preference vs discrimination
 

A friend of mine posed the "When does personal preference become discrimination?" And I was stuck. I know that at some point preference becomes discrimination in it's more "socially accepted" definition, but I also feel like preference IS discrimination, only it has the benefit of experience while discrimination needs none.

I prefer to be around funny and interesting people does that mean that I am discriminate against boring, angry and uninteresting people?
I prefer to never have to eat a banana, and I throw out any bananas that come my way - after stepping on them until they become baby food - am I discriminating against them?

My questions: Do you believe that personal preference only becomes discrimination when it deals with people (as is my understanding from the definitions) or is there more to it? Can discrimination exist if there are no "unjust" treatment? Can preference indeed have "prejudicial" aspect to it?

*I hope I am posting this in the right spot. I had a hard time choosing between "philosophy" and "life."

Interesting question.

Maybe think about it this way, because I guess it's how I think about it. Preference is how you guide your private life: you associate with the people whose company you prefer. Nondiscrimination is how you conduct yourself in your public or business life, at the office, in the store, out on the street. You can't be forced to be friends with people you find repulsive, but you can't demand that they not share the sidewalk with you.

yep - i think discrimination is when my preferences start to infringe upon their rights.

Preference, like or dislike.

Discriminate, unjust treatment.

They shouldn't overlap, but the more I think about it, they do.

I think what happens is that a preference can serve as a guise for discrimination. Very sad.

Let's say a black man is dating a white woman. His mother had always commented that he should marry a woman of "his own kind". "She'll understand you better". That qualifies the comment as preference, right?

When the white woman is invited to meet his mother, she says, "I hope you're not planning to marry him because he will marry a black woman." That's discrimination.

Please do correct me if there's flaw in this logic. I so wanted it not to be so, but even the "preference" rings of discrimination.

Hmmmm. Very interesting.

Yes, by definition discrimination can exist without unjust treatment. Preference is one's choice made through their discrimination, or thinking, about the world (2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another). However, if we are talking about human beings then it becomes more complicated and specialized because there are those that are cannibals and will eat their own. That is why we have nondiscriminatory laws. I think it is really a shame that we need them, but we all have people who worked hard and sometimes lost their lives to get them in place. I would like to see them strengthened and enforced. Even more I would like people to become more educated on why it benefits them to work and live together, to pay it forward. Go unions! Zapatista Baby

Let's say there are three people who applied to a receptionist job at my company. One is a 20-year old guy with experience, the second is a 20-year old cute girl with very little experience, and another is a 50-year old woman who is a pro. Which one do I want to work with everyday? Would my answer to that question mean that I am discriminating?

I just hired the 50+ year old pro myself.

Depends on your answer, since employment should be based on qualifications. I don't think beauty or "cute"-ness, as you say, figures into the physical requirement. Clean and well-dressed pretty much assures you even the "older" woman (who may have been cute, too, BTW) will be reasonably attractive. Besides, she'd handle things much more professionally and, depending on the type of business, that would be more important than the cute factor.

Why wouldn't you want to work with a male or an over 50 woman anyway?

In my mind, both of these examples are preference. If the mother said, "If you marry him [none] of you will be in the will." or something, that would cause them harm - then it becomes discrimination.

Now, telling a white woman you will not date her because she is white - is that an example of your preference becoming discrimination? She may feel that you are causing her unjust harm - or judging her without all the information. Is that interfering with her rights?

I think the only way preference could not become discrimination is if all three had the SAME skills. And that type of situation - where everyone is on the same level - happens very rarely. Because while you call it preference, someone can call it discrimination, which, I think, makes the line between two even more blurred.

This conversation came up because a friend was talking to a "co-worker" would prefers not to work with gay people who have AIDS. However, she was not asking the people she was working with if they were 1) gay or if 2) they had AIDS. She was making these decisions based on how the person looked. Now right off, we will all have a problem with her basing this on looks (reminds me of racism), but that's not the point. The point is that she "preferred" not to work with this group of people to the point of refusal - and she would not call this discrimination AT ALL. This is how we started the discussion of the differences between the two.

