As a matter of interest, the school of thought you are describing is the Deontologists.  In &quot;Capitalism and Freedom&quot; Milton Friedman captured this as:<p>&gt; [Antidiscrimination] legislation involves the acceptance of a principle that proponents would find abhorrent in almost every other application. If it is appropriate for the state to say that individuals may not discriminate in employment because of color or race or religion, then it is equally appropriate for the state, provided a majority can be found to vote that way, to say that individuals must discriminate in employment on the basis of color, race or religion. The Hitler Nuremberg laws and the law in the Southern states imposing special disabilities upon Negroes are both
examples of laws similar in principle to [antidiscrimination legislation]<p>This is in contrast with a focus upon either consequence or virtues. Deontological theory falls down on some observed economic scenarios.  For example, banker bonuses are generally deontological in nature, and as a result paid out quarterly regardless of performance; a consequentialist or &quot;virtuist&quot; might formulate banker bonuses on practical timelines or overall long-term results, in contrast.<p>In any case, what I thought was a reasonably balanced emperical study by John Donohue is worth reading [The Law and Economics of Antidiscrimination
Law] &lt;<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitalcommons.law.yale.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&amp;context=lepp_papers&gt;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitalcommons.law.yale.edu&#x2F;cgi&#x2F;viewcontent.cgi?artic...</a> (it is the paper from which I drew Milton&#x27;s quote).