Affirmative Action
SOC120
Instructor- Thomas
Reeder
Week 5 Final Paper
1/8/15
Affirmative Action
The intention of this paper is to make a real argument
against the performance of affirmative action using logical arguments ethical
theories, and perspectives. This paper will examine in what way aUtilitarian, Deontologist,
Virtue Ethicist, Relativist and an Ethical Egoist would debate against the use
of affirmative action.Thecase will be made by demonstrating why this practice
is unquestionably unethical and discriminatory. Affirmative action” means
positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in
areas of employment, education, and culture from which they have been
historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection, selection
on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity, affirmative action generates
intense controversy. Affirmative action is frequently used to give subgroups a
benefit when applying for jobs, colleges or other organizations. In some cases,
companies are financially incentivized to be racially diverse and in other instancesextra
points are given for test results. The result of these practices enables
candidates,whichcould be less experienced to satisfy a position, to be chosen
in order to achieve minority quotas. Affirmative action was passed to push back
opposed to racism after segregation was viewed unlawful in order to get the government
and employers to employ minorities; however, it is twistedby issues.
In order to comprehend how an ethical perspective or theory
would deal with affirmative action, it is necessary to first comprehend the view
or approach. Utilitarianism is acknowledged as an important ethical theory,
which only means that it centers on the expected result of an act, instead of the
principles of the act itself or the agent involved in the action. The
Utilitarian may endorse using the motto, “the ends justify the means”. The most
fundamental evidence of Utilitarianism is that the agent must choose the course
of action that will create the greatest amount of happiness or utility and
reduce suffering for the highest number of people. Another way to label this
philosophy is one should choose the act that gives the best outcomes for the
greatest number of individuals while generating the smallest quantity of harm. John
Stuart Mill, said in his book “Utilitarianism”, “The faith which accepts as the
basis of ethics, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that
actions are right in amount as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the opposite of happiness” (Mill, 2001).
When you apply the ethical theory of Utilitarianism to
affirmative action, there can be several methods that a Utilitarian can handle the
subject. For the purpose of this essay, the focus will be on why a Utilitarian
might be against the practice of affirmative action. One can only start with
“The Greatest Happiness Principle” to unravel this conundrum. After examining
the performance of affirmative action, the Utilitarian could see that more
usefulness is formed, for the greater society, when subgroups are not given
special treatment over the majority. The act of giving special treatment to
minorities creates more suffering for more people than it helps. The reason
behind this argument is rather straightforward; there are more individuals in
the majority than in the minority.The practice of affirmative action stands in
plain difference for Utilitarianism. If anything, the Utilitarian might see
more utility created when special treatment is given to the majority. It is
because more value is generated for more people than is hurt by this practice.
However, the moral and just person can clearly see how unjust that practice
would be.
Utilitarianism
can provide a foundation for which a more adequate use of Affirmative Action’s
funding can improve the education and workplace struggles that minority groups
and low-income families might experience.
Instead of focusing directly on an individual’s race, we need to focus
on minority groups and low income areas as a whole, and ask ourselves what the
real problem is. By striving to provide
the “greatest happiness for the greatest number” of individuals, we can improve
education and workplace diversity, without focusing on individual race. In other words, by creating a strong
education foundation in low-income areas, we can stop focusing on race and
allow a rewarding educational system to benefit society as a whole.
The ethical theory of Deontology states that there are
universal laws in which a honestperson only should not violate. Not like
Utilitarianism, Deontology does not look at the penalties of an action, but
rather the morality of an act itself. A Deontologist would ask, “Is thislaw
moral or does this lawtrail the golden rule?”
The golden rule only declares that one should only do to others, what they want
done to them. Deontology comes from the Greek word “Deon”, which means duty.
The Deontologist trusts that it is a moral agent’s duty to treat others asanagent
would like to be treated; with dignity and respect. In other words, the ethical
theory of Deontology first and foremost focus is on what a rational moral agent
is obligated to do, rather than the consequences of the act.
