(Return to main path)

I agree that race and sex are usually irrelevant to questions about justice. I don't think that our laws, for example, should discriminate on those grounds.

But I'm not sure I can accept your argument for WHY we shouldn't discriminate on those grounds. It's true that race and sex are not chosen. They are involuntary, so to speak; and they are neither deserved nor undeserved. But are you saying that all involuntary characteristics or undeserved characteristics are irrelevant to questions of justice?

Let's suppose that one person has enormous natural ability as a football player or basketball player. Would it be unjust for a team to pick him just because he didn't deserve his natural abilities? Would it be unjust for a medical school to choose people who will become surgeons partly on the basis of their natural dexterity? Would it be unjust for a graduate school to select students partly on the basis of intelligence?

Or better yet, the fact that women have a capacity to give birth is involuntary. But are you so sure that that capacity is never relevant to questions about justice? Say, for example, when we are distributing health care or taking certain precautions in the work place?

Furthermore, consider this: Suppose technical developments were to allow people to choose their race or sex. Would it then be just to discriminate on that basis? I don't think so; but the reason would have to do with something other than the fact that people can choose or not choose.

Remember, I don't disagree with your conclusion about discrimination. But I think we all have a tendency to accept arguments because we agree with the conclusion; and we have to on guard against doing that.