Affirmative Action as Discrimination Based on Race Affirmative action is geared towards providing solution to the long standing issu... ... middle of paper ... ...d not by their competence but by their race. Affirmative action is not ethical because it is against the law on equal opportunities. When it is supposed to help the disadvantaged, it instead suggests that people of color are inferior and therefore need special privileges in order to succeed. Affirmative action also offends the ethnic minorities on account that they are not allowed to compete head to head with the advantaged group. On the other hand, not all that is about affirmative action hurt the white.
This disadvantage the author calls a reverse discrimination. The arguement presented for justifying the occurrance of such is the principle of reparations and compensation. Compensation states that since white men benefited from the exclusion of blacks and women they should now bear the burden. The reparations arguement states that racial minorities (blacks) and women are entitled to preferential treatment because their rights have been violated. These arguements are difficult to put into practice because it bring certain difficult issues into light.
Steele acknowledges that blacks were wrongly persecuted, but stresses that as a result of affirmative action, "blacks now stand to lose more than they gain." Although the intent of the policy is positive, the end result is a false effort at white redemption and an ill advised effort by the black mandate to gain power by accepting undeserved positions in society. Steele points out that instead of focusing on developing ... ... middle of paper ... ...ol or technical school level by allocating more resources (financial and staffing) to those in need of extra help. Public acceptance of this preferential treatment would be greater, less emotional, and more easily justified. It does not address the intermediate needs of some minorities, but maybe there could be federal or state programs for special training.
As a result, this paper reasons that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action itself should be permitted to be used in case the state once again unfairly discriminates social groups.
Affirmative action is unethical and this idea is supported by moral philosophy subjects such as Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Social Contract, and Virtue Theory. Arguments against affirmative action are that it: creates reverse discrimination, lowers standards for minorities, and demeans true minority achievement. Arguments supporting affirmative action are that it is needed to: compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression, assist students starting at a disadvantage, and increase diversity. One argument against affirmative action is that it leads to reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is a preferential system set up for the benefit of minorities, if two equally qualified candidate... ... middle of paper ... ..., and Democracy: The Ethics of Affirmative Action" Public Productivity & Management Review Vol.
While it is still a morally commendable effort today, the system has become an attempt to atone for the sins of our country's past, and a double standard that threatens every citizen's liberties. The first problem with affirmative action is the obvious fact that it is an attempt to end discrimination with discrimination. When a company or university discriminates against a white male for the sake of bettering the outcome of another racial group, an injustice occurs. Affirmative action is the governmental legislation of the active discrimination of one person over another—an unacceptable and dangerous double standard. Secondly, affirmative action seeks to reconcile the injustices of the past.
Like Rauch says, people must not try to eradicate hate speech, rather criticize and try to correct it. There is no wrong in standing up for yourself but there is an enormous wrong in limiting speech, hateful or not. V. Conclusion If it wasn’t already obvious, I believe that Altman is wrong. I believe that strengthening the proverbial skin of society is more important that pitting it’s individuals against each other on issues of what’s ok and not ok to say. Altman appeals to his own morals in which giving individuals the equality that is due to them and the right to not be treated as a lesser member of society are of ultimate importance.
Law can, however, prohibit discriminatory practices and behaviors (Dimensions of Racism). Racist and racism are provocative words in American society. To some, they become curse words. They are descriptive words of reality that cannot be denied. Some people believe that race is the primary determinant of human abilities and capacities and behave as if racial differences produce inherent superiorities.
It claims to promote equality when all it really does is create more social gaps and hard feelings between different social groups within our society. Affirmative Action?s practices contradict its own opinions. It?s trying to justify the theory that two wrongs make a right. Affirmative Action seems to have done more harm than good and merely add to discrimination and conflict rather than solving past problems. While Affirmative Action may have at one time served a useful purpose it seems to no longer be productive and is merely a negative system creating further problems.
Rawls’ attempt to define justice as fairness within the confines of the original position in A Theory of Justice establishes a deontological ethic. Rawls’ theory prioritizes individual liberty with equality to illustrate the deficiencies of utilitarianism. Despite criticism from Sandel, Rawls’ justice as fairness theory adequately defends a redistributive system for the entire society while addressing the inequality of luck. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to provide an alternative to belief in utilitarianism and intuitionism with the justice as fairness theory. Rawls defines justice as fairness as the choices made in the original position, saying, “They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality defining the fundamental terms of their association...This way of regarding the principles of justice we shall call justice as fairness.”(10) By assuming people in the original position could only make rational, unbiased judgements, Rawls claims principles reached in this position would be the most just.