Based On Moral Theories, Discrimination Is A Moral Wrong

Based on moral theories, discrimination is a moral wrong and affirmative act

Discrimination, fundamentally, constitutes a moral wrong because it violates the core principles of fairness and equality, which are central to many moral frameworks. From a deontological perspective, rooted in Kantian ethics, discrimination breaches the categorical imperative that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end based on societal stereotypes or biases (Kant, 1785/1993). It undermines the moral duty to treat every person with dignity and respect, regardless of their race, gender, or other characteristics. Utilitarianism also condemns discrimination because it leads to suboptimal societal outcomes. When discriminatory practices persist, they diminish overall happiness by marginalizing groups, reducing societal cohesion, and hindering the full utilization of talent and potential (Mill, 1863/2002).

Conversely, the primary moral justification in favor of affirmative action is grounded in principles of justice and rectification of historical wrongs. Affirmative action aims to correct systemic inequalities that have historically disadvantaged certain groups, which aligns with the moral theory of distributive justice. According to John Rawls' theory of justice, policies should promote fairness by ensuring that societal inequalities benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971). Affirmative action thus serves as a moral necessity to rectify past injustices and bring marginalized groups to a more equitable standing in education and employment opportunities.

Furthermore, virtue ethics underscores the importance of cultivating societal virtues such as justice, fairness, and compassion. Affirmative action embodies these virtues by actively working to dismantle ingrained biases and promote a moral community where diversity is valued (Aristotle, 4th century BCE). From a consequentialist standpoint, affirmative action contributes to societal well-being by fostering diversity, reducing disparities, and enhancing innovation through varied perspectives (Sanders & Glotzer, 2017).

Based on these moral considerations, affirmative action can be justified as a morally necessary policy to promote fairness, rectify historical injustices, and foster a more equitable society. While it is not a perfect solution and may face criticisms regarding reverse discrimination, its moral justification rooted in the pursuit of justice and societal well-being remains compelling. Ensuring equal access and addressing historic marginalization aligns with foundational moral principles that affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals (Dworkin, 2000).

References

• Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean Ethics (J. A. K. Thomson, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 4th century BCE)
• Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1863)
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Sanders, A., & Glotzer, G. (2017). Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace: An Ethical Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2), 289-302.
• Beachamp, T. L. (2008). Ethical Issues in Medical Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Sterba, J. P. (2003). Ethical Theories. Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, V. (2020). Affirmative action and social justice. Journal of Social Policy, 49(4), 543-561.
• Williams, P., & Nakayama, T. (2018). International and Intercultural Communication: Diversity and Cross-Cultural Communication. SAGE Publications.