1. Discuss whether affirmative action, defined as hiring a slightly less qualified candidate from a disadvantage group over a white male, is justified. In defending your position, make reference to the arguments of Pojman and Hettinger.
2. Assess the adequacy of Anita Superson’s definition of sexual harassment.
Points to discuss/mention.
Points to discuss/mention.
1. Backwards looking, i.e. compensatory justifications do not work (Pojman and Hettinger.
2. Affirmative action not equivalent to racism or sexism, since the motive is different.
3. There is a worry about excluding white males on the basis on involuntary (Hettinger)characteristics of sex and race (Hettinger gives this objection some weight but appeals to utilitarian intuition that this is a small price to pay, given the good affirmative action achieves.
4. There is a concern that young white males are not paid any compensation for the sacrifice they are required to make. (Hettinger offers the same justification as above)
5. Desirability of breaking stereotypes should not trump considerations of merit (Pojman)
6. Affirmative action may reinforce stereotypes rather than break them (Pojman)
7. Unequal representation in areas of workforce not necessarily result of sexism or racism (Pojman)
8. Diversity should not trump merit (Pojman)
9. Shifting of burden of proof (Pojman)
No comments:
Post a Comment