Hacker News Reader

Comment by gbog | Hacker News Reader

> these bills under consideration truly will hurt jobs, growth and the economic vibrancy

I hate discriminations, especially those made for so-called religious reasons, but I also hate lies, even those made for "good reasons", and I think this is a lie.

No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy. And would one be 100% sure discrimination is good for economy, it would still be 100% morally wrong. I think it is dangerous to let people believe that the reason to avoid discrimination is economical.

(I discussed this with an American friend and we failed to agree. I'm European and I consider this disagreement one of the most salient difference between US and Europe: we consider morality and justice above and unrelated to economy).

View on HN

> No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy.

I can't really see how that would be the case. Denying <minority> the right to purchase things in some stores is most likely a bad thing for the economy. The less people buy, the more the economy suffers. It's rather straightforward.

Now, sure, economic benefit should not be the primary or only reason why people would oppose this. But it is a way to get through to those who otherwise don't care: a similar bill is stalling in Georgia because of economic concerns.

>The less people buy, the more the economy suffers. It's rather straightforward.

I don't think it's that straightfoward.

Economy is not "people buying things", it is the management of resources and money in a state.

On top of the abstract notion of economy, you need to have a goal, e.g. what you want to achieve with this management. (Of course a lot of people think there can be only one goal, or that it's something like a physical law, where people have no say, etc).

Make more people on aggregate richer might be one such goal. More equality might be another. Or raising the standard of living. Keeping buying power stable. etc etc.

So, some people not buying stuff might be "bad for business" but bad for business is not necessarily bad for the economy.

And even if it was, those people might be forced to buy other things, or others might be encouraged to spend more in their place, or there could be lots of other complications.

What about his point that the economic arguments are made to get through to people who don't care about morality and justice?

It's an interesting point, and I agree in part, but not directly related to my observation about them (economic arguments).

People use the excuse "it's for the economy" in much the same way that people use the excuse "it's for the children", or "it's to fight terrorism". It's a lazy argument to shut up the opposition because how dare anyone do something to hurt the economy/children/help terrorists?

That being said, this law is insane, and it will be overturned or repealed. It's just a shame that people need to be discriminated against during this waiting period.

The benefits of inclusiveness are pretty well hashed out in the tech industry, which has long been among the leading industry sectors in accepting LGBT individuals. He's not proposing a theory. He is, as the leader of the largest tech company on the planet, conveying a lesson learned long ago that some people still don't get: Being inclusive makes more money, makes better products, and provides a better customer experience than being discriminatory. What's the "lie?"

Well, several large organizations have already announced they're suspending or canceling business events in Indiana, so I don't think the economic argument is deceptive. Obviously, Cook's expressing a predictive opinion rather than a fact, but one that seems pretty well grounded in reality to me.

How do you define "morality"? The folks backing this new law are basing it on their morals as well.

> How do you define "morality"?

As we are all adults here and know where to find definitions of words, I suppose you want to ask "on what principles do you ground your morality?" and then "on what things do you ground these principles?"

There is no good answer to that.

Kantian ethics say you ground morality on a "test": "if I cannot want all other people to do what I consider doing, it is wrong, I shouldn't do it". It works not so bad but has issues.

Utilitarianism say: "I should do it only if the overall sum of happiness will not decrease". This has even bigger issues, the lest of which is that you will be allowed to pee in the neighbour's flowers at night.

For me, morality is grounded on principles, which are not grounded on anything, and do not need to be.

Two points:

First, that was just one small part of the article. The rest talks in broad terms about equality, justice and fairness as to why the "religious freedom" laws should be opposed.

Second, when you say "No-one knows if a decision to discriminate is good or wrong for the economy", that's incorrect. Just Google something along the lines of "economic argument for diversity" and you'll get some good research. Here is one literature review: http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/other/the-business-case...

Truth is it will hurt some jobs, and possibly help others, but you're correct in that the reasons for opposing this (or supporting it, even) shouldn't be reduced to dollars and cents.

>I'm European and I consider this disagreement one of the most salient difference between US and Europe: we consider morality and justice above and unrelated to economy

As a European, I agree. And we also consider justice above and non necessarily related to law.

I think most Americans would agree with you.

I doubt all Europeans are as sanctimonious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com