> It is ethically imperative to aim to eliminate disparities and social inequalities between races, even if, and this is what is usually left unsaid, judgments

> It is ethically imperative to aim to eliminate disparities and social inequalities between races, even if, and this is what is usually left unsaid, judgments become less accurate in the process. Why? Why is it 'imperative' to be wrong? > Facts becoming common knowledge can harm people, even if they are true. Well, they can harm people who, statistically speaking, are more likely to be bad. If anything, I see accurate statistical profiling being helpful to black folks. Right now, based on FBI arrest data, a random black man is 6.2 times as likely to be a murderer as a random white man; a good statistical profiling algorithm would be able to look at an individual black man and see that he's actually a married, college-educated middle-class recent immigrant from Africa, who lives in a low-crime area — and say that he's less likely than a random white man to be a murderer. Perhaps it could even look at an individual black man, the son of a single mother from the projects, and see that he's actually not like others whom those phrases would describe, because of other factors the algorithm takes into account. > If you accept that government should want to avoid a segregated society, where some groups of people form a permanent underclass, you should avoid any algorithm that results in an increased differential arrest rate for those groups, even if that arrest rate is warranted by actual crimes committed. That statement implies that we should avoid the algorithm 'arrest anyone who has committed a crime, and no-one else,' because that algorithm will necessarily result in increased differential arrest rates. On the contrary, I think that algorithm is obviously ideal, and thus any heuristic which leads to rejecting it should itself be rejected.