The act of distinguishing one object from another Wrongful discrimination - distinguishing among people on the basis of prejudice instead of individual merit

» It must be a decision not based on individual merit » The decision must derive from racial or sexual prejudice » The decision must have a harmful impact on the interest of employees

» Intentional discrimination by individual: » A single individual intentionally discriminates based on personal prejudice » Unintentional discrimination by individual: » Isolated behavior of a single individual who unintentionally discriminates because he or she uncritically دون تمحيص adopts the practices and stereotypes of his or her society

» Institutionalized intentional discrimination: » Routine, institutionalized behavior of a group, based on policy. » Institutionalized unintentional discrimination: » Systematic routine of a group that unintentionally discriminates because group members uncritically incorporate the discriminatory practices of society.

IntentionalUnintentional Isolated a single individual deliberately بتعمد discriminates on the basis of personal prejudices. a single individual unwittingly discriminates due to their unthinking acceptance of prevalent practices, stereotypes and attitudes. Institutio nal routine behaviour of an institutionalized group deliberately discriminates on the basis of the prejudices of the group routine behaviour of an institutionalized group unwittingly discriminates due to institutionalized practice, stereotypes, attitudes, or corporate culture

» An indication of discrimination – a disproportionate number of a certain group's members hold less desirable positions despite their preferences and abilities.

» Comparisons of average benefits given to various groups » Comparisons of the proportion of a group found in the lowest levels of the institution » Comparisons of the proportion of a group found in the most advantageous positions in the institution

» Definition: +"to decide adversely against members of a certain class because of a morally unjustified prejudice against members of that class." (Velasquez)

» Victims of discrimination: religious groups; ethnic groups; racial groups; sexual groups » Difficulty: » it's generally impossible to know (or show) that a particular individual was discriminated against.

Many randomizing factors enter into who wins out in hiring and promotion decisions: » who the competitors were » quirks of the interviewer: - maybe it was your haircut or tie - or their personality clashed (with you) or meshed (with some competitor)

-Generally impossible to tell for a given individual whether their loss of the job, raise, or promotion was due to systematic discrimination or random factors. -It's only possible to detect systematic discrimination en masse by looking at statistical measures of what happens to groups in hiring, compensation, and promotion.

» Prima المغنية الأولى في الأوبرا facie evidence of discrimination: -comparison of average benefits provided between groups within the institution -comparison of occupants شاغلي of lowest levels between groups -comparison of occupants of highest positions between groups

» sexual and racial and discrimination is present in American society as a whole (less in Canada) » for some segments of the population discrimination is not as intense as it once was: +young college-educated black males +females +Asians

Historical violations of justice underlie present disadvantaged status of women and minorities in the U.S. and in Canada Examples: ˃African-Americans +brought to country as slaves: bought & sold & treated like cattle +were not recognized as people – had no legal powers: no rights to their bodies or their labor – deemed to be "beings... so far inferior that they had no right's that the white man was bound to respect" (Dred Scott v. Sanford: 1857)

˃Women: through much of the 19th century +could not vote, hold office, serve on juries, or bring suit in their own name +once married, could not hold property in their own names +deemed by the Supreme Court to have "no legal existence apart from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state" (in U.S. as well as in Canada)

» Utilitarian argument: Discrimination (in employment) is wrong because it is inefficient. 1.Social productivity is optimized to the extent that jobs are awarded on the basis of competency or "merit": this best promotes the general welfare. 2. Different tasks require different skills, knowledge, and temperaments. 3.Maximal efficiency will be achieved by assigning to these tasks the people who most possess the skills knowledge, and temperaments the jobs require. 4.Selection on grounds other than merit will cause productivity to decline. 5.Race, sex, & religion (among other things), being generally unrelated to job performance, have nothing to do with merit. 6.So, assignment of tasks on these other bases -- i.e., discrimination in employment -- is inefficient. 7.Hence, wrong

» Liberal Objection: -There’s more to the general welfare than economic efficiency -Racial or sexual discrimination might better promote the general welfare in some cases and may be warranted in those cases where other factors outweigh economic efficiency. -Perhaps assignment on basis of need would be advantageous -- a kind of economic affirmative action.

Need is a normative concept- in order to recognize the existence of a need we have to have some kind of a norm, or a standard in accordance to which we can measure the need. Three conditions have to be present for the need to exist. Each one is necessary and together they are sufficient: a)For a need to exist, one has to lack something or being able to anticipate a lack in something (a particular object Φ) b)in order to acknowledge one’s need in Φ, one has to have a norm, or a standard, in accordance with which one can measure the desired amount of Φ or a number of Φ’s. c)the means to achieve the norm, that is, to fulfill the need, have to be relevant to the particular need.

» Diminishing returns on enrichment: $10,000 to me vs. Bill Gates: goods are most beneficial to those most in need of them. » Perhaps assignment on basis of race or sex could be advantageous: loss of productivity outweighed by benefits of diverse workplaces, where citizens of all stripes interact & are culturally enriched.

» Division of labor on sexual lines best promotes the general welfare: » Traditional sex roles actually assign tasks most crucial to the general welfare most efficiently » Tasks of childcare & homemaking assigned to women, who are by nature and nurture most suited to these tasks; being more nurturing, sensitive, & emotional. (stereotypical thinking) » Tasks of exercising authority & control over business matters and money are best assigned to men, who are by nature most suited to these tasks; being aggressive, competitive, & rational. (stereotypical thinking)

» Kantian argument: Discrimination is wrong because it violates a person's basic moral rights. » Every individual has a right to be treated as an "end" not merely as a "means". » Discrimination treats people as means to whatever ends the discrimination is supposed to serve, and not as ends.

Bad Old Fashioned Discrimination (BOFD):  To keep the negroes/women “in their place”  To prevent “race –mixing” and “mongrelization”  To preserve the “sanctity of the home”

Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination  To achieve diverse workplaces  To compensate the disadvantaged Group Exercise: a) Would Kant disagree with both types of reasons for discrimination? b) Do you find Affirmative Action justified? Why or why not?

» Rawls’ Argument from the Difference Principle: 1. The Principle of Equal Opportunity (The Difference Principle) is a fundamental principle of distributive justice. 2. The Difference Principle is a principle that everyone would choose from "behind the veil of ignorance“. 3. The DP states: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. 4. Discrimination violates this principle. 5. Discrimination is unjust.

Argument from the first principle of justice 1.The First Principle of Justice: Individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to the kind of treatment in question should be treated equally. 2.Discrimination violates this principle: race & gender are generally irrelevant to job performance. 3.Conclusion: Discrimination is unjust.

» Businesses have strong reasons for accommodating استيعاب women and minorities in the workplace from a self-interested business perspective. – Prudential reasons. » Businesses have strong reasons not to discriminate against individuals from societal reasons of the greater good. – Utilitarian reasons. » Businesses have the duty not to discriminate against individuals. – Deontological reasons.