Intention in Direct Discrimination

John Finnis

in Intention and Identity

Published in print April 2011 | ISBN: 9780199580064
Published online September 2011 | e-ISBN: 9780191729386 | DOI:
Intention in Direct Discrimination

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law


Show Summary Details


The UK Supreme Court's holding about ‘direct’ discrimination in the JFS case (2009) is critiqued in this chapter for its failure to identify and reject the error in the House of Lords' decision in James v Eastleigh (1990). Acting ‘on the grounds of’ X means that X enters into the acting person's or body's deliberation in such a way as to affect that person's selection of means and/or ends. The English judiciary do not see the basic structure of practical reasoning, intending, deciding, and acting whole as it is seen in Aristotle's and Aquinas's demonstration that ends are almost all means and means almost all ends. Ends and means are then both grounds for acting. Side effects, even when ‘intrinsic’, are not. These matters remain relevant under the Equality Act 2010's new definition of ‘direct discrimination’.

Keywords: JFS Case; direct discrimination; James v Eastleigh; ends and means; grounds; practical reasoning; deliberation; intrinsic side effects

Chapter.  3321 words. 

Subjects: Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.