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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    An employer who fails to choose the employment practice t... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An employer who fails to choose the employment practice that most advances hiring of protected groups does wrong by not cooperating in a justified social justice initiative.

    Justice & PunishmentMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Disparate impact laws require employers to choose, among equally effective alternatives, the practice that most advances hiring and promotion of protected and under-represented groups.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The affirmative action goals promoted by disparate impact laws are worthwhile.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disparate impact is a reasonably effective means of advancing those affirmative action goals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Disparate impact liability compels employers to use race-conscious selection, which Ricci v. DeStefano and its critics argue itself violates anti-discrimination norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An employer cannot 'do wrong' by refusing to comply with a legal mandate that is itself constitutionally and morally contested on equal protection grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A law whose compliance requires discriminating against non-protected individuals lacks the moral legitimacy needed to generate a duty of cooperation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian justice requires that institutional duties fall on institutions, not individual private employers acting as proximate agents of social redistribution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mandating that employers bear corrective burdens for historical injustices they did not cause violates the Kantian principle that persons may not be used merely as means to social ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, failing to maximize hiring of protected groups constitutes no personal moral wrong, even if broader structural reform remains justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityJustice & Punishment

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty3 linkedConsequentialism2 linked

    Related

    A law whose compliance requires discriminating against non-protected individuals...An employer cannot 'do wrong' by refusing to comply with a legal mandate that is...Disparate impact is a reasonably effective means of advancing those affirmative ...Disparate impact laws require employers to choose, among equally effective alter...
    +6 moreShow less
    Disparate impact liability compels employers to use race-conscious selection, wh...Mandating that employers bear corrective burdens for historical injustices they ...Rawlsian justice requires that institutional duties fall on institutions, not in...

    Similar

    Disparate treatment of protected groups in hiring decisions is forbidd...77%Merely preventing discrimination in education and hiring does not ensu...76%Disparate treatment doctrine in U.S. employment law forbids statistica...71%Workers who accept employment under conditions that are not truly volu...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The affirmative action goals promoted by disparate impact laws are worthwhile.
    Therefore, failing to maximize hiring of protected groups constitutes no persona...
    Violating a justified law is wrongful even if the conduct is not independently i...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit