An
Argument Against Affirmative Action
The purpose of
this essay will be to make an effective argument against the practice of
affirmative action using ethical theories, perspectives and logical arguments.
This essay will analyze how a Utilitarian, a Deontologist, a Virtue Ethicist a
Relativist and an Ethical Egoist would argue against the use of affirmative
action. A case will be made by illustrating why this practice is irrefutably
unethical and discriminatory.
Affirmative
action is often used to give minorities an advantage when applying for jobs,
colleges or other organizations. In some cases, extra points are given on test
results and in other cases companies are financially incentivized to be
racially diverse. The result of these practices enables candidates, who may be
less qualified to fill a position, to be chosen in order to achieve minority
quotas. Affirmative action was enacted to push back against racism after
segregation was deemed unconstitutional in order to get employers and the government
to employ minorities; however, it is wrought with issues. As Peter H. Schuck
stated in Assessing Affirmative Action:
“The framers of the
14th Amendment may have countenanced affirmative action favoring former slaves
and perhaps their descendants, but they would never have approved of today’s
affirmative-action programs, in which most of the potential beneficiaries are
immigrants or descendants of immigrants. But regardless of whether such
programs are constitutional or not, they are undesirable public policy, indeed
perverse in practice.” (Schuck, 2014)
The Utilitarian
In order to
understand how an ethical theory or perspective would deal with affirmative
action, one must first understand the theory or perspective. Utilitarianism is
known as a consequential ethical theory, which simply means that it focuses on the
expected outcome of an act, rather than the morality of the act itself or the
agent involved in the act. The Utilitarian might endorse using the motto, “the
ends justify the means”. The most basic premise of Utilitarianism is that the
agent should choose the course of action that will create the maximum amount of
happiness or utility and reduce suffering for the maximum amount of people
possible. Another way to describe this philosophy is one should choose the act
that produces the best results for the greatest number of individuals while
creating the least amount of harm. As John Stuart Mill, the father of
Utilitarianism, said in his book “Utilitarianism”,
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”
(Mill, 2001).
As noted by Mill, Utilitarianism takes into
account actions that produce the reverse of happiness, otherwise known as
suffering or harm, but any harm created can be outweighed, if sufficient
utility is created as a result. For example, if the life of one person were to
be taken in order to save the lives of 2 or more individuals, the Utilitarian could
suggest that it is the right course of action. This is because more utility was
created than harm.
When applying the ethical theory of
Utilitarianism to affirmative action, there can be many ways that a Utilitarian
can approach 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
simply start with “The Greatest Happiness Principle” to unravel this conundrum.
After analyzing the practice of affirmative action, the Utilitarian could see
that more utility is created, for the greater society, when minorities are not
given special or preferential treatment over the majority. The act of giving
special treatment toward minorities creates more suffering or harm for more
people than it helps. The logic behind this argument is rather simple; there
are more individuals in a majority than in a minority, in fact, that is their
very definitions.
The practice of affirmative action stands in
stark contrast to the ethical theory of Utilitarianism. If anything, the
Utilitarian might see more utility created when special treatment is given to a
majority. This is because more utility is created for more people than is
harmed by this practice. However, a moral and just person can obviously see how
unjust that practice would be.
Deontology
The ethical
theory of Deontology asserts that there are universal laws in which a moral or
just person simply should not violate. Unlike Utilitarianism, Deontology does
not look at the consequences of an action, but rather the morality of an act
itself. A Deontologist would ask, “Is this act moral or just and/or does this
act follow the golden rule?” The golden rule simply states that one should do
unto others, as they wish others would do unto themselves. The name Deontology
comes from the Greek word “Deon”, which means duty. The Deontologist believes
that it is a moral agent’s duty to treat others as the agent would like to be
treated; with respect and dignity. In other words, the ethical theory of Deontology
primarily focuses on what a rational moral agent is obligated to do (I.E.
duty), rather than the consequences of the act.
“Whatever else it
does, a moral theory will tell us what our moral obligations are. Since if we
have a moral obligation to act in a certain way, it follows that we have a
reason to act in that way, this entails that a moral theory will tell us what
some of our reasons for action are.” (Hooker, 2012)
When applying
Deontology to the practice of affirmative action, a Deontologist might think
that it is unethical or unjust to give any group of people special or
preferential treatment. It would violate the golden rule to discriminate
against the majority and give the minority an advantage over everyone else in
society. It would not follow the golden rule to discriminate against anyone,
even if they are in the majority.
