Re: Its The General Principle
[ QUOTE ]
The question is whether a hidden negative, usually hidden attribute of a small percentage of a class of people should be taken into account in situations where the person can't prove they don't have that attribute.
[/ QUOTE ]
No it shouldn't. How exactly is Hillary Clinton, for example, supposed to prove she doesn't have raging PMS?
We could either hold the fact that she "might" have PMS against her (since some other women do), or we can judge her on her own merits, by her previous actions as a senator/first lady etc. If I decide Hillary has been an effective senator then I'm going to assume PMS hasn't been an impediment to her.
This seems like a very ethically shaky use of probability to me, as it penalizes people for belonging to a certain group unless they can "prove" they're ok. How is this different than denying a house to a black family because blacks are statistically more likely to commit a crime?
|