Since much of the early impetus for applied ethics came from the U. S. civil rights movement, such topics as equality, human rights, and justice have been prominent. 【F1】
We often make statements such as "All humans are equal" without thinking too deeply about the justification for the claims. Since the mid-1960s much has been written about how they can be justified.
Discussions of this sort have led in several directions, often following social and political movements. The initial focus, especially in the United States, was on racial equality, and here, for once, there was a general consensus among philosophers on the unacceptability of discrimination against blacks.【F2】
With so little disagreement about racial discrimination itself, the centre of attention soon moved to reverse discrimination: Is it acceptable to favour blacks for jobs and enrollment in universities and colleges because they had been discriminated against in the past and were generally so much worse off than whites?
Or is this, too, a form of racial discrimination and unacceptable for that reason?
Inequality between the sexes has been another focus of discussion. Does equality here mean ending as far as possible all differences in the sex roles, or could we have equal status for different roles?【F3】
There has been a lively debate—both between feminists and their opponents and, on a different level, among feminists themselves-about what a society without sexual inequality would be like.
Here, too, the legitimacy of reverse discrimination has been a contentious issue. Feminist philosophers have also been involved in debates over abortion and new methods of reproduction. These topics will be covered separately below.
Many discussions of justice and equality are limited in scope to a single society.【F4】
Even Rawls" s theory of justice, for example, has nothing to say about the distribution of wealth between societies, a subject that could make acceptance of his maximin principle much more onerous.
But philosophers have now begun to think about the moral implications of the inequality in wealth between the affluent nations(and their citizens)and those living in countries subject to famine. What are the obligations of those who have plenty when others are starving?【F5】
It has not proved difficult to make a strong case for the view that affluent nations, as well as affluent individuals, ought to be doing much more to help the poor than they are generally now doing.