The Deontologist would not be concerned about
the consequences of eliminating the practice of affirmative action; only that
discrimination is an immoral act, even if it benefits others. It wouldn’t
matter how much utility affirmative action created 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.
Virtue Ethics
Aristotle has
been given credit for creating the theory of Virtue Ethics. The ethical theory
of Virtue Ethics is much different from other theories. Unlike Deontology, Virtue
Ethics does not analyze the morality of an action. Unlike Utilitarianism and
Ethical Egoism, Virtue Ethics does not analyze the consequence or outcome 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 a virtuous
person will have certain character qualities, in the proper proportion and in
harmony with all other qualities.
“What kind of virtues
does Aristotle have in mind? He specifies a number of virtues, some of which
have already been mentioned, including courage, generosity, honesty, pride, and
modesty. He also mentions one that is perhaps less common, temperance, or being
moderate in one's appetites and desires” (Mosser, 2013).
The Virtue Ethicist would consider if an
agent’s actions display these virtues in harmony with one another or if there
is 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 affirmative 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 unvirtuous
qualities.
Relativism
The ethical
perspective of Relativism dictates that individuals and/or societies should not
be judged based upon anyone’s standards, but the society that is being judged.
Relativists believe that there is no such thing as an absolute rule or law.
This seems to be a rather 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 an absolute truth, then this statement
contradicts itself. How could one believe absolutely 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 major 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 society. 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.
Ethical Egoism
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 argue makes it completely unethical.
However, the Ethical Egoist could argue that self-interest, rather than selfishness
is the driving force of individuals and that one cannot simply 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 everyday lives 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
determine what is in their own best interest, but for now, a look from an
employer’s point of view will allow the best insight into this ethical
perspective. When an employer begins the hiring process, they likely 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 look for in a person are experience,
qualification, education, work ethic, employment history, attitude and
professionalism.
It would behoove the employer to hire the
candidate that best meets these prerequisites, but while utilizing the practice
of affirmative action, the employer may not be able to pick the best candidate
for the job. The employer may be forced to pick a less qualified candidate in
order to meet an arbitrary minority quota or because a person was automatically
given more points than everyone else at the beginning of a test. This less
qualified candidate could require more training, might be less productive,
could cost the company money or, worse, put lives in jeopardy depending on the
job.
Due to the conflicts of self-interest, 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, the
practice of affirmative action is morally wrong and completely unjust. It
essentially creates a privileged few who have opportunities handed to them that
are not based on merit, but skin color, race and ethnic background. It defies
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 racisms against a
group of people and then simultaneously support racism in favor of that group? Discrimination
in all forms is abhorrent and immoral. Based on this principle alone, a moral
person could not condone the practice of affirmative action. After breaking
down the above theories and perspectives, an ethical theorist could come to the
same conclusion and disapprove of affirmative action. This essay has
illustrated how every discussed ethical theory could produce a negative
reaction in response to the institution of affirmative action.
In this
author’s opinion affirmative action is tantamount to soft bigotry! Affirmative
action assumes that its recipients could not succeed without such special
treatment. It assumes that minorities
are unable to succeed on their own merit and due to such inferiorities must be
given an advantage over the majority. This kind of thought is not only false,
but despicable in nature. Minorities should be insulted by these false
insinuations and demand that this institution be forever purged from society.
References:
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London, GBR:
ElecBook, 2001. Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.
Hooker, Brad, ed. Ratio
Special Issues : Developing Deontology : New Essays in Ethical Theory. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ProQuest ebrary.
Burgess-Jackson, K.
(2013). Taking Egoism Seriously. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost database
Schuck, P. H. (2014).
Assessing Affirmative Action. National Affairs, 2076-96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
database
Mosser, K. (2013).
Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.
LAWLER, M. G., &
SALZMAN, T. A. (2013). VIRTUE ETHICS: NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN. Theological
Studies. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI should try it sometime on Android. Hope it will be as much helpful as these useful source Evolution Writers . This service will write as best as they can. So you do not need to waste the time on rewritings.
ReplyDelete