Stealing Bread and Sleeping Beneath Bridges – Indirect Discrimination as Disadvantageous Equal Treatment

Thomsen, Frej Klem

doi:10.1515/mopp-2014-0027

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 13 For discussion of the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, see Thomsen (2015 ). In some legal contexts, the idea of indirect discrimination is also referred to as ‘disparate impact’.…”

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

Voigt

2022

Public Health Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In several countries, governments have implemented so-called ‘COVID passport’ schemes, which restrict access to venues such as bars or sports events to those who are vaccinated against COVID-19 and/or exempt vaccinated individuals from public health measures such as curfews or quarantine requirements. These schemes have been the subject of a heated debate. Concerns about inequality have played an important role in the opposition to such schemes. This article highlights that determining how COVID passports affect equality requires a much more nuanced analysis than is typically assumed. I identify a range of broadly egalitarian considerations that could be affected by the introduction of COVID passport schemes. While these schemes could undermine certain aspects of equality, I argue that they could also be used to promote equality. The magnitude and severity of these different effects, both promoting and undermining equality, depend on how precisely these schemes are framed and the local context in which they are implemented.

show abstract

Section: Endnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

Voigt

2022

Public Health Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abhängig von der zugrunde gelegten ethischen Theorie lassen sich verschiedene Interpretationen des durch Diskriminierung bewirkten Übels unterscheiden. Konsequentialistische Positionen stellen den von Diskriminierung verursachten Schaden (harm) (Lippert-Rasmussen 2006, 2013Thomsen 2011Thomsen , 2013Thomsen , 2015 ins Zentrum. Nach Moreau (2010) ist Diskriminierung dagegen moralisch zu verurteilen, weil sie Freiheitsrechte verletzt (deliberative-freedoms account).…”

Section: K Moralische Relevanzunclassified

Was kann das Konzept der Diskriminierung für die Medizinethik leisten? – Eine Analyse

Hädicke

Wiesemann

2021

Ethik Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungKaum ein Begriff der ethischen Debatten der letzten Jahre hat eine solche Konjunktur erlebt wie der Begriff der Diskriminierung. Eine vergleichende Erörterung des Konzepts einschließlich seiner begrifflichen Nuancen und seiner ethischen Bedeutung für das Gesundheitswesen fehlte jedoch bislang. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist die Entwicklung eines differenzierten Verständnisses von Diskriminierung auf der Basis der philosophischen und soziologischen Literatur vor dem Hintergrund ethisch relevanter medizinischer und pflegerischer Szenarios. Anhand von praktischen Beispielen aus dem Gesundheitswesen erörtern wir die Besonderheiten direkter, indirekter und statistischer Diskriminierung, wir untersuchen die Bedeutung von Absichten und die Rolle von kollektiven Akteuren. Zudem diskutieren wir, welche sozialen Gruppen diskriminiert werden können und welche Rolle Formen epistemischer Ungerechtigkeit dabei spielen. Argumentiert wird, dass das Konzept trotz seiner Komplexität einen signifikanten Mehrwert bietet, weil es erlaubt, Formen der Benachteiligung aufzuzeigen, die über die Verletzung einzelner spezifischer Rechte oder Interessen hinausgehen. Als wissensbasiertes System von großem gesellschaftlichen Einfluss weist das Gesundheitswesen einige Eigenschaften auf, die Diskriminierung begünstigen können. Dies zu erkennen ist unerlässlich, um Diskriminierung wirksam entgegentreten zu können.

show abstract

“…There are, I believe, general reasons to be skeptical of the claim (cf. Lippert-Rasmussen 2014, Thomsen 2015), but it is worth pursuing it in the particular context of algorithmic discrimination, since as with the mental state distinction above there are characteristics of this context that help to illuminate the issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Lessons for and from Algorithmic Discrimination

Thomsen

2023

Res Publica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Algorithmic discrimination has rapidly become a topic of intense public and academicinterest. This article explores three issues raised by algorithmic discrimination: 1) the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, 2) the notion of disadvantageous treatment, and 3) the moral badness of discriminatory automated decision-making. It argues that some conventional distinctions between direct and indirect discrimination appear not to apply to algorithmic discrimination, that algorithmic discrimination may often be discrimination between groups, as opposed to against groups, and that it is not necessarily the case that morally bad algorithmic discrimination gives us reason to not use automated decision-making. For each of the three issues, the article explores implications for algorithmic discrimination, suggests some alternative answers, and clarifies how we may want to think of discrimination more broadly in light of lessons drawn from the context of algorithmic discrimination.

show abstract

Stealing Bread and Sleeping Beneath Bridges – Indirect Discrimination as Disadvantageous Equal Treatment

Cited by 16 publications

References 16 publications

COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

COVID-19 Vaccination Passports: Are They a Threat to Equality?

Was kann das Konzept der Diskriminierung für die Medizinethik leisten? – Eine Analyse

Three Lessons for and from Algorithmic Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About