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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that 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.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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