Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"

Harvard University・2 minutes read

Affirmative action debates focus on correcting disadvantages, compensating for past wrongs, and promoting diversity to enhance the common good. The discussions question whether moral desert or entitlements based on defined criteria should be the basis for distributive justice, echoing Aristotle's view of Justice as aligning with the purpose of a practice.

Insights

  • Affirmative action debates encompass correcting educational disadvantages, compensating for historical wrongs, and promoting diversity, highlighting the social benefits of a racially diverse student body.
  • Aristotle's concept of Justice involves distributing resources based on merit and purpose, as seen in the example of allocating flutes to the best players, emphasizing the relevance of teleological reasoning in discussions like affirmative action.

Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free

Recent questions

  • What is the purpose of affirmative action?

    Correcting disadvantage, compensating for past wrongs, promoting diversity.

  • What are the objections to affirmative action?

    Fairness, individual rights, compensating for past injustices.

  • How does diversity benefit educational institutions?

    Enhances educational experience, brings varied perspectives.

  • What philosophical questions does affirmative action raise?

    Detachment of distributive justice from moral desert, implications for freedom.

  • How does Aristotle define Justice?

    Giving people what they deserve based on virtues.

Related videos

Summary

00:00

Debating Affirmative Action in University Admissions

  • RS distinguishes between claims of moral desert and entitlements to legitimate expectations
  • Distributive justice is not solely about rewarding virtue
  • Affirmative action case of Cheryl Hopwood at University of Texas Law School
  • University used affirmative action considering race and ethnic background in admissions
  • Cheryl Hopwood argued she was discriminated against for being white
  • Debate on fairness of considering race in admissions
  • Arguments for affirmative action: correcting for educational disadvantage, compensating for past wrongs, promoting diversity
  • Diversity argument emphasizes educational experience and societal benefits
  • Three main arguments for affirmative action: correcting for disadvantage, compensating for past wrongs, promoting diversity
  • Consideration of social purpose and common good in affirmative action discussions

19:30

Debate on Affirmative Action and Distributive Justice

  • The compensatory argument faces a significant objection regarding fairness, questioning if individuals like Cheryl Hopwood should bear the burden of compensating for past injustices they were not involved in.
  • To counter this objection, the concept of group rights or collective responsibility over time needs to be explored.
  • The diversity argument, unlike the compensatory argument, focuses on the benefits of a racially and ethnically diverse student body for the common good.
  • Harvard's rationale for diversity in admissions emphasizes that diversity enhances the educational experience by bringing varied backgrounds and perspectives.
  • The diversity argument must address the objection raised by Ted and Bri regarding individual rights being violated for the sake of the common good.
  • The debate on affirmative action delves into the question of whether individuals like Cheryl Hopwood have a right to admission based on their achievements and excellence.
  • Harvard's argument challenges the notion of moral desert as the basis for distributive justice, emphasizing entitlement based on the institution's defined mission and criteria.
  • The discussion on affirmative action leads back to the fundamental question of whether moral desert should be the foundation of distributive justice.
  • The distinction between inclusion and exclusion is crucial in evaluating the social purpose and admissions criteria of institutions like Harvard and the University of Texas law school.
  • The debate on affirmative action raises broader philosophical questions about the detachment of distributive justice from moral desert and the implications for freedom and respect for individuals as free beings.

42:07

Aristotle's Teleological Reasoning for Just Allocation

  • Aristotle defines Justice as giving people what they deserve based on their virtues and appropriate social roles.
  • Justice involves distributing things based on the relevant merit or desert, with discrimination according to the relevant excellence.
  • In the case of distributing flutes, Aristotle argues that the best flutes should go to the best flute players, as that aligns with the purpose of flute playing.
  • Aristotle's reasoning for just allocation involves looking at the goal or end of a practice, known as teleological reasoning.
  • While modern science may challenge teleological explanations, Aristotle's idea of reasoning from the purpose for Justice remains intuitively plausible and relevant, especially in discussions like affirmative action.
Channel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatar

Try it yourself — It’s free.