Mitigating discrimination

K. Lippert‐Rasmussen
{"title":"Mitigating discrimination","authors":"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 3 explores the anti-discrimination justification for affirmative action, i.e., the argument that affirmative action is justified as a means of eliminating discrimination or, less ambitiously, neutralizing the negative effects of discrimination on discriminatees. It shows why this argument amounts to a strong argument in favor of affirmative action even on the assumption that discrimination is not unjust per se. It also offers some general reasons why affirmative action is a better means of mitigating unjust discrimination than aggressive anti-discrimination law enforcement or cash payments. Finally, it defends the two premises of the anti-discrimination argument against the proportional representation assumption and the moral division of responsibility challenge.","PeriodicalId":365406,"journal":{"name":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 3 explores the anti-discrimination justification for affirmative action, i.e., the argument that affirmative action is justified as a means of eliminating discrimination or, less ambitiously, neutralizing the negative effects of discrimination on discriminatees. It shows why this argument amounts to a strong argument in favor of affirmative action even on the assumption that discrimination is not unjust per se. It also offers some general reasons why affirmative action is a better means of mitigating unjust discrimination than aggressive anti-discrimination law enforcement or cash payments. Finally, it defends the two premises of the anti-discrimination argument against the proportional representation assumption and the moral division of responsibility challenge.
减少歧视
第3章探讨了平权行动的反歧视理由,即平权行动作为消除歧视的一种手段是合理的,或者,不那么雄心勃勃,抵消歧视对受歧视者的负面影响。它说明了为什么即使在歧视本身并非不公正的假设下,这一论点也构成了支持平权行动的有力论据。它还提供了一些一般性的理由,为什么平权行动比激进的反歧视执法或现金支付更能减轻不公正的歧视。最后,对反对比例代表制假设和道德责任分工挑战的反歧视论证的两个前提进行了辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信