When applying Deontology to the practice of affirmative
action, a Deontologist could think that it is unethical to give any group of
people special treatment. It would disrupt the golden rule to discriminate
between the majority and give the minority a benefit over everyone else in
society The Deontologist would not be worried about the penalties of removing
the practice of affirmative action; only that discrimination is an immoral act,
even if it helps others. It wouldn’t matter how much effectiveness affirmative
action produced for minorities or society in general, the Deontologist would be
against the act of discrimination. The Deontologist would not consider the
amount of suffering, possibly created, from eliminating the practice of
affirmative action, only that the institution, itself, is morally wrong.
Additionally, the Deontologist would not be concerned with any possible
consequences for themselves, such as looking bad politically or losing votes
(if the Deontologist is a politician). They would only be concerned that
discrimination in all forms is immoral. With that in mind, the Deontologist
could argue against affirmative action due to discriminatory practices based on
race.
Aristotle has been given credit for making the theory of
Virtue Ethics. The ethical theory of Virtue Ethics is much different from other
approaches. Unlike Deontology, Virtue Ethics does not examine the principles of
an action. Unlike Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism, Virtue Ethics does not
explain the significance or result of an action. Conversely, Virtue Ethics
emphasizes the character of the agent performing the action. This ethical
theory attempts to seek what makes a rational moral agent virtuous as an
individual. It outlines that an honest person will have certain character
qualities, in the proper proportion and harmony with all other qualities. “What kind of virtues does Aristotle have in
mind? He specifies a number of attributes, some of which have already been
mentioned, including courage, generosity, honesty, pride, and modesty. He also
mentions one that is perhaps less familiar, temperance, or being moderate in
one’s appetites and desires” (Mosser, 2013).
The Virtue Ethicist will consider if an agent’s actions
display these virtues in harmony with one another or if there are one or more
qualities that are in excess or deficient. According to this theory, the
virtuous person should have these qualities in the proper balance. As Lawler
and Salzman wrote in Virtue Ethics: Natural And Christian: “As character state
or habit, virtue not only explains why a person acts this way on this
particular occasion but also why the person can be relied on to act this way
always or, given human frailty, at least most of the time. Immediately, then,
we can isolate three dimensions of a virtue: it is a character state, habit, or
disposition; it involves a judgment of truth and choice of action; and it lies
in a mean between excess and defect” (Lawler/Salzman, 2013). When applying
Virtue Ethics to the practice of affirmative action, the Virtue Ethicist would
have to determine if this practice represented a harmony of the above qualities
or a deficiency of one more qualities. It is arguable that theaffirmative
action is, in essence, discrimination based on race. With that in mind, the
Virtue Ethicists might think that a person who participates in racial
discrimination would be deficient in one or more of these qualities of virtue.
Discrimination, in all forms, is not a virtuous character quality. As a result,
the Virtue Ethicist might be against affirmative action, because to participate
in a discriminatory institution, such as affirmative action, would be to
endorse virtuous qualities.
“As character state or habit, virtue not only explains why a
person acts this way on this particular occasion but also why the person can be
relied on to act this way always or, given human frailty, at least most of the
time. Immediately, then, we can isolate three dimensions of a virtue: it is a
character state, habit, or disposition; it involves a judgment of truth and
choice of action; and it lies in a mean between excess and defect”
(Lawler/Salzman, 2013)
The ethical perspective of Relativism orders that the individuals
or societies should not be judged based on anybody’s principles, but the
society that is being judged. Relativists believe that there is no such thing
as an absolute rule or law. It seems to be a good philosophy for those who wish
to agree to disagree, rather than casting judgment. It is worth noting that if
a Relativist believes there is no such thing as absolute truth, then this
statement contradicts itself. How could one believe that there is no absolute
truth? It is a conundrum. In regards to
how a Relativist would consider the institution of affirmative action there are
many possibilities; however, there is a significant stumbling block that cannot
be overcome when applying this theory. Relativism prevents judging society. If
a society is racist and minorities are being discriminated against, the Relativist
might think that it is improper to judge that the corporation. With that in
mind, it is impossible for a Relativist to be in support of societal change.
