Ethics Essay, Research Paper

In Louis Pojman s essay The Moral Status of Affirmative Action, Pojman presents clear arguments against the use of affirmative action in the workplace and universities. He discusses seven different points as to why affirmative action is the wrong solution for solving social injustices in America. In his argument he does raise some legitimate concerns one should have when considering affirmative action, yet he fails to recognize the basic reason affirmative action was created.

Pojman s main problem is that affirmative action puts blacks and women against young white males. He argues that using strong affirmative action, that is the use of quotas to reach proportionate representation in each area of society, (375) America is simply using reverse discrimination. He cites a personal example of when he was offered a job. After discovering he was not black, the university he was applying to chose a better-qualified person to fill the position. Pojman also raises the issue that there will need to be a New Affirmative Action policy in the 21st century to compensate for the discrimination against White Males in the late 20th century. (378) It is clear Pojman, being a white male, resents affirmative action.

Another problem Pojman has with affirmative action is that it gives minorities a false sense of accomplishment, thereby leading to their downfall. Pojman states that blacks become handicapped by a need for special treatment. (376) He argues that minorities will feel they deserve special treatment and will therefore not strive to meet their greatest potential. Another concern of Pojman s is blacks are harmed by preferential treatment. He cites the mean SAT scores at the University of California, Berkeley, as example of such. Because the mean SAT scores of blacks are much lower than the average for all students, they cannot compete in the institutions where high abilities are necessary. (378)

In Pojman s arguments he does not adequately confront several issues. First Pojman should consider that outlawing discrimination in the workplace or university has not eliminated institutional racism against minorities, as shown through statistics. This cannot be ignored. A recent study used job applicants with equal qualifications and credentials as test applicants in companies that had no Affirmative Action policies. The white applicants received 23 percent more interviews and 52 percent more job offers than did the Hispanic applicants. This shows that discrimination is still taking place whether it be conscience or not. Pojman does not recognize this either. Companies with high performance in hiring and advancement of minorities and women (that is, companies committed to Affirmative Action) stock market performance was 24 times higher than firms that did not value and use Affirmative Action programs. Business needs a diverse and qualified workforce in order to become optimally competitive in both

domestic and global marketplaces. Pojman gives no attention to this study either.

As said before, Pojman seems only concerned with making affirmative action a black vs. white issue. It goes much deeper than just black and white. Pojman has not considered the positive results Affirmative Action has yielded for this country; therefore I find that his argument is flawed.

Column B: #6 Singer s argument against Hardin s lifeboat

Ethics.

To understand Singer s argument we must first define what Hardin means by lifeboat ethics. Those in the lifeboat face three choices. They can try to pick up all those in the water, which will overload and swamp the lifeboat. They can try to pick up as many as the lifeboat will hold, even though this diminishes their own chances of survival by reducing their margin of safety. Or they can fend off those in the water, and row away. Hardin suggests the last option – rowing away – as the most realistic choice for the industrialized nations. This is harsh, he acknowledges, and may be perceived as unjust. But he suggests that those who disagree with the choice can trade places with those in the water. In real terms, he recommends that the US and other nations cease giving food aid to poor nations, because access to that food simply allows the population to increase further, making the ultimate outcome of starvation and tragedy that much larger in scale, but no less inevitable.

Singer argues strongly against the lifeboat ethics that Hardin proposes. Singer states that triage involves a certain, very great evil: population control by famine and disease. (634) Singer suggests that we should attempt to help people to fight famine and disease they are faced with, which in turn will improve the overall quality of life in the countries. This will lead to a decrease in the birth rate, and the population growth will begin to level off. Singer proposes that we are very justified in aiding overseas countries because in doing so we are helping them to reach this optimum level of population growth.

Singer does not address the issue of where all this money should come from in helping the other countries. I assume he is talking about the industrialized nations of the world helping the third world countries. What would happen should a depression such as the one in the 1930 s strike again? The ability to give money under these circumstances would diminish a great deal. Singer contends that if we are better off we should be helping the less fortunate. If during a depression we are still better off than the less fortunate, then we should still give? I cannot accept this even if I tried.

I can see both points of view on this issue. On one hand there is a need to help others if we are able. On the other hand we are giving up what we have worked for in giving away what we have earned. I think that no matter, the United States will continue to give aid to other countries, as will those with a big heart. I am just not convinced that this is for everyone.