Er diskrimination på baggrund af reaktionskvalifikationer tilladeligt? Et politisk teoretisk perspektiv informeret af borgernes vurderinger
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/politica.v55i4.141354Keywords:
diskrimination, reaktionskvalifikationer, valg, identitet, eksperimentel politisk teoriAbstract
Må en arbejdsgiver, der skal ansætte en medarbejder, tage hensyn til, hvorledes kunderne forventeligt vil reagere på bestemte træk ved medarbejderen? Dvs. må såkaldte ”reaktionskvalifikationer” tælle i en ansættelsesproces? En held-egalitaristisk teori om, hvornår reaktionskvalifikationer er legitime, peger på, at særligt to faktorer er relevante: (i) om kvalifikationen er selvvalgt af personen, og (ii) om kvalifikationen er knyttet til personens dybe præferencer (dvs. præferencer, der afspejler personens overbevisninger og personlighed). Når vi tester denne teori i forhold til intuitionerne i den bredere befolkning, finder vi indikation på, at (i) har en betydning for folks vurderinger af, om det er okay for arbejdsgiveren at lægge vægt på reaktionskvalifikationen i ansættelsesprocessen, hvorimod folk ikke synes at tillægge (ii) en sådan betydning. Det sidste fund giver potentielt anledning til visse revisioner eller tilpasninger af den held-egalitaristiske teori.
References
Albertsen, Andreas (2013). Lader held-egalitarismen fanden tage de uansvarlige sidste? Politica 45 (2): 217-232.
Albertsen, Andreas (2014). Brugerbetaling, ventelister, og afgifter: personligt ansvar for egen sundhed? Politica 46 (2): 135-151.
Alexander, Larry (1992). What makes wrongful discrimination wrong? Biases, preferences, stereotypes, and proxies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141 (1): 149-219.
Alfano, Mark, Edouard Machery, Alexandra Plakias og Don Loeb (2022). Experimental moral philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Arneson, Richard J. (2006). What is wrongful discrimination? San Diego Law Review 43 (4): 775-808.
Bloom, Howard (1995). Minimum detectable effects: A simple way to report the statistical power of experimental designs. Evaluation Review 19 (5): 547-556.
Brownlee, Kimberly og Zofia Stemplowska (2017). Thought experiments, pp. 21-45 i Adrian Blau (red.), Methods in analytical political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bunel, Mathieu og Elisabeth Tovar (2021). Profit, morality and discrimination. Applied Economics 53 (40): 4692-4712.
Cappelen, Herman (2012). Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, G.A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99 (4): 906-944.
Cohen, G.A. (2004). Expensive taste rides again, pp. 3-29 i Justine Burley (red.), Dworkin and his critics: With replies from Dworkin. Blackwell Publishing.
Daniels, Norman (2016). Reflective equilibrium. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Eidelson, Benjamin (2015). Discrimination and disrespect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Handby, Edmund (2022). Assessing the use of intuitions in contemporary political theory. Journal of Politics 84 (3): 1595-1606.
Hansen, Rasmus Sommer og Søren Flinch Midtgaard (2011). Sinking Cohen’s flagship – or why people with expensive tastes should not be compensated. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4): 341-354.
Hellman, Deborah (2008). When is discrimination wrong? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kahane, Guy (2013). The armchair and the trolley: An argument for experimental ethics. Philosophical Studies 162: 421-445.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books.
Knight, Carl (2021). An argument for all-luck egalitarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs 49 (4): 350-378.
Knobe, Joshua og Shaun Nichols (2008). Experimental philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knobe, Joshua og Shaun Nichols (2014). Experimental philosophy: Volume 2. Oxford Scholarship Online.
Li, Jincai og Xiaozhen Zhu (2023). Twenty years of experimental philosophical research. Metaphilosophy 54: 29-53.
Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (2011). Eksperimentel politisk teori. Politica 43 (3): 296-314.
Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (2014). Born free and equal? A philosophical inquiry into the nature of discrimination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper (2015). Luck egalitarianism. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Mason, Andrew (2006). Levelling the playing field. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mason, Andrew (2017). Appearance, discrimination, and reaction qualifications. The Journal of Political Philosophy 25 (1): 48-71.
Pedersen, Viki M.L. og Søren Flinch Midtgaard (2018). Is anti-paternalism enough? Political Studies 66 (3): 771-785.
Petersen, Michael Bang, Rune Slothuus, Rune Stubager og Lise Togeby (2007). Eksperimenter: Et redskab i politologens værktøjskasse? Politica 39 (1): 5-13.
Petersen, Michael Bang, Rune Slothuus, Rune Stubager og Lise Togeby (2010). Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research 50: 24-52.
Scheffler, Samuel (2003). What is egalitarianism? Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (1): 5-39.
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine (2000). Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (3): 205-250.
Stich, Stephen og Kevin P. Tobia (2016). Experimental philosophy and the philosophical tradition, pp. 3-21 i Justin Sytsma og Wesley Buckwalter (red.), A companion to experimental philosophy. Blackwell.
Thaler, Richard H. og Cass R. Sunstein (2018). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin Books.
Ubel, Peter (2000). Pricing life: Why it’s time for health care rationing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wertheimer, Alan (1983). Jobs, qualifications, and preferences. Ethics 94 (1): 99-112.
Zala, Miklos I. (2017). The devout and the disabled: Religious and cultural accommodation-as-human-variation. Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (4): 809-824.
