Lakisha Phillips

Ashford University

SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility

7/18/2015

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Classical ethical theories and different ethical perspectives have a great application in the way affirmative action is viewed in the society. Other theories differ with these issue while others give a close relation to affirmative action and the way it has been taken by many organizations and institutions worldwide.

Affirmative action refers to a policy that involves institutions or organizations engaging in active efforts in order to improve the opportunities for a specific group of individuals that appear to be excluded from the society (Mosser, 2013). Some of these groups are excluded in terms of race, color, religion or also national origin and this action always targets to increase a number of individuals from a particular groups within institutions, businesses not forgetting other areas in the society where there has been historically low representation by these groups.

Affirmative action has been known to give the so called minorities an advantage the moment it comes to applying for employment opportunities, higher institution of learnings and other organizations in societies. It goes a step far by giving extra points when a test results where organizations are financially motivated to come out racially diverse. The effects of the outcome is always enables these candidates that appear less qualified to get a position, to be chosen and achieve minority quotas. This action was made a bill in order to prevent racism after a period where segregation was declared unconstitutional with the motive of employers to give opportunities to minorities but it has been said to be molded with a lot of issues.

Utilitarianism theory

For one to understand the way an ethical theory deals with affirmative action, the main important thing is understanding the perspective or theory first. Utilitarianism is one of the ethical theory which talks about focusing on expected outcome of a particular act instead of morality of that specific act itself. It can be summarized with the saying that “the end justifies the means” (Fluker, 2009). The other best way to describe this particular theory is that an individual choose an act which produces best outcome for high number of persons while giving room to least possible harm. Utilitarianism theory considers actions that give rise to the reverse of the feeling of happiness which can be termed as harm, however any harm that is created is able to be outweighed in case sufficient utility has been created in the result. For instance, when a life one individual needs to be taken for a purpose of saving two or more lives, utilitarianism theory suggests that it is the right action since there is creation of more utility compared to harm.

Applying this theory to affirmative action can take many ways to approach the subject. In this case I will focus on why utilitarianism can be against practicing affirmative action. We can take a look at “The Greatest Happiness Principle” to open up this dilemma. A close analysis of affirmative action, we can see that utilitarianism results to creation of more utility, for a society to be great in a case where minorities are denied special treatment compared to the majority (Lo, 2012). The practice of giving special treatment to minorities gives a creation of more suffering to more individuals that it really helps. The logic behind this is that there are more number of individuals in the majority population compared to minority.

Deontology theory

This theory claims that there exist universal laws that an individual is not supposed to violate at all cost. When compared with utilitarianism theory, this theory does not look at consequences of any action but instead the morality of that particular act itself. Deontologists asks whether an act is just or moral or whether it follows golden rule. Golden rule in this case states clearly that a person needs to treat another individual the same way he or she expects to be treated or handled. This theory focuses on obligating actions expected from a rational moral agent. Applying the theory of deontology to affirmative action can make a deontologist to think that it is unethical for any group of individuals to be given a special treatment or being preferred than other groups (Fluker, 2009). The reason behind this is that it violates the golden rule when discriminating against a majority and giving minority advantage over others in the society.

The deontologists cannot be concerned with the repercussions of eliminating activities of affirmative action, however their main point is that discrimination is immoral even if it goes ahead and benefit other individuals hence making it clear that deontologists are against discrimination act. This shows that the deontologists considers the institutions that practice affirmative action as being morally wrong. This shows that deontologists act against the affirmative action.

Ethical perspective of Relativism

Relativism is an ethical perspective which denotes that individuals are not supposed to be judged basing upon any individuals’ standards but should be judged upon the society. The relativists always believe that there is nothing like an absolute law. It is considered a good philosophy to people that believe in agreeing to disagree instead of casting a judgment. Considering how Relativist consider what organization take affirmative action to be, there exist many possibilities although there is a major stumbling block that is hard to overcome in applying this theory (Mosser, 2013) . The main idea is that relativism helps to prevent a society being judged meaning that if a certain society is undergoing racism and any minorities being discriminated, this ethical perspective makes one think that it is not proper judging that particular society. Putting that in mind, it appears impossible for any relativist to support any societal change. Individuals have argued that the goal of affirmative action is societal change and due to this logic, relativist will obviously be against it.

Work Cited

Mosser K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed). San Diego, CA: Bridge point Education Inc.

Walter E. Fluker, (2009). Ethical Leadership: The Quest for Character, Civility and Community. Fortress Press. Pp. 201.

Bernard Lo, (2012). Resolving ethical Dilemmas. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Pp. 156-160.