Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A law such as a disparate impact requirement can both adv... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The contrast between laws that advance public policy aims and laws that prohibit wrongful conduct is ill drawn.

    A law such as a disparate impact requirement can both advance a public policy aim (affirmative action) and constitute a justified basis for calling non-compliance wrongful.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The contrast between laws that advance public policy aims and laws that prohibit...Violation of a justified law is wrongful even when the underlying conduct is not...

    Similar

    The affirmative action goals promoted by disparate impact laws are wor...84%Disparate impact is a reasonably effective means of advancing those af...77%Disparate impact laws require employers to choose, among equally effec...77%Bearing an unequal burden due to a race-conscious policy is not catego...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: equal-opportunity
    View source passageHide passage
    However, the contrast between laws that aim to advance a public policy aim and laws that aim to prohibit or restrict wrongful conduct may be ill drawn. Suppose that disparate impact laws amount to a mild form of affirmative action. The law requires that if an employer can choose among several alternative employment practices, all roughly equally effective in advancing her business aims, she must choose the one that does the most to advance the hiring and promotion of members of protected and und

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective