Equality and Discrimination 1

Equality and Discrimination

Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Equality and Discrimination 2

Chapter 13: Equality and Discrimination

Equality is the state of being equivalent, especially in terms of one's status, rights, and

opportunities. Discrimination is the unjust treatment of individuals on the basis of their

membership in a certain group. It can be based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or any

other characteristic that is used to distinguish one group of people from another.

Discrimination can be intentional or unintentional, and it can be direct or indirect. Typically,

the ethical debate surrounding equality and discrimination revolves around the question of

whether or not society should provide equal opportunities for everyone, or whether or not

certain groups of people should be given preferential treatment to compensate for past

discrimination.

There are many different ways in which people can be unequal to one another. Some

of these ways are more significant than others, and some may even be morally relevant. For

example, men and women are not equal in terms of their physical strength or their

reproductive capacity. However, these differences are not generally considered to be morally

relevant. On the other hand, differences in race, ethnicity, and religion can be morally

relevant, because they can lead to discrimination.

Intentional discrimination occurs when people are treated differently because of their

membership in a particular group. For example, if a store owner refuses to serve a customer

because of the color of his skin, that is intentional discrimination. Unintentional

discrimination occurs when people are treated differently because of some other factor that is

unrelated to their membership in a particular group. For example, if a store owner charges
Equality and Discrimination 3

higher prices in a neighborhood that is predominantly black, that is unintentional

discrimination

The first article in this collection is "The Case for Equality," which was written by

John Rawls. Rawls argues that equality is necessary for a society to be just. He believes that

all individuals, regardless of factors such as race, gender, or anything else, should be treated

equally. Rawls believes that equality is necessary in order to provide all individuals with a

level playing field throughout their lives. He argues that if everyone is treated equally, no one

will be able to gain an unfair advantage over others. In addition, Rawls believes that equality

is necessary to ensure the protection of the rights of disadvantaged groups. He argues that if

different ethnic groups are not accorded equal treatment, they will be unable to exercise the

same rights as other people. Rawls's argument is predicated on the notion that all people are

equivalent and should be treated as such.

James P. Sterba is the author of "The Case Against Equality," in which he argues that

a just society can exist without absolute equality among its members. He believes that

discrimination is an acceptable means of ensuring the safety of specific groups of people. If

we adhere to the principle of treating everyone equally, argues Sterba, we will be unable to

defend the civil liberties of disadvantaged groups. He believes that if we treat everyone

equally, members of underrepresented groups will not have access to the same rights as the

rest of the population. Sterba's argument in this debate is predicated on the notion that not

everyone is the same and that some individuals should be treated differently.

John Rawls argues in "The Case for Equality" that the principles of justice are those

that rational, free, and equal people in an egalitarian starting position would choose if given

the choice. These principles, according to Rawls, would be chosen so as to maximize the
Equality and Discrimination 4

benefits for everyone, regardless of their individual circumstances. Therefore, concepts that

promote equality and fairness would be regarded as justice's guiding principles. In his article

"The Case Against Equality," James P. Sterba argues that the principles of justice are not

those that intelligent, free, and equal people would choose if placed in an initial position of

equality where they were all equal. Sterba believes that these guiding principles would be

chosen so as to maximize the benefits for a subset of individuals while excluding others.

Therefore, principles that promote inequality and injustice would be considered principles of

justice.

The premise that everyone would be better off if they lived in a more just and fair

society serves as the basis for Rawls' argument for equality. Sterba's argument against

equality in the workplace and in society as a whole is predicated on the premise that some

individuals would benefit more from living in a less just and equitable society. The guiding

principles of justice, according to Rawls, should be chosen so as to further the goals of

equality and fairness. Sterba believes that the guiding principles of justice should be chosen in

a manner that encourages unfairness and inequality.

I find Rawls' argument for equality to be more persuasive than Sterba's argument

against equality. Everyone would be better off if they lived in a society that was more just and

fair, according to Rawls's argument. This argument is more logical and reasonable than

Sterba's, which is based on the premise that certain individuals would benefit more from

living in a less just and fair society. This argument is more logical and rational than the

argument presented by Sterba.

Rawls's argument is also more persuasive because it is predicated on the idea of

choosing just principles to maximize the benefits for all individuals, regardless of their
Equality and Discrimination 5

particular circumstances. This argument is more logical and reasonable than Sterba's, which is

based on picking the principles of justice to maximize the benefits for some individuals while

leaving others behind. This argument is logically and rationally superior.

The idea that the principles of justice would be selected from an initial position of

equality is the most problematic and unsupported aspect of Rawls' argument. This is an

impractical assumption, and it is unclear why justice principles should be chosen in this

manner. In addition, it is unclear why justice principles should be selected in this manner.

The most problematic and unconvincing aspect of Sterba's argument is his contention

that standards of justice should be selected so as to promote inequality and unfairness. This is

not a particularly rational or reasonable argument, and it does not appear to provide a solid

foundation for choosing the principles of justice.

I concur with Rawls that the principles of justice should be those chosen by rational,

free, and equal individuals when placed in a position of equality. I believe these principles

were chosen so as to maximize the benefits for everyone, regardless of their individual

circumstances. This would have been the motivation for the decision. In light of this, justice's

guiding principles should be those that promote equality and fairness. Nevertheless, I do not

believe that society has an obligation to rectify past discrimination. Affirmative action

programs may be useful under certain conditions, but I do not believe they are always

necessary. Rawls is of the opinion that equality is a goal that should be pursued, whereas

Sterba is of the opinion that equality cannot be attained. In contrast to Rawls, Sterba believes

that equality is an unattainable goal. Rawls, on the other hand, believes that equality is a

moral principle.
Equality and Discrimination 6

In conclusion, I believe that Rawls' argument in favor of equality is more persuasive

than Sterba's argument against equality. Rawls's argument is founded on more reasonable and

logical premises and provides a more compelling justification for selecting the principles of

justice.
Equality and Discrimination 7

Reference

“Letter from a birmingham jail (1963)” (2009) African American Studies Center [Preprint].

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.013.33655.

Segall, S. (2014) “Fair Equality of Opportunity,” The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon, pp. 269–

272. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139026741.073.

Sterba, J.P. (2014) “James P. Sterba, from rationality to equality,” Social Theory and Practice,

40(3), pp. 534–540. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201440332.