I never make any of those assumptions (notice how you have to quote sentence fragmets and even single words to set up your stra man...)
What I assume is that not all humans are perfectly rational individuals whose only goal is profit maximization. And thatwe cannot see peoples souls, so we need laws that err in the side of caution.
I also assume that homo economicus is explicitly disincentivized from reasoning about feedback effects and historical context, which are two things many actual homo sapiens care about (for obvious reasons).
E.g., disregarding feedback loops and the long arc of history, ie in a vaccuum, supporting racialized slavery is perfectly rational for non-enslaved people interested in profit maximization. Cinsider also a completely not raciat loan lender with vested interest in high property values who knows dark skinned people lower property values. Even if the data scientist is perfectly unbiased, bias and hatred in the underlying population can result in data driven, profit motivated decisions that harm marginal groups. The fact that this really actually happened en masse is WHY we have these laws...
Regarding the latter point, you are effectively dismissing all non-consequtialist ethics and associated legal traditions as "gut feelings". I submit that these gut feelings play an important role in human societies made up of irrational people. In fact, they are even important in societies with perfectly rational people who are not super reasoners with perfect forsight.
What I assume is that not all humans are perfectly rational individuals whose only goal is profit maximization. And thatwe cannot see peoples souls, so we need laws that err in the side of caution.
I also assume that homo economicus is explicitly disincentivized from reasoning about feedback effects and historical context, which are two things many actual homo sapiens care about (for obvious reasons).
E.g., disregarding feedback loops and the long arc of history, ie in a vaccuum, supporting racialized slavery is perfectly rational for non-enslaved people interested in profit maximization. Cinsider also a completely not raciat loan lender with vested interest in high property values who knows dark skinned people lower property values. Even if the data scientist is perfectly unbiased, bias and hatred in the underlying population can result in data driven, profit motivated decisions that harm marginal groups. The fact that this really actually happened en masse is WHY we have these laws...
Regarding the latter point, you are effectively dismissing all non-consequtialist ethics and associated legal traditions as "gut feelings". I submit that these gut feelings play an important role in human societies made up of irrational people. In fact, they are even important in societies with perfectly rational people who are not super reasoners with perfect forsight.