Abstract:
The paper puts forward a novel paternalistic argument in the realm of so-called “reaction qualifications.” In a nutshell, “reaction qualifications” are qualifications of an employee that pertain to how customers react to certain of her features, e.g. that she’s women and/or black. The tenor of the argument is that certain such qualifications⸺especially those that rest upon racist and sexist attitudes of customers (or, more generally, on antimeritocratic attitudes)⸺ought not to be counted. This is surprising because at first glance at least customers and employers have an interest in that they are. Yet, as I shall show, those agents and other key stakeholders in the field of reaction qualifications have important moral interests, including interests in acting in accordance with meritocratic norms. My argument bolsters more traditional arguments for not counting reaction qualifications of the sort alluded to.