrimination:

> Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Or buying property

> Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

Or the issues of this thread

> Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Or general social servies

> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, ...

specifically education

> Everyone has the right to education.

A declaration is not a law and there are many countries without an equivalent, some don't even have a Bill of Rights equivalent (Australia is one). That declaration is just a political statement, nothing more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com