Advertisement

The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 1–2, pp 47–59 | Cite as

“We are all Different”: Statistical Discrimination and the Right to be Treated as an Individual

  • Kasper Lippert-RasmussenEmail author
Article

Abstract

There are many objections to statistical discrimination in general and racial profiling in particular. One objection appeals to the idea that people have a right to be treated as individuals. Statistical discrimination violates this right because, presumably, it involves treating people simply on the basis of statistical facts about groups to which they belong while ignoring non-statistical evidence about them. While there is something to this objection—there are objectionable ways of treating others that seem aptly described as failing to treat them as individuals—it needs to be articulated carefully. First, most people accept that many forms of statistical discrimination are morally unproblematic, let alone morally justified all things considered. Second, even treating people on the basis of putative non-statistical evidence relies on generalizations. Once we construe treating someone as an individual in a way that respects this fact, it becomes apparent: (1) that statistical discrimination is compatible with treating people as individuals, and (2) that one may fail to treat people as individuals even without engaging in statistical discrimination. Finally, there are situations involving the expression of messages of inclusion where we think it is good, morally speaking, that we are not treated as individuals.

Keywords

Generalizations Justice Racial profiling Respect Statistical discrimination Treating as an individual 

References

  1. Applbaum, Arthur Isak. 1996. Response: Racial generalization, police discretion, and Bayesian contractualism. In Handled with discretion: Ethical issues in police decision making, ed. John Kleinig, 145–157. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Arneson, Richard. 2006. What is wrongful discrimination? San Diego Law Review 43: 775–808.Google Scholar
  3. Cavanagh, Matt. 2002. Against equality of opportunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Corlett, J.Angelo. 1993. Racism and affirmative action. Journal of Social Philosophy 24: 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dworkin, Ronald. 2003. Bakke’s case: Are quotas unfair? In Race and racism, ed. Bernard Boxill, 297–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Feinberg, Joel. 1984. Harm to others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hellman, Deborah. 2008. When is discrimination wrong? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lever, Annabelle. 2005. Why racial profiling is hard to justify: A response to Risse and Zeckhauser. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33: 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levin, Michael. 1992. Responses to race differences in crime. Journal of Social Philosophy 23: 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2007. Nothing personal: On statistical discrimination. Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller, David. 1999. Principles of social justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Risse, Mathias, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2004. Racial profiling. Philosophy & Public Affairs 32: 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scanlon, Thomas. 2008. Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, and blame. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Schauer, Frederick. 2003. Profiles, probabilities, and stereotypes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Thomas, Laurence. 1992. Statistical badness. Journal of Social Philosophy 23: 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1986a. Remarks on causation and liability. In Rights, restitution, and risk: Essays in moral theory, ed. William Parent, 192–224. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1986b. Liability and individualized evidence. In Rights, restitution, and risk: Essays in moral theory, ed. William Parent, 225–250. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wasserman, David T. 1991. Morality of statistical proof and the risk of mistaken liability. Cardozo Law Review 13: 935–976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations