Kant Theory and Justice

There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring

Proponents of affirmative action believe that it is a necessary step toward racial equality. Opponents argue on the basis of “reverse racism,” which claims that affirmative action keeps certain members of the majority ethnic group out of jobs or other positions that they deserve solely because of quotas that must be filled. The positive effects of affirmative action are the basis behind the arguments of those who support considering ethnicity and race as a part of admissions.

In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

Presenting the understandings of the mechanisms that created affirmative actions in order to change the common misconceptions and “reposition the direction that we think, talk and act about affirmative action” (xi). His intention is to shift the focus of the readers in three different ways, The first way is to change how we view the history of affirmative action. The second shift in focus is how we understand affirmative action and what we think about when we hear those words. Katznelson points out that when we hear affirmative action we only think about it in terms of top jobs and higher education. While poverty and inequality are not as prevalent in our discussions of affirmative action. The last of the three is “placing affirmative action on more secure ground by binding new deal and fair deal history to the argument about when, why and how should count in crafting todays policies” (xii). Katznelson is focused on the history and our perception of affirmative action. As stated in the book he believes many different authors have covered the subject of affirmative action in relation to moral, constitutional and practical issues, nor is it an attempt to perform a historical analysis on affirmative

Among the citizens of America affirmative action is a sensitive subject with some seeing it as a necessity to help those who have been repressed and others seeing it as reverse racism. Many Americans may also be conflicted about affirmative action, because it is such a complex issue. People fervently debate affirmative action, because it is a complex issue revolving around one’s own race, experiences, and desires.

In Professor William Shaw’s The Organization and the People In It, Shaw delves into the debate that is affirmative action. According to Shaw, “affirmative action means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, either in the company itself or in the larger society”(Shaw, p. 437). Affirmative action promotes the diversity of job opportunities for both genders and all races. Some of the opportunities can cause an unfair advantage to minorities when paired against equal or sometimes better-qualified white counterparts. This can become a moral issue by causing unfair advantages to some people. By attempting to level the playing field, affirmative action actually over compensates for potential discrimination and can place white males at a disadvantage. Affirmative action attempts to balance the application system for college or postgraduate work, however at the expense of some qualified students.

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

Affirmative action is a social policy created to promote the welfare of minorities by supporting the idea that individuals are all created equal and should not be judged by race or gender. Therefore, in situations like job and university applications, we should consider minorities to be as feasible a choice for hire as a white male candidate, taking into consideration their background. In short, it tries to give minorities that have been at a disadvantage their whole life, an opportunity to ‘equal the playing field ' by providing a broader context by which to measure an applicant or prospective employee. In the end, however, this goal is not realized. Instead, superficial ‘quotas ' are established and the

Racial discrimination occurs everyday to many different people. In America,the individuals who are usually discriminated against are the minorities like African Americans and Hispanics. Affirmative action is a policy that was created and has been claimed to be positive discrimination. The policy was created to give equal opportunity to groups of people who are usually discriminated against. Although Affirmative action has been named to be positive and support minorities, it is still unjust. There should be no positive aspects of racial discrimination. Many believe that it is only racial discrimination or racist if a caucasian person discriminates against a person of color but do not consider it racism if it happens to be the other way around. Racial Discrimination in any form is harmful which is why affirmative action policies are not correct.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

Many people advocate for affirmative action, as it is necessary for diversity in universities and the workforce, and also as a justification to previous discrimination. Though this is a valid reason, it is

Punishment is the suffering, pain, or loss that serves at retribution. Others also say it is “the authoritative imposition of something unpleasant on a person in response to a behavior deemed to be wrong by an individual or group” (Hugo & McAnany, 2010). Some question when and why we should punish. Though easy to state, this question is difficult to answer and has lead to a variety of models of punishment. In Kant’s article Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses the importance of punishment and its correspondence to crime, the right to punish, and when to grant clemency. In this paper, I will refer to the articles Critique of Political Reason and Metaphysics of Morals, and I will discuss Kant’s perspective on crime, punishment, and justice.

In his work, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant talks about three formulations of imperative. The first formulation of imperative is “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Kant believes that our actions should be the same in all situations, regardless of the outcome. Some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Kant believes that emotions and consequences should not play a role in moral action. We are morally obligated or have a duty