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
    Employers are legally prohibited from making hiring decis... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Employers are legally prohibited from making hiring decisions based on statistical generalizations about protected groups, even when those generalizations are statistically sound.

    Rights & Liberty
    ?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 treatment doctrine in U.S. employment law forbids statistical discrimination against members of protected groups.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An employer using group-level statistical evidence (e.g., that women or blacks are more prone to absenteeism) to restrict hiring to other groups constitutes statistical discrimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The law requires hiring decisions to be based on particular evidence about individual candidates, not statistical generalizations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Statistical discrimination can be epistemically rational: Phelps (1972) shows group data is legitimate evidence when individual signals are noisy or costly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A prohibition on epistemically rational inference violates the employer's liberty to act on best available evidence, not merely on animus or prejudice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Laws that forbid accurate statistical reasoning conflate discriminatory intent with actuarially sound decision-making, undermining the moral coherence of anti-discrimination doctrine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dworkin's distinction between personal and external preferences implies anti-discrimination law should target malicious disregard for persons, not neutral probabilistic reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the statistical generalization is causally traceable to prior structural injustice, the wrong lies in the structural conditions, not the employer's inference from them—Lippert-Rasmussen's causal argument.
      ?

      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

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Related

    A prohibition on epistemically rational inference violates the employer's libert...An employer using group-level statistical evidence (e.g., that women or blacks a...Disparate treatment doctrine in U.S. employment law forbids statistical discrimi...Dworkin's distinction between personal and external preferences implies anti-dis...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the statistical generalization is causally traceable to prior structural inju...Laws that forbid accurate statistical reasoning conflate discriminatory intent w...Statistical discrimination can be epistemically rational: Phelps (1972) shows gr...The law requires hiring decisions to be based on particular evidence about indiv...

    Similar

    Disparate treatment of protected groups in hiring decisions is forbidd...86%The law requires hiring decisions to be based on particular evidence a...82%Disparate treatment doctrine in U.S. employment law forbids statistica...80%An employer using group-level statistical evidence (e.g., that women o...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: equal-opportunity
    View source passageHide passage
    The disparate treatment of U.S. employment law forbids statistical discrimination against members of protected groups. For example, an employer might consider being prone to absenteeism a decisive disqualification for a particular job, and have sound statistical evidence that women (who might have caretaking responsibilities that prevent them from coming to work) and blacks (who must rely on unreliable public transportation to arrive at the work site) are more likely than white and Hispanic male
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit