4 found
Order:
  1.  34
    Implicit Bias and Discrimination.Katharina Berndt Rasmussen - 2020 - Theoria 86 (6):727-748.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  2.  31
    Harm and Discrimination.Katharina Berndt Rasmussen - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (4):873-891.
    Many legal, social, and medical theorists and practitioners, as well as lay people, seem to be concerned with the harmfulness of discriminative practices. However, the philosophical literature on the moral wrongness of discrimination, with a few exceptions, does not focus on harm. In this paper, I examine, and improve, a recent account of wrongful discrimination, which divides into a definition of group discrimination, and a characterisation of its moral wrong-making feature in terms of harm. The resulting account analyses the wrongness (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3. Should the Probabilities Count?Katharina Berndt Rasmussen - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 159 (2):205-218.
    When facing a choice between saving one person and saving many, some people have argued that fairness requires us to decide without aggregating numbers; rather we should decide by coin toss or some form of lottery, or alternatively we should straightforwardly save the greater number but justify this in a non-aggregating contractualist way. This paper expands the debate beyond well-known number cases to previously under-considered probability cases, in which not (only) the numbers of people, but (also) the probabilities of success (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4. Democracy and the Common Good: A Study of the Weighted Majority Rule.Katharina Berndt Rasmussen - 2013 - Dissertation, Stockholm University
    In this study I analyse the performance of a democratic decision-making rule: the weighted majority rule. It assigns to each voter a number of votes that is proportional to her stakes in the decision. It has been shown that, for collective decisions with two options, the weighted majority rule in combination with self-interested voters maximises the common good when the latter is understood in terms of either the sum-total or prioritarian sum of the voters’ well-being. The main result of my (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark