This theory of starting from base equilibrium $\Delta_0$ I call the Base-$\Delta$ theory of discrimination. We start from nothing and we gradually formalise and build up on these principals. This of course is motivated by the following thesis:
Base-$\Delta$ thesis: Unless provided a sufficient reason we ought not discriminate.
Base-$\Delta$ theories utilise the notion that on the whole discrimination is unfair unless there is a reason to think it is justified. In other words, we take the (theoretical) base equilibrium where there are no instances of discrimination, and we engage in our transformative practice by slowly adding factors that we can discriminate with, each time providing certain reasons.
There is of course another stance that should also be considered, a stance I call the Base-$\Omega$ theory of discrimination. Here we start from our current state, and we gradually characterise the instances of discrimination that we view as unacceptable. This is motivated by the following thesis:
Base-$\Omega$ thesis: Discrimination is not in principle problematic, singular instances of discrimination are wrong only if we are provided by sufficient reason.
Here we think that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with differential treatment unless we can provided some special case. In other words, whilst the Base $\Delta$ theory views discrimination as 'Guilty until proven innocent', the Base-$\Omega$ theory views discrimination as 'innocent until proven Guilty'.
Both of these theories revolve around this notion of iterated states $\Delta_0, \Delta_1, . . \Delta_n$ and $\Omega_0, \Omega_1 . . . \Omega_m$ where we engage in a type of reflective equilibrium. In other words they provide an algorithm that in theory should lead to the same outcome. I don't expect anyone to ever actually execute this algorithm, but I think it provides us with a good founding. At the least I believe that both ideas are 'sound' in the sense that each iteration is 'justice preserving' thus any correct iterations should lead to a just society. So both of these theories provide us a way to reach the idealised state for a given situation, with different starting points. The Base $\Delta$ theory provides us with a method where each $\Delta_i$ is justified, whilst the Base $\Omega$ theory allows us to practically start from our current position and slowly move towards the ideal (but we might not know how 'good' our current case is).
What can we expect from this idealised state that is to be termination point for both theories? Well we would expect it to be a state of the world where discrimination exists on varying levels, over different factors. Yet there is some sort of causal relation between the factors and the intended outcomes (which are all justified in some sense).
