Almost everyone would agree that “equality of opportunity” is a good thing and that discrimination is a bad thing. Yet there remains huge disagreement amongst philosophers, politicians and the voting public about what these terms mean and what society should do about them.
Equality of opportunity means different things to different people. Some would argue that a limited “formal” equality of opportunity which outlaws direct discrimination does not go nearly far enough. They support a more “substantive” form of equality of opportunity that would more actively respond to the unequal outcomes that persist despite legal rules against employment discrimination.
Similarly, discrimination is usually considered a bad thing. However, isn’t discrimination an inevitable part of life; people support their own relatives. Alternatively, is discrimination a case of treating people according to stereotypes rather than their individuality? But we constantly use stereotypes to navigate our interactions with those we meet briefly. We don’t know everything about our closest family and friends, let alone about someone we meet during a brief interaction. We need to make quick assumptions about people. Can these assumptions and stereotypes sometimes wrong other people? In cases of outright racial prejudice, most would say yes, but what about other cases? Does discrimination arise due to the intentions or attitudes of the person involved? Or the outcome of their actions?
We might find discrimination in other settings too. There are statistical links between financial rewards and all sorts of traits and features. Is it a problem that the more intelligent earn more? What about those who are taller? More physically attractive? What about the fact that men earn more than women? Are these signs of discrimination? If so, what makes the discrimination wrong? Philosophers have struggled to develop theories that give us the answers we expect in all cases. In this course we will look at some of the attempts.
If we agree that discrimination is a problem, the next question is what to do about it. When should the law be involved? Many argue that the appropriate response is to have some positive discrimination to make up for the negative discrimination. Affirmative action programmes are intended to support the disadvantaged, but do they unfairly disadvantage others in turn? Can you fight discrimination with discrimination? And do such programmes violate other important principles and goals such as liberty and efficiency?
The course focuses on what moral and political philosophers (and legal thinkers) have had to say about these difficult topics. It will be of interest to those interested in hiring decisions and education policy such as University admissions as well as those interested in political philosophy and political debates. We consider examples and cases throughout and will end with a discussion of the controversial Northern Ireland ‘gay marriage cake’ bakery case.