Q&A: Generalization and Irrelevance as Moral Reasons Against Discrimination
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Generalization and Irrelevance as Moral Reasons Against Discrimination
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Two questions following your lecture on discrimination that came up on YouTube:
- You argued that treating a member of a certain group differently, on the basis of an average group characteristic, is objectionable because that person deserves to be treated individually. My question is: why? Is there an obligation to give every single person individual treatment in every situation? For that matter, even eligibility tests for National Insurance allowances are based on average data and not on individual treatment. It could be that because of this, many unfortunate people don’t receive money even though, in light of the policy’s purpose, they deserve it. Is that objectionable? Do you oppose increased security screening for Arabs at Ben-Gurion Airport?
- Another claim you raised is that treating a member of a certain group differently, on the basis of some group characteristic that is not relevant, is objectionable. First of all, the question arises: relevant to what? Suppose there is a person who does not want to admit members of group X into his club because they simply ruin his mood. Can one say that this is not relevant? Even if we define “irrelevance” simply as “irrationality,” it is still not clear that this is a good criterion. Suppose a business owner decides not to hire an employee only because he has blue eyes, which he doesn’t like. Is that morally wrong? People decide all the time to do irrational things with their money/property, even in cases where it harms others.
Answer
- You’re mixing up levels. Tests are always based on average characteristics, but their application is individual. When I come to determine whether a certain person deserves an allowance, the criteria that determine this will be according to average characteristics, but the examination will be done on him, not on the population he comes from. No one will give an allowance to someone from a development town just because he comes from there, nor deny an allowance to someone who lives in an upscale neighborhood. They will ask him for indications of his own situation. As for security screening, I said it there. You heard what I said, didn’t you? So why are you asking?
- If it’s his own club, then it’s legitimate. But in a public club there will be less subjective criteria. The fact that there are gray areas, and obviously there are, does not mean that it’s impossible to establish such a value. It has nothing to do with rationality. Do whatever you want, rational or not, but don’t arbitrarily hurt someone else.