{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/57b498490b5f3f772a76004a/5f68de2ae6c22e29905f5c2b?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Episode 129: Nethanel Lipshitz discusses discrimination","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/57b498490b5f3f772a76004a/1600707861588-d4b5c9bc2725284079640ee544947a27.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>This month, Ben Andrew and I are joined by Nethanel Lipshitz (Tel Aviv University, Bar-Ilan University) to talk about discrimination.</p><p><br></p><p>If someone treats me unequally--that is, if they give other people a relative advantage but not me--am I the victim of discrimination? Our guest says yes. That is enough for me to count as having been discriminated against, and that is enough for it to be morally wrong.</p><p><br></p><p>All fine and dandy. But then what's the big deal?  The big deal is that the standard view in political philosophy tells us that discrimination requires more.  If a shopkeeper kicks me out of their store merely because they don't like my hat, then according to the definition, I haven't been discriminated against.  Why?  Because in order for this behavior to count as discrimination, I have to be treated unequally based on my membership in <em>a salient social group</em>.  It's maybe a bit tricky to define exactly what a 'salient social group' is, but some familiar examples might include e.g. LGBTQ people, people with a disability, or black people.  'People with a funny looking hat' aren't a salient social group--that's just a random category that popped up in this moment.  So although I may have been treated badly, I haven't been discriminated against.</p><p><br></p><p>Nethanel Lipshitz doesn't see a good reason for including 'you have to be a member of a salient social group' in the <em>definition</em> of discrimination.  Note that this is compatible with saying that being discriminated against <em>qua</em> member of a particular social group is worse than being discriminated against as an individual, maybe as part of a one-off.  The idea is just that it still counts as discrimination, and that it's still bad, even if it isn't <em>as</em> bad.  Lipshitz' main reason for thinking this is that the 'I got discriminated against because of my hat' situation and the 'I got discriminated against because I'm gay' have a key factor in common: in both situations, the victim is being singled out as someone not worthy of the same moral respect/consideration as everyone else.  </p><p><br></p><p>It's a fascinating discussion, and I hope you enjoy it.  I think Nethanel Lipshitz provides lots of good reasons to rethink some of our contemporary assumptions about what discrimination is and why it's bad.  </p><p><br></p><p><em>Matt Teichman</em></p>","author_name":"Matt Teichman"}