Non-discriminatory laws cannot be made. My preference would be to be non-discriminatory, but I don't think it's wise or possible. One must discriminate to survive; the ability to exercise preference comes after.
If I refused to acknowledge I'd fallen off a cliff, would my wings grow?
IJUHP. Love thy neighbor and respect their preferences until they harm, then discriminate at will.

Are you not dating her because she is white (discrimination) or because you are not attracted to white women (preference) imo

I hire the brain, not the crotch. Rumor has it that organ gets work done quicker.

Your answer might say you're a horny bastard, but it wouldn't be discrimination. Sometimes companies need youth over skill to maintain image.

Public interaction functions (customer service) is mostly image, but having a nice personality helps, too. Is the most experienced person the most friendly?

Discrimination in the positive deontation does not speak to a ranking of one over the other, per se.

One could discriminate between types of wine or authors\' writing styles without expressing a preference.

One must have discriminated to form a preference, however.

If there were no difference, there could be no favored choice...

Time for some Stephen Lynch lyrics:

Have a seat and listen, please don't say a thing
In matters of the heart sometimes, the truth will have a sting
Just don't take it personally, this is no attack
But we will never last because I am white and you are...also white

I only like black girls and brown girls, the café au lait
Caramel girls, and mocha girls just blow me away
If your a nubian, I want you to-be in every fantasy
But if you're a whitey, say nighty-nighty, your just not the girl for me

Oh I hate vanilla ice cream, I like chocolate instead
I hope she likes her soul food with a little Wonder Bread
Don't call it Jungle Fever cause that just isn't right
I am not a racist, some of my best friends are white

I just prefer black girls, the brown girls, the café au lait
Caramel girls and mocha girls just blow me away. If you're a cracker, you better get blacker or else you best get out
It is no mystery, I like a sister see that's what I'm talkin about

Our wedding song will be "Ebony and Ivory", and we'll sing Christmas carols round the old Kwanza tree
But color is not the issue here, it's dignity, it's class
It's all about her heart, okay it's partly about that ass
I want me some black girl, the brown girl, the café au lait
Caramel girls, and mocha girls, just blow me away
If you're a honkey, you're singin the wrong key, it's the honest truth
The skin that she's dwellin in, must contain melanin, that is the Fountain of Youth.

But seriously if you date who you're attracted to I don't see a problem. If you base who you are attracted to because you have negative or stereotypical feelings that's a completely different thing.

Discrimination could simply incur negative intent. Preference is what you prefer, there may be no negative repercussions to the world around you. discrimination is almost always denying somebody of something they desire or maybe even have a right to.

That makes sense, but it means that discrimination does not always cause harm - unless you think that by not dating her the white lady is being harmed.

That's interesting. I was thinking that a preference is what becomes a form of discrimination. This is because I think that to have a preference you need to have some type of experience with whatever it is you prefer. However, if you get no experience, but still prefer it, it becomes discrimination. From what I know, people who discriminate do so because they have no real knowledge or experience with a situation, and once they get the experience they see that they discrimination had no base, but decided to keep it as a preference.

but isn't preference discrimination by definition? Aren't the two, in the strict sense, simply synonyms?

Discrimination simply means the ability to choose one over another. Per se, how is that a bad thing. It only is bad if it is used to hurt someone, as in racial or sexual discrimination.

Miss Mango offers an interesting perspective. One must have discriminated to form a preference.

When all colors are available to me, why would I choose purple over green? I made a conscious decision to prefer one over the other, based on a prejudice which would be based on my experience, or a discriminatory practice.

I don't necessarily agree about harm being a prerequisite for discrimination. If I choose green over purple because of impressions I've formed, how am I hurting the other?

