3 ms·

That's fine. You seem to have figured out your ethics. But for those folks here who don't view this situation similarly, I think the airline example is also a

That's fine. You seem to have figured out your ethics. But for those folks here who don't view this situation similarly, I think the airline example is also a tricky case. I certainly have no good answer.

snovv_crash 10y ago
It isn't ethics or your thinly veiled accusations of racism, it is cultural differences. Asian cultures typically have a strong heirarchy, with respect being given to those to whom a debt is owed. Black culture in the US, for various valid reasons involving armed struggle and persecution, has developed a strong "stick it to The Man" mentality. Given these differences, repayment rates being higher for those who are culturally asian makes perfect sense. Thinking that attitudes towards authority don't bleed through into behaviour for things like debt repayment is naïve.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I'm saying simply that a consistent, principled ethical system which allows height discrimination also seems to allow race or sex discrimination. So if you reject the latter, it seems like you should also reject the former (or perhaps provide some more detailed explanation of your ethical system). My only point here is "X seems to go with Y, but Y seems problematic so maybe X is too? Lets think carefully." The particular theory you bring up doesn't change this. According to you, "black" -> "stick it to the man mentality" -> "not pay back loan". That doesn't answer the ethical question of "is it acceptable to make fewer loans to blacks on the basis of black -> {whatever, doesn't really matter} -> default?" This is more or less analogous to "is it acceptable to charge more to tall people because tall -> {whatever} -> bad thing?" Maybe there is some clear and relevant distinction to be drawn. If so, what is it? I.e., what's the ethical principle, and how does it distinguish between these two cases?
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    That's what we have "protected classes" for. It makes it illegal to discriminate on things which might otherwise give an imagined, or real, business advantage.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I'm aware. If you take these classes as axiomatic (the la does), then you can derive these conclusions. But that is unsatisfying - why one class and not another? There are 2^#humans possible classes, why these 5?
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        Because the discrimination against them was pervasive enough that it was deemed necessary. Put it this way: is it fair that young people pay higher car insurance? They can't help being young. But, statistically, they are much more likely to get in an accident. Is it fair to discriminate against 18yr old George who is the breadwinner for his 6 month old kid and wife who is looking after her, because college frats like to drink and drive? Well, according to the insurance company, yes, because age and sex (especially combined) is one of the best indicators for requiring a payout. So, we say that age is fine. And race isn't. I think we agree on that. But that doesn't change the fact that a bank which had a racist policy could charge lower interest rates to asians, and thus offload more risky clients onto other banks.

snovv_crash 10y ago

It isn't ethics or your thinly veiled accusations of racism, it is cultural differences. Asian cultures typically have a strong heirarchy, with respect being given to those to whom a debt is owed. Black culture in the US, for various valid reasons involving armed struggle and persecution, has developed a strong "stick it to The Man" mentality. Given these differences, repayment rates being higher for those who are culturally asian makes perfect sense. Thinking that attitudes towards authority don't bleed through into behaviour for things like debt repayment is naïve.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm not accusing anyone of racism. I'm saying simply that a consistent, principled ethical system which allows height discrimination also seems to allow race or sex discrimination. So if you reject the latter, it seems like you should also reject the former (or perhaps provide some more detailed explanation of your ethical system). My only point here is "X seems to go with Y, but Y seems problematic so maybe X is too? Lets think carefully." The particular theory you bring up doesn't change this. According to you, "black" -> "stick it to the man mentality" -> "not pay back loan". That doesn't answer the ethical question of "is it acceptable to make fewer loans to blacks on the basis of black -> {whatever, doesn't really matter} -> default?" This is more or less analogous to "is it acceptable to charge more to tall people because tall -> {whatever} -> bad thing?" Maybe there is some clear and relevant distinction to be drawn. If so, what is it? I.e., what's the ethical principle, and how does it distinguish between these two cases?
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  That's what we have "protected classes" for. It makes it illegal to discriminate on things which might otherwise give an imagined, or real, business advantage.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm aware. If you take these classes as axiomatic (the la does), then you can derive these conclusions. But that is unsatisfying - why one class and not another? There are 2^#humans possible classes, why these 5?
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      Because the discrimination against them was pervasive enough that it was deemed necessary. Put it this way: is it fair that young people pay higher car insurance? They can't help being young. But, statistically, they are much more likely to get in an accident. Is it fair to discriminate against 18yr old George who is the breadwinner for his 6 month old kid and wife who is looking after her, because college frats like to drink and drive? Well, according to the insurance company, yes, because age and sex (especially combined) is one of the best indicators for requiring a payout. So, we say that age is fine. And race isn't. I think we agree on that. But that doesn't change the fact that a bank which had a racist policy could charge lower interest rates to asians, and thus offload more risky clients onto other banks.