In the Beginning Inaffirmative action became an inflammatory public issue. But what did this mandate amount to?
Controversy continues to swirl around the nature of the plight of racial minorities, the inequality of women, and the harm that whites, minorities, or males have suffered as a result of preference shown to women and minorities. These continuing debates over racial and sexual diversity have often focused on business and its needs.
Racial and sexual discrimination gave had a long history in business, and diversity now promises to have significant benefits for business.
Perhaps more than any other contemporary social issue, public discussions of discrimination and diversity have clearly approached the subject in ethical terms: The words justice, equality, racisms, rights, and discrimination inevitably find their way into the debate.
However, in modern usage, the term is not morally neutral; it is usually intended to refer to the wrongful act of distinguishing illicitly among people not on the basis of individual merit, but on the basis of prejudice or some other invidious or morally reprehensible attitude.
This morally charged notion of invidious discrimination, as it applies to employment. In this sense, to discriminate in employment is to make an adverse decision or set of decisions against employees or prospective employees who belong to a certain class because of morally unjustified prejudice toward members of that class.
Thus, discrimination in employment must involve three basic elements. First, it is a decision against one or more employees or prospective employees that is not based on individual merit, such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legistimate qualifications.
Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally injustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs.
Third, the decision or set of decisions has a harmful or negative impact on the interest of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions, or better pay. Intentional and Institutional Aspects A helpful framework for analyzing different forms of discrimination can be constructed by distinguishing the extend to which a discriminatory act is intentional and isolated or noninstittionalized and the extent to which it is unintentional and institutionalized.
First, a discriminatory act may be part of the isolated noninstitutionalized behavior of a single individual who intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of personal prejudice.
Second, a discriminatory act may be part of the routine behavior of an institutionalized group, which intentionally and knowingly discriminates out of the personal prejudices of its members. Third, an act of discrimination may be part of the isolated noninstitutionalized behavior of a single individual who unintentionally and unknowingly discriminates against someone because the individual unthingkingly adopts the traditional practices and stereotypes of the surrounding society.
Fourth, a discriminatory act may be part of the systematic routine of a corporate organization or group that unintentionally incorporates into its formal institutionalized procedures practices that discriminates against women or minorities. Its Extent How do we estimate whether an institution or a set of institutions is practicing discrimination against a certain group?
We do so by looking at statistical indicators of how the members of that group are distributed within the institution. A prima facie indication of discrimination exists when a disproportionate number of the members of a certain group hold the less desirable positions within the institutions despite their preferences and abilities.
Three kinds of comparisons canprovide evidence for such a distribution: Utility, Rights, and Justice The arguments mustered against discrimination generally fall into three groups: Different jobs, the argument goes, require different skills and personality traits if they are to be carried out in as productive a manner as possible.
Utilitarian arguments of this sort, however, have encountered two kind of objections. First, if the argument is correct, then jobs should be assigned on the basis of job related qualifications only so long as such assignments will advance the public welfare.
Second, the utilitarian argument must also answer the charge of opponents who hold that society as a whole may benefit from some forms of sexual discrimination. Rights Kantian Theory, for example, holds that human beings should be treated as ends and never used merely as means.
At a minimum, the principle means that each individual has a moral right to be treated as a free person equal to any other person and that all individuals have a correlative moral duty to treat each individual as a free and equal person.
Discriminatory practices violate the principle in two ways. Fist, discrimination is based on the belief that one group is inferior to other groups. Second, discrimination places the members of groups that are discriminated against in lower social and economic positions:Deontological Vs Utilitarian Ethics deontologicalutilitarian ethics Kant believed that morality is dependent upon reason, that to act rationally was the same as acting morally.
He placed a high value upon duty in determining the moral worth of an timberdesignmag.com’s deontological ethics is essentially an ethics of duty or obligation. As such, he claims that the moral worth of an action depends. THE ETHICS OF JOB DISCRIMINATION. The debates over equality, diversity, and discrimination have been prolonged and acrimonious.
Kantian Theory, What does an affirmative action program involve? The heart of an affirmative action program is a detailed study (a “utilization analysis”) of all the major job classifications is the firm.
Ethics Test 2. STUDY. PLAY.
Pojmam: Why Affirmative Action is Immoral (Kantian) But even if it were sound, since it is basically a utilitarian argument, other considerations of justice could still override it. - SECOND ARGUMENT is the compensation argument - Historically, blacks have been wronged and severely harmed by whites.
Dec 01, · Monday, December 1, 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. rather than the morality of the act itself or the agent involved in the act.
The Utilitarian might endorse using the motto, “the Author: On The Move with Mack Worley. “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.
Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Rights Theories, and Religious Ethics A “utilitarian” argument, in the strict sense, is one what alleges that we ought to do.