One can easily argue that societal change is the goal of affirmative action and
by this logic the Relativist would have to be against it.
The ethical perspective of Ethical Egoism argues that its
agents should do what they deem is in their own best interest or creates the
most utility for themselves. There are similarities between Ethical Egoism and
Utilitarianism in that they are both consequential ethical theories, meaning
that they both considered the outcome of an action, rather than the act itself.
“It might be said, following Feldman (1978, 82), that egoism is individualistic
consequentialism, whereas utilitarianism is universalistic consequentialism”
(Burgess-Jackson, 2013). Opponents of
Ethical Egoism have long argued that it is a selfish theory, which they claim
makes it completely unethical. However, the Ethical Egoist could argue that
self-interest, rather than selfishness is the driving force of persons and that
one cannot just be expected to labor for others their entire life with no
concern for their own interests. It is arguable that most people, whether
intentionally or unintentionally, act as an Ethical Egoists in their daily life
by making decisions that they feel will result in a preferable outcome for
themselves. The Ethical Egoist could argue that this is not selfish, but common
sense and self-evident.
When applying Ethical Egoism to affirmative action, there are
many ways that an Egoist may regulate what is in their own best significance,
but for now, a look from an employer’s viewpoint will allow the best
understanding for this ethical perspective. When a company starts the hiring
process, they have probable hope to find the best person for the job that they
wish to have filled. This would imply that they are, perhaps, looking for a
myriad of qualities in a potential candidate. Some qualities they may find in a
person are experience, qualification, education, work ethic, employment
history, attitude, and professionalism.
It would behoove the employer to hire an applicant that best
meets these requirements, but while using the practice of affirmative action,
the employer could not be able to pick the best applicant for the job. The
company may be forced to select a less qualified candidate in order to meet a
random minority quota or because the person was spontaneously given more points
than everyone else at the beginning of the test. This least qualified applicant
might need more training or might be less productive.
Due to the fights of self-centeredness, the Ethical Egoist
could see that it is not in their best interest to practice affirmative action.
The Egoist would determine that they would be better off hiring the best
candidate for the job and not allowing affirmative action to determine who they
hire. This might cause the Ethical Egoist to oppose affirmative action, not
because of its discriminatory practices, but because it creates more harm for
the Egoists than utility. It becomes a burden to bear rather than a helpful
tool for the employer.
In closing,affirmative action is morally wrong and totally
unjustified. It fundamentally creates a fortunate few who have chances handed to
them that are not based on value, but skin color, race and ethnic background.
It disregards logic to conclude that the answer to the discrimination of a
minority due to racism is to discriminate against the majority. How can one
oppose racism against a group of people and then instantaneously support racism
in favor of that group? Discrimination in all forms is objectionable and
corrupt. Based on this principle alone, a good person could not disregard the
practice of affirmative action. After the break down the theories and
perspectives above, an ethical theorist might come to the same conclusion and
object to of affirmative action. This essay has exemplified how every
deliberate ethical theory could produce an adverse reaction in response to the
organization of affirmative action. In
this author’s opinion, affirmative action is tantamount to the soft bigotry!
Affirmative action accepts that its recipients could not succeed without such
special treatment. It assumes that
minorities are unable to achieve on their worth and due to such dependencies
must be given an advantage over the majority. This kind of thinking is not only
false but wicked in nature. Minorities should be insulted by these false
implications and demand that this institution be purged from society.
References:
Burgess-Jackson, K. (2013). Taking
Egoism Seriously. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
database
Hooker, Brad, ed. Ratio Special
Issues: Developing Deontology: New Essays in Ethical Theory. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ProQuest library.
Lawler, m. G., & salzman, t. A.
(2013). Virtue ethics: natural and christian. Theological studies. Retrieved
from ebscohost database
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism.
London, GBR: ElecBook, 2001. Retrieved from ProQuest library.
Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and
social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
