Reference no: EM133596753

Civil Rights I

Conventional wisdom holds that the Civil Rights laws that were created during the 1960s, and for which people gave their lives, helped change American culture and attitudes in ways they began to reject discrimination based on a whole host of government-approved categories including race, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

In other words, we are told, the law changed the culture and in so doing, government helped society "progress" or "evolve" - or so the argument goes.

These officially recognized categories into which we group people are called "government protected classes." Furthermore, these "classes" or categories of individuals who need, or claim to need, "protection" have grown in number over time. That is, there are more victims of discrimination, or people who claim to be discriminated against, today than in the past - at least according to our 'evolving' definitions of discrimination and varying standards of proof.

It's currently being debated whether folks who are obese ought to be considered a "protected class" and, all joking aside, self-identified "unattractive" people have also begun agitating for a similar status. That is, the "unattractive" want to be considered a "government protected class" too based off of the perceived discrimination ("lookism') they receive from society - they also want government to solve the "social problem" of discrimination against the "unattractive."

But before you laugh, think about why you might be inclined to do so...

As an exercise in critical thinking and an intellectually honest evaluation of both the benefits AND costs of these government policies, it's necessary to examine the moral hazard involved when government extends "protective" treatment (targeted laws and benefits) to particular "groups" or categories of individuals who have been, or believe they have been, the victims of discrimination based on some real or perceived shared characteristic (gender, race, religion, height, age, disability, weight, etc...)

Therefore, please answer the following 5 questions (5 points)

a) what is the definition of moral hazard AS presented in class?

b) what might a hypothetical law or program designed to protect or benefit the "unattractive" say or do?

c) what might happen to the numbers of people claiming to be discriminated against based on their "unattractiveness"

d) would government have to expand (money, staff) to enforce this new law?

e) because of your answer in d, would government have a private-interest in expanding OR narrowing the definition of and incidents of discrimination?