Philosophy paper
Affirmative action is the answer to modern day racial and gender discrimination. Or is it? Women and African-Americans have been looked upon as being less than a white man’s equal all through out history. To alleviate all the legal issues that have occurred, the institution of affirmative action, or positive discrimination, has been put into place by law makers. Affirmative action as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is “positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded.” But selection for employment or education based on gender, color, or race has been considered a very controvertial subject in today’s society. While the goals of affirmative action may be noble, the way those goals are reached has been the topic of much debate. People do not like accepting charity because it makes them feel inferior. Preferential selection for employment based on race or gender is cosidered by some a form of charity. So while atempting to get rid of negative discrimination and feelings of inferiority in minorities, affirmative action is actually creating more discrimination and feelings of inferiority. We are all biased when it comes to affirmative action. We have grown up looking at it through a 20th century lens but if we were to step back and take a look at affirmitive action from a philosophical standpoint, we might gain some more understanding as to whether affirmitive action is a positive good or a necessary evil.
“It appears that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious,” (Discourse, p279.) In Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature, there is no room for such things as affirmative action. According to him, in a state of nature, man cannot possibly need affirmitive action because man has no attachments to the rest of his race. In a state of nature man is carefree and independent. This theory goes against the very core of affirmative action because affirmative action is someone giving another person a job or a college seat based on their color or gender. In a state of nature where everything belongs to everyone, there is no need for anyone to give anything to anybody else because you can just take what you want. The noble savage in his purest state would not understand the idea of affirmative action because that idea involves forming relationships with other human beings. But according to Rousseau, the “noble” savage has no relationships with other people because he doesn’t see a need for them. Because of the concept of “natural right” where everything belongs to everyone, a person of any creed or color can get anything they can possibly want when they are in a state of nature. This “natural right” would make affirmative action obsolete and irrelevant.
Now stepping back into the modern world of philosophy, we are faced with another prominent voice in the philosophical community, Irus Marion Young. “I suggest that social justice means the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression. Any aspect of social organization and practice relevant to domination and oppression is in principle subject to evaluation by ideals of justice” (Paradigm, 243) Young’s philosophy goes directly against the institution of affirmative action because according to her, mankind needs to rid itself of all institutions of domination and oppresion. And no matter its goals, affirmitive action is an institution of domination, albeit a positive institution. If we were to delve deeper into the meaning of affirmative action, we would realize that in a way, it is condencsending minorities because it promotes the stereotype that women and blacks can not achieve certain social positions through their own resources. So if we were to examine affirmative action in this light, not only is it domineering but it is also oppressing. Since no oppressing institution should be allowed to exist according to Young, affirmative action as a whole should be eliminated. In Young’s ideal society, where even the most primitive aspects of our lives, such as happiness and health, are distributed evenly, there would be no need for affirmitive action, because racism and sexism as societal institutions would not exist.”The distributive paradigm defines social justice as the morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens among society’s members.” (Paradigm, p244) So once affirmitive action is eliminated in todays society, it would not be reinstated because social justice would be morally distributed through out society, eliminating the need for affirmative action.
Another contemporary philosopher that has touched on the issue of inequality is John Rawls. His theory is that there are two principles of justice.”First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, p126) Like Young’s ideal society, Rawls’ ideal society would hold no place for the institution of affirmative action. Because the most basic of freedoms and liberties,”political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought” (Rawls, p126) are already distributed so that noone is disadvantaged, there would be no racism or sexism. If everything is accessible to everyone and noone is dissatisfied with what they are born to, feelings of inferiority would cease to exist. And if everyone is generally happy with what they have, then they would no longer see a need to subjugate, oppress, or dominate another person. Which again, makes affirmative action obsolete.
While affirmitive action is an institution that was put into place to aliviate racial and sexual inequalities, it has infact shown itself to be a double-edged blade. On the one hand it provides women and minorities opportunities that they have never had before, on the other hand it stigmatizes those same people because it promotes the stereo type that white males are better at everything then women or minority individuals. When it comes to inequality, there is no clear cut solution. And while affirmative action is but a tiny step in the direction of racial equality, we have a long way to go before society corrects the attrocious acts it has commited all throughout history.
“It appears that men in a state of nature, having no moral relations or determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious,” (Discourse, p279.) In Rousseau’s theory of the state of nature, there is no room for such things as affirmative action. According to him, in a state of nature, man cannot possibly need affirmitive action because man has no attachments to the rest of his race. In a state of nature man is carefree and independent. This theory goes against the very core of affirmative action because affirmative action is someone giving another person a job or a college seat based on their color or gender. In a state of nature where everything belongs to everyone, there is no need for anyone to give anything to anybody else because you can just take what you want. The noble savage in his purest state would not understand the idea of affirmative action because that idea involves forming relationships with other human beings. But according to Rousseau, the “noble” savage has no relationships with other people because he doesn’t see a need for them. Because of the concept of “natural right” where everything belongs to everyone, a person of any creed or color can get anything they can possibly want when they are in a state of nature. This “natural right” would make affirmative action obsolete and irrelevant.
Now stepping back into the modern world of philosophy, we are faced with another prominent voice in the philosophical community, Irus Marion Young. “I suggest that social justice means the elimination of institutionalized domination and oppression. Any aspect of social organization and practice relevant to domination and oppression is in principle subject to evaluation by ideals of justice” (Paradigm, 243) Young’s philosophy goes directly against the institution of affirmative action because according to her, mankind needs to rid itself of all institutions of domination and oppresion. And no matter its goals, affirmitive action is an institution of domination, albeit a positive institution. If we were to delve deeper into the meaning of affirmative action, we would realize that in a way, it is condencsending minorities because it promotes the stereotype that women and blacks can not achieve certain social positions through their own resources. So if we were to examine affirmative action in this light, not only is it domineering but it is also oppressing. Since no oppressing institution should be allowed to exist according to Young, affirmative action as a whole should be eliminated. In Young’s ideal society, where even the most primitive aspects of our lives, such as happiness and health, are distributed evenly, there would be no need for affirmitive action, because racism and sexism as societal institutions would not exist.”The distributive paradigm defines social justice as the morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens among society’s members.” (Paradigm, p244) So once affirmitive action is eliminated in todays society, it would not be reinstated because social justice would be morally distributed through out society, eliminating the need for affirmative action.
Another contemporary philosopher that has touched on the issue of inequality is John Rawls. His theory is that there are two principles of justice.”First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second: social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all” (Rawls, p126) Like Young’s ideal society, Rawls’ ideal society would hold no place for the institution of affirmative action. Because the most basic of freedoms and liberties,”political liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought” (Rawls, p126) are already distributed so that noone is disadvantaged, there would be no racism or sexism. If everything is accessible to everyone and noone is dissatisfied with what they are born to, feelings of inferiority would cease to exist. And if everyone is generally happy with what they have, then they would no longer see a need to subjugate, oppress, or dominate another person. Which again, makes affirmative action obsolete.
While affirmitive action is an institution that was put into place to aliviate racial and sexual inequalities, it has infact shown itself to be a double-edged blade. On the one hand it provides women and minorities opportunities that they have never had before, on the other hand it stigmatizes those same people because it promotes the stereo type that white males are better at everything then women or minority individuals. When it comes to inequality, there is no clear cut solution. And while affirmative action is but a tiny step in the direction of racial equality, we have a long way to go before society corrects the attrocious acts it has commited all throughout history.