From my point of view Preference and Discrimination are almost opposites because the way i see it you prefer something for its qualities u dont neccesarily hate the other options for their qualities which is what i determine to be discrimination u just simply like that other thing better than the other thats not really discrimination from my point of view because otherwise everytime anyone made any decision they'd be discrimnating against the other possible options.

Hang on Hang on...are we talking discrimination, as in the preliminary process used to make distinctions, or we talking discrimination in its more common/policy oriented definition, generally understood to mean favoring/disfavoring one race/sex/whatever group over others for reasons that are essentially tribal in nature? Because I think that makes a huge difference in how you answer this question. I assumed we were talking social policy - if we're talking about the academic process of making choices, then that's a whole different enchilada.

It seems to me that discrimination, as the word is currently used in America, at least, is a legal category involving the infringement of people's rights or the withholding of their opportunities based solely upon either integral characteristics (skin color, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation) or upon those matters of personal choice which we have declared constitutionally protected, such as religion or political affiliation.

There is also a difference between discrimination (which is an action) and prejudice (which are opinions). America's a free country: you can be an asshole if you want to. If I were a racist, for example, there's nothing preventing me from joining some creepy group of white fascists to sit around and call people names and trade racist jokes and stuff. But as soon as I don't hire someone at my business because he's a Jew, or I have security follow him around my store because he's black, that's discrimination.

Preference, by comparison, is not prejudice (which is a baseless hatred), nor is it an action like discrimination. My preference is not to eat cucumbers. The reason for this is that I do not enjoy the taste or texture of cucumber. I don't care if others eat them, and if you love them, I will not think less of you. Also, on certain social occasions, when I have been served cucumber, and it would have been quite rude to refuse it, I have eaten it, and have not resented the fact.

To put it another way, if I am faced with hiring an assistant, and my choices have come down to two candidates, both of whom are women of roughly equal experience and ability, if one is Indian-American and one is Irish-American, and I hire the Irish-American one because she's white and I don't like immigrants, that is discrimination. On the other hand, if one is outgoing, pretty, and witty, but the other is morose, plain, and dull, and I choose the first one because she'd be more fun to work with, that's preference.

So if its based on race is discrimination but if its based on attractiveness is preference?

Both are based on characteristics which are for most people unchangable.

One guy says, I don't like Indians, the other says I don't like ugly boring people. Both should be equally good at doing the job, and both of the people hiring discriminated.

The issue to me is not which is being discriminatory, they both are and for the 'victim' both will be out of a job. The issue is what are we still allowed to discriminate against.

If attractiveness was the only quality in dispute, then it would also be discrimination. But as far as I know, the courts so far have refused to state that employers have no right to consider professional "chemistry" in hiring practices. In the example I gave, the attractiveness factor in my mind was secondary; perhaps instead of cute/plain I should have worded it in terms of attentive to appearance or not. In other words, trying to describe someone who is energetic and fun to be with versus someone who isn't. If the decision to hire someone comes down to two people of equal ability and experience, as far as I know, the employer is permitted, under the current understanding of anti-discrimination laws, to make the decision based on who he feels will contribute best to a positive working environment.

In any situation where two people compete, one will win and one won't. That doesn't have to mean that the loser is discriminated against, it can also just mean that the employer didn't think that the potential employee was a good fit.

Discrimination can sometimes be a fine line, nobody's saying otherwise.

...obviously the question pertains to exactly "who" the judge is...

Personal likes/dislikes vs. Social likes/dislikes -

The first is relative only to your individual view (you're the judge) and the latter is judged by prevailing social norms...

In a nutshell - there is no problem with your personal belief system so long as it doesn't conflict with the larger social/collective belief system.

A necessary distinction to ensure human social interaction and harmony...both are equally subjective in my opinion...

Preference is a disposition.
Discrimination is an action.

When all else fails, pull the semantics card.

Technically .. yes



Beat me to it :P