Lakisha Phillips Ashford University SOC 120 Introduction To

Lakisha Phillipsashford Universitysoc 120 Introduction To Ethics Soc

Classical ethical theories and different ethical perspectives have a great application in the way affirmative action is viewed in society. Affirmative action refers to policies where organizations actively work to improve opportunities for specific groups that have historically been excluded, such as those based on race, color, religion, or national origin. These policies aim to increase representation of marginalized groups in employment, education, and other societal sectors where their participation has been low.

While affirmative action seeks to promote equality, it has sparked debate regarding its ethical justification and implications. Theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, and relativism offer different perspectives on whether affirmative action is morally acceptable or not. These perspectives are essential for understanding the complex ethical landscape surrounding affirmative action policies and their societal impact.

Paper For Above instruction

Affirmative action remains a contentious issue in contemporary society, presenting a paradox of moral and ethical considerations. Its roots can be traced to efforts to redress historical injustices and systemic discrimination. However, the ethical evaluation of affirmative action depends heavily on the normative framework adopted—whether utilitarian, deontological, or relativist approaches. Analyzing these perspectives provides insight into the moral dilemma of balancing societal equity and individual rights.

Utilitarian Perspective on Affirmative Action

The utilitarian approach emphasizes actions that maximize overall happiness or utility. According to this framework, the moral worth of affirmative action policies hinges on their consequences, primarily whether they produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Fluker, 2009). Proponents argue that affirmative action leads to a more diverse and inclusive society, which enhances social cohesion and economic productivity. Moreover, increasing opportunities for marginalized groups can reduce societal inequalities, ultimately fostering greater well-being.

On the other hand, critics from a utilitarian standpoint contend that affirmative action can generate unintended harm, especially if it results in reverse discrimination or undercuts meritocracy. For example, if preferential treatment results in less qualified candidates gaining positions over more qualified ones, it could undermine societal efficiency and morale (Lo, 2012). This could diminish trust in institutions and produce societal discontent, thereby decreasing overall utility. Hence, from a utilitarian lens, the benefits of affirmative action should outweigh any negative consequences, a balance that is often difficult to achieve.

Deontological Perspective on Affirmative Action

Deontology emphasizes moral duties and adherence to principles, asserting that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong regardless of their outcomes. This perspective is rooted in Kantian ethics, which advocates the adherence to universal moral laws, such as the golden rule—treat others as one would wish to be treated (Fluker, 2009). Applying this to affirmative action raises questions about whether preferential treatment violates individual rights or moral duties.

Deontologists generally oppose policies that discriminate against individuals based on race, gender, or other characteristics, because such discrimination violates the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to societal goals. Giving preferential treatment to certain groups might be seen as unfair or morally wrong because it contradicts the moral imperative to treat all individuals equitably. Therefore, from a deontological stance, affirmative action may be considered intrinsically unethical, as it involves actions that could be construed as discriminative or unjust.

Relativist Perspective on Affirmative Action

Relativism posits that moral judgments are dependent on societal or cultural contexts rather than universal standards. This perspective holds that what is considered morally acceptable in one society may not be in another. Therefore, evaluating affirmative action through relativism involves considering societal norms and values (Mosser, 2013).

From this viewpoint, support or opposition to affirmative action varies significantly across cultures and communities. In societies where discrimination and systemic inequality are entrenched, relativists might justify affirmative action as a necessary measure for social justice. Conversely, some cultures may prioritize individual merit and view affirmative action as unfair interference that undermines social cohesion. Relativism thus complicates the discourse by emphasizing that ethical acceptability is context-dependent, and there may be no objective moral stance that applies universally.

In conclusion, the ethical evaluation of affirmative action is multifaceted, influenced heavily by the normative theories applied. Utilitarianism highlights outcomes and societal benefits but warns against potential harms. Deontology emphasizes moral duties and fairness, often opposing preferential treatment. Relativism underscores the importance of cultural context, leading to diverse moral judgments. Recognizing these varied perspectives allows for a more nuanced understanding of affirmative action and its role within societal ethics.

References

• Fluker, W. E. (2009). Ethical Leadership: The Quest for Character, Civility and Community. Fortress Press.
• Lo, B. (2012). Resolving Ethical Dilemmas. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and Social Responsibility (2nd ed.). Bridgepoint Education Inc.
• Berlin, I. (2004). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Gert, B., Culver, C., & Clouser, K. (2006). Bioethics: A Systematic Approach. Oxford University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). The Language of Morals. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.