I'm sure. But as the potential partner of such a person, wouldn't it be wise to give a pass to someone with a blot on their record? Especially if there is no lack of candidates for the position or partner? Clearly that would improve their odds of finding an acceptable mate.
This sounds similar to the argument that you should avoid black people because they are more likely to be criminals; clearly that would improve your odds of finding an acceptable mate.
> its advantageous to dismiss candidates with any defect or suspected defect
I agree; the problem is just that the society (and laws) judges different cases of discrimination completely differently, even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous.
>even though the underlying mathematical principles are the same. Don't hire a man because he could be a rapist? OK. Don't hire a woman because she might give birth? Outrageous.
Yeah, one is not hiring someone who forces and hurts people for his sexual pleasure, the other is not hiring someone giving birth, something we celebrate, and helps human society continue existing.
I don't even know what "the underlying mathematical principles are the same" is supposed to mean, when the ethical differences are so vast. That there might be same chance of him being a rapist to her giving birth? How is that even relevant?
Oh for goodness sake. The point was, as an employer or potential partner, you want someone who will be effective in that role. Whilst being distracted would be a negative, regardless of the reason for that distraction. Not a moral argument; a statistical one as stated - avoid anyone with any chance of distraction is a valid game-theory strategy.
>Oh for goodness sake. The point was, as an employer or potential partner, you want someone who will be effective in that role.
That's how I understood it too.
I was pointing to the inhumanity of treating people as mere means to an end ("not effective") especially in the case of pregnant women (which translates to women should either not get pregnant because its bad for business or be unemployable when they consider to do so).
You say it's just a "statistical argument". That's what I responded to, too: that's it's not OK - at least to me - to do mere statistical arguments when moral judgements are involved. Or rather, it's ok to do them as science, but this is not that, this is how actual managers and employers think and treat employees.
An overly narrow view. A predictably potential rapist who was subsequently convicted would become permanently unavailable and and could bring down a huge liability on an employer. An employee who gives birth (or who becomes a father) is engaging in normal human activity; you treat that the same way you treat any other indisposition like an unexpected health condition, and hedge against it.
Really, ask yourself how you'd feel if a prospective employer or business partner said 'Joe, what assurance can you give me that you're not going to knock your wife up and go all googly-eyed over some squalling infant a year from now? Can you commit to tying a knot in it?'
Statistically, there are equally-qualified candidates with none of these problems. A moral-free algorithm would surely choose young unmarried technologists over any other kind. I'll repeat: the trouble with discrimination is, it works so well.
