tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5334177869500704375..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Discrimination without disadvantageAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-53548271689399026952021-03-05T11:23:43.495-06:002021-03-05T11:23:43.495-06:00If I refuse to torture someone, I am not discrimin...If I refuse to torture someone, I am not discriminating AGAINST them with respect to torture.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-12221795815148699982021-03-05T09:33:06.392-06:002021-03-05T09:33:06.392-06:00I'm inclined to agree with Raf about this: Dis...I'm inclined to agree with Raf about this: Discrimination with respect to X involves a disadvantage <i>with respect to X</i>, regardless of whether attaining X is itself an advantage or not.Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-53322796492921245022021-03-04T21:37:54.200-06:002021-03-04T21:37:54.200-06:00Dear Dr. Pruss,
First of all, I hope your day is ...Dear Dr. Pruss,<br /><br />First of all, I hope your day is going great. Second of all, my next question will completely unrelated to the post above.<br /><br />Would the following modal argument against Existential Inertia be a good one? <br /><br />1. It is possible existential inertia is false.<br />2. Possibly, for every existant essence there is a cause which sustains it in existence.<br />3. So there is some possible world in which essences are sustained in existence by an external cause.<br />4. If existential inertia is false that which sustains essences in existence must not have an essence distinct from its existence.<br />5. So there is a possible world in which essences are sustained in existence by something whose essence is not distinct from its existence.<br />6. So there is a possible world in which somethings essence is not distinct from its existence.<br />7. To have an essence equal to existence is to exist necessarily.<br />8. So there is some possible world in which there is a necessary being whose essence is equal to existence.<br />9. If a necessary being whose essence is equal to existence exists in some possible world then it exists in all possible worlds.<br />10. So there is a necessary being whose essence equals existence in the actual world.<br />11. If there is a being whose essence is equal to existence then nothing can exist without being sustained in existence.<br />12. So existential inertia is false<br /><br /> Arath55https://www.blogger.com/profile/07398440799143810977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-34798118036569621662021-03-03T15:21:20.135-06:002021-03-03T15:21:20.135-06:00Can you make a “type of thing” move? Denying someo...Can you make a “type of thing” move? Denying someone a job is the type of thing that imposes a disadvantage on someone, even if there are exceptions. SMatthewStoltehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06632670946997680263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-75386062284931867362021-03-03T14:16:01.069-06:002021-03-03T14:16:01.069-06:00There are two different disadvantages here, not on...There are two different disadvantages here, not one:<br />a) The disadvantage imposed to obtain the job<br />b) The disadvantage imposed by having obtained the job.<br /><br />- The woman is disadvantaged in (a), therefore can not be disadvantaged in (b).<br />- The man is disadvantaged in (b), so he could not have been at a disadvantage in (a)<br /><br />- in (a) the disadvantage is related to hiring criteria.<br />- in (b) the disadvantage is related to working conditions.<br /><br />It's therefore not the same pattern of behavior, so no absurdity involved.<br /><br />Another difference is that<br />- In (a) we can say that there is discrimination because of the arbitrariness of the criteria imposed by Bob for hiring: women are at a disadvantage compared to men.<br />- In (b) all the people who work for Bob are in the same situation. No one in particular is at a disadvantage compared to another. And if there is a person who works for Bob and to whom Bob imposes harsher working conditions than others, Bob will have discriminated against him.Raf SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12631969595123020852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-20540888300507857072021-03-03T14:14:01.163-06:002021-03-03T14:14:01.163-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Raf SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12631969595123020852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-9411872686522697852021-03-03T08:43:00.153-06:002021-03-03T08:43:00.153-06:00The disjunctive move doesn't work once we real...The disjunctive move doesn't work once we realize there are degrading offers that are harmful to get. If I extend such an offer to men but not women, I give a disadvantage to men and limit the opportunity of women, so by the disjunctive account, I discriminate against both in the same pattern of behavior, which seems absurd.<br />So back to the drawing board. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-73597645537479381112021-03-03T07:55:39.220-06:002021-03-03T07:55:39.220-06:00The problem is that a disadvantage seems to be som...The problem is that a disadvantage seems to be something that makes you worse off. But working for Bob is so terrible that not getting the job is better, so how can it be a disadvantage not to the get the job? It's like not getting tortured: that's not a disadvantage.<br /><br />My best solution right now is to replace "disadvantage" with "disadvantage or denial of opportunity". Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-5533840573008986332021-03-03T05:37:21.999-06:002021-03-03T05:37:21.999-06:00Alex:
I think that Bob puts Alice at a disadvanta...Alex:<br /><br />I think that Bob puts Alice at a disadvantage in hiring, namely the fact that she is a woman. So being a woman was the reason she was not hired and that if she were a man, keeping the rest of her profile unchanged, she would have been hired.<br /><br />Because he thinks his place is at home, he therefore places Alice at a disadvantage when hiring. Discrimination does not necessarily imply that one carries a certain hatred or contempt towards the person or the group discriminated. In the example, that would just be applying an arbitrary criterion for hiring Alice. Arbitrary because being a woman or a man would in no way affect whether Alice was qualified to do the job.<br /><br />If the criterion were not arbitrary, then we would no longer speak of discrimination. A law firm that does not include a doctor in its team does not discriminate against the doctor. He just isn't fit to do the job of a lawyer.<br /><br />The key notion here is the arbitrariness or not of the imposed criteria. Which I think can be objectified.Raf SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12631969595123020852noreply@blogger.com