4 ms·

This brings into focus a very nuanced question of discrimination versus unjust discrimination. The affirmative action debate is divided by these lines. I don't

This brings into focus a very nuanced question of discrimination versus unjust discrimination. The affirmative action debate is divided by these lines. I don't think we're going to make progress on that here, but the summary is that people who agree with you believe both discriminations are unjust, while those who disagree see this discrimination as a temporary action that will lead overall to more justice long term. Along with that comes the question of consequentialism versus deontology, and if the consequential balance is accurate to the world. > It is not for Sephora's (or anyone else's) recruiters to wax philosophical on what they think the statistics should look like for the population at large, when considering a candidate. This is not a question of statistics of the population but one of morality. This is what Sephora views as acting ethically. As noted above, not all agree, but that is why they are doing this (assuming they didn't do this for PR, which would be a far stretch, even if this story itself is for PR, which I think is a case of both/and). It is the job of Sephora's recruiters to act within the company's ethics.

microcolonel 9y ago
I am not willing to accept a principle which artificially exempts people from protection. I'm not going to protect the right to keep and bear arms only for whites, or freedom of expression only for liberal conservatives, the right to a fair trial only for south asians. Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles. It is a broadly respected civil right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex when being considered for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution is among the proudest arrangements of fourteen words in recent history. That is the way principles work, there's no "unless you're a homosexual" at the end, there's no "unless the allegations are recorded in the wee hours of the morning". I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions.
- adjkant 9y ago
  There are two falsehoods your argument is presenting: > Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles. > I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions. Neither of these things are occurring. The argument you present is a mix of two straw man statements and a bit of slippery slope for both. The stipulation is far from arbitrary - it's in direct response to negative discrimination at other related levels. If we are talking justice and fairness, this is a positive move to some (not all, hence grey area). Those with more opportunities inherent in a system for arbitrary reasons do not have those opportunities justly. This policy is an attempt at redistribution of arbitrarily gained opportunity. To the second, there are many flaws. First, the original principle you listed has an exception itself ("for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics")! Adding a stipulation is a change to the principle, not an abandonment of all principles or even the single principle itself. Exceptions are incredibly important in many cases and are not an argument against a specific exception itself. Additionally, even if we accept the arbitrary "eternal beauty" of principles, the "common detestability" of exceptions, and the binary between them, there is no requirement for all of one or the other. It's just not logically sound. We can have many of one and a few of the other, half and half, etc. Again, I am not even staking any of these claims on the specific exception, which is a very strong moral grey area. But it's a very understandable and logically sound side. The question becomes one of restorative justice, not one of "principles and exceptions". I think your argument is playing towards a wish for the world and morality to be absolute and clear when we know the world is far from that every time we look at situations that break hard principles once held.

microcolonel 9y ago

I am not willing to accept a principle which artificially exempts people from protection. I'm not going to protect the right to keep and bear arms only for whites, or freedom of expression only for liberal conservatives, the right to a fair trial only for south asians. Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles. It is a broadly respected civil right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex when being considered for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution is among the proudest arrangements of fourteen words in recent history. That is the way principles work, there's no "unless you're a homosexual" at the end, there's no "unless the allegations are recorded in the wee hours of the morning". I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions.

adjkant 9y ago
There are two falsehoods your argument is presenting: > Adding arbitrary, unfair stipulations to a principle defeats the purpose of having principles. > I don't understand how anyone could trade something as eternal and beautiful as body of principles into something as common and detestable as a body of exceptions. Neither of these things are occurring. The argument you present is a mix of two straw man statements and a bit of slippery slope for both. The stipulation is far from arbitrary - it's in direct response to negative discrimination at other related levels. If we are talking justice and fairness, this is a positive move to some (not all, hence grey area). Those with more opportunities inherent in a system for arbitrary reasons do not have those opportunities justly. This policy is an attempt at redistribution of arbitrarily gained opportunity. To the second, there are many flaws. First, the original principle you listed has an exception itself ("for a job in a role which is not reliant on sex-differentiated characteristics")! Adding a stipulation is a change to the principle, not an abandonment of all principles or even the single principle itself. Exceptions are incredibly important in many cases and are not an argument against a specific exception itself. Additionally, even if we accept the arbitrary "eternal beauty" of principles, the "common detestability" of exceptions, and the binary between them, there is no requirement for all of one or the other. It's just not logically sound. We can have many of one and a few of the other, half and half, etc. Again, I am not even staking any of these claims on the specific exception, which is a very strong moral grey area. But it's a very understandable and logically sound side. The question becomes one of restorative justice, not one of "principles and exceptions". I think your argument is playing towards a wish for the world and morality to be absolute and clear when we know the world is far from that every time we look at situations that break hard principles once held.