Discriminating Discriminations

Discrimination is always seen through a social lens of what the acceptable aspects of discrimination are.

Essentially, for a liberal democracy, in a Rawlsian framework, what do we choose to hide under the ‘veil of ignorance’: race, gender, disabilities, family background etc. In this framework, the reasoning is that everything that is part of the ‘natural lottery’ not have any effects on the rights voted for under the veil of ignorance.

The fragment below is an interesting case study:

Obviously, bosses and HR etc are making choices that, in their mind, max utility for parents. But that’s framed as discrimination against childless workers.

However, clearly, it’s not. Parenthood and childlessness are not part of what should be veiled. They are (largely) choices. Therefore, in a Rawlsian framework, this should not be made illegal or considered discrimination on the level of public institutions.

If we do not have a framework for what discrimination is, then any differentiation can be labelled discrimination.

For example, the newly rich fall for overpriced LV bags and marketers target them specifically. Is this discrimination? Certainly, it’s price discrimination in the technical understanding of economics. However, it does not seem to be discrimination in a social justice understanding. Or is it but it’s just not important because they are more pressing issues of injustice?

I am interested in reading more about discrimination theory paradigms, because the very idea of ‘social justice’ (i.e. rights are held by entire ethnographic groups) always seemed sus but I’d like to understand it.