General Versus Special Theories of Discrimination
Abstract In this paper, I consider two arguments in favor of normative accounts of discrimination that are general – namely, consider all of the moral reasons and hold that the content of these reasons is in no way unique to discrimination – and against special accounts – ones that highlight only so...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2021
|
| In: |
Journal of moral philosophy
Year: 2021, Volume: 18, Issue: 3, Pages: 265-298 |
| Further subjects: | B
Discrimination
B Priority B Wellbeing B Reasons B Desert |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Abstract In this paper, I consider two arguments in favor of normative accounts of discrimination that are general – namely, consider all of the moral reasons and hold that the content of these reasons is in no way unique to discrimination – and against special accounts – ones that highlight only some of the pertinent factors, while focusing on those that are special to discrimination in some way. The dilemma argument holds that special accounts are unhelpful if they do not entail conclusions regarding the overall moral status of discrimination and implausible if they do. The parsimony argument holds that special accounts are plausible only to the degree to which they are derived from general ones. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5243 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of moral philosophy
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/17455243-20203273 |