What it means to respect individuality
- PDF / 304,180 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 50 Downloads / 222 Views
What it means to respect individuality Xiaofei Liu1
•
Ye Liang2
Accepted: 22 September 2020 Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract Using pure statistical evidence about a group to judge a particular member of that group is often found objectionable. One natural explanation of why this is objectionable appeals to the moral notion of respecting individuality: to properly respect individuality, we need individualized evidence, not pure statistical evidence. However, this explanation has been criticized on the ground that there is no fundamental difference between the so-called ‘‘individualized evidence’’ and ‘‘pure statistical evidence’’. This paper defends the respecting-individuality explanation by developing an account of what it means to respect individuality. It combines an idealistic account of respecting individuality and a prioritization account of respecting individuality, and offers a principled way to distinguish individualized evidence from non-individualized evidence. Keywords Individuality Statistical discrimination Evidence
1 Introduction Austin, a 40-year-old white businessman, is waiting for taxi outside of a high-end shopping mall in Shanghai. A flower peddler approaches him and asks: ‘‘Sir, would you like to buy a flower for this beautiful lady?’’ pointing to a young Chinese woman standing next to him, whom Austin does not know. The peddler takes them & Xiaofei Liu [email protected] Ye Liang [email protected] 1
Department of Philosophy, Xiamen University, 422 Siming South Road, Xiamen 361005, China
2
Department of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, 301 MSCS Bldg, Stillwater, OK 74078-1056, USA
123
X. Liu, Y. Liang
to be a couple. Out of curiosity, Austin asks the peddler why he came to this belief. Imagine three different scenarios: Peddler 1: The peddler responds that he believes that most middle-aged white men are attracted to young Chinese women. Peddler 2: The peddler responds that his company has actually conducted systematic research in the past 10 years, according to which a middle-aged white man and a young Chinese woman appearing next to each other in this shopping district have a high chance to be in a relationship. Peddler 3: The peddler responds that he overheard Austin talking to the woman next to him in Chinese, using phrases like ‘‘sweetie’’, while in fact, Austin was talking to his Chinese adopted daughter on the phone through a Bluetooth headset.1 Austin would probably be outraged by the reason provided by Peddler 1, which, like typical racist beliefs, is nothing more than an ill-grounded prejudice. However, he would probably also find the reason provided by Peddler 2 problematic (if not outright offensive), even if he grants the veracity of its statistical basis. By contrast, he would probably find the reason provided by Peddler 3 acceptable, despite feeling awkward. What would explain the difference between Peddler 2’s and Peddler 3’s reason, both grounded upon factual evidence? One natural reaction is to say that Peddler 2’s reason consists of pure statistic
Data Loading...
