English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The article considers a central question about discrimination – are an actor’s intentions relevant to whether an action wrongfully discriminates – and takes issue with a familiar answer to this question. If one thinks of “discrimination” in its literal sense, as simply drawing distinctions among people on the basis of possessing or lacking some trait, it becomes clear that discrimination is ubiquitous and often benign. The challenge is to distinguish when discrimination is permissible and when it is not. One common answer to this question is that it is the intentions of the actor who adopts or enacts a law, policy or decision that are crucial. Legal doctrine, both constitutional and statutory, reflects this view by treating the actor’s intentions as centrally important. But is the moral claim on which it rests defensible; are intentions morally relevant to whether discrimination is wrong?

It's Not the Thought that Counts