Hmm... not sure about that. Practically speaking you're still much better off being white, male, middle-class, straight, between 18 and 40 and able bodied, both in terms of earnings and status. The fact that there are a few other people around in the modern workplace doesn't make you in any way f*cked although some guys insist on feeling a bit threatened :P
The abstract moral question is a more interesting one. Is an attempt to "encourage" equality really disriminating or is allowing the discriminatory status-quo to continue an act of discrimination in itself? Secondly, if two job candidates are in all other respects equally matched (which pretty much never happens) what *should* be the deciding factor? And thirdly, how do we resolve the situation that occurs when one persons right to exercise their freedom impinges on the rights of another? This is a particularly pernicious issue and one that seems to pervade rights-based philosophies. The classic example (esp. in the US) is that one person has the "right" to an abortion and foetus has a "right" to live. Or, lecturers have the "right" to free academic expression and students have the "right" to be free from racial discrimination [ref. the recent Frank Ellis case at Leeds]. Or, employers have the "right" to demand that employees wear a uniform and employees have a "right" to free religious expression. And so on. Consequentialist ethics sucks!
*sighs*
ReplyDeleteBasically, in today's day and age, you're fucked if you're a young white male... and not in a good way, either =P
OK, that last comment was me - Blogger's being retarded. Google needs to add OpenID support already >_>
ReplyDeleteHmm... not sure about that. Practically speaking you're still much better off being white, male, middle-class, straight, between 18 and 40 and able bodied, both in terms of earnings and status. The fact that there are a few other people around in the modern workplace doesn't make you in any way f*cked although some guys insist on feeling a bit threatened :P
ReplyDeleteThe abstract moral question is a more interesting one. Is an attempt to "encourage" equality really disriminating or is allowing the discriminatory status-quo to continue an act of discrimination in itself? Secondly, if two job candidates are in all other respects equally matched (which pretty much never happens) what *should* be the deciding factor? And thirdly, how do we resolve the situation that occurs when one persons right to exercise their freedom impinges on the rights of another? This is a particularly pernicious issue and one that seems to pervade rights-based philosophies. The classic example (esp. in the US) is that one person has the "right" to an abortion and foetus has a "right" to live. Or, lecturers have the "right" to free academic expression and students have the "right" to be free from racial discrimination [ref. the recent Frank Ellis case at Leeds]. Or, employers have the "right" to demand that employees wear a uniform and employees have a "right" to free religious expression. And so on. Consequentialist ethics sucks!