Kant, Rawls, and Affirmative Action Study Notes
Kant: Introductory Notes
Human Rights Definition:
What is owed to a human being, irrespective of circumstances, solely for the reason that they are human.
This concept is essential to modern civilizations.
Goals:
Explain the relationship between:
Kant’s theory of justice and morality.
The United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Distinction between Kant’s perspective vs. libertarian and utilitarian views.
Principles of Morality and Justice:
They are absolute; applicable to everyone, everywhere with no exceptions.
Moral Worth of Rational Creatures:
All rational beings possess inherent moral worth.
Universality of Human Rights:
All 193 UN member nations are obligated to uphold human rights.
Kant’s Concept of Inflexible Human Rights:
Respect for humanity encapsulated in the formula of humanity:
Formula of Humanity:
"So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." (JR 180)
Imperative to respect oneself and others as ends, not merely tools.
Types of Human Rights:
Negative Human Rights:
Rights to life and liberty, defining what cannot be done to individuals.
Positive Human Rights:
Obligations to provide for others/community, detailing what communities (local, national, international) must perform for individuals.
Kant is supportive of negative human rights but ambivalent regarding positive rights.
Libertarianism:
Accepts all negative human rights but denies positive human rights.
Motivated by liberty protection rather than humanity respect.
Key principles include:
Forbidding actions that inhibit others' freedoms (e.g., torture is permitted unless one chooses otherwise).
Rejection of restrictions on voluntary actions/contracts (e.g., motorcycle riding without a helmet).
No obligation to assist others (e.g., it is not required to help those in need).
Likely presents a narrower list of human rights compared to a conservative interpretation of Kant.
Utilitarianism:
Human rights endorsed only if costs are outweighed by benefits.
Does not provide absolute support for negative or positive human rights, which limits its protections.
Classified as a more progressive view compared to Kant and libertarianism but carries moral risks due to its calculative nature.
Kant: Universals & Autonomy
Core Motivation of Kant’s Morality:
Based on pure rationality which all humans can engage in.
Belief that rationality is independent of culture, historical context, and psychological differences, asserting that all possess pure rationality.
Happiness is subject to personal circumstances and cannot create an absolute moral standard.
Unreliability of Emotions:
Emotions like compassion and love cannot generate universal moral demands.
Acting on bases other than pure rationality leads to moral dilemmas.
True Freedom and Morality:
True freedom is achieved when acting on a basis of pure respect for moral law.
Introduction to Rawls
John Rawls: A neo-Kantian philosopher focusing on the establishment of fair principles of justice for civil society.
Concept of Justice:
Rawls asserts that civil society yields collective benefits that individuals cannot acquire independently.
Civil society denotes a cooperative system providing benefits unattainable alone.
Justice is concerned with the distribution of these benefits and the rights to influence laws or legislative processes.
The “basic structure of civil society” includes:
Political constitution defining rights.
Economic and social arrangements distributing resources and wealth.
Societal Inequalities:
Large inequalities such as wealth and race hold no true moral worth; they signify random rules shaping economic lives.
Social structures influence individual outcomes; reforming these structures aligns with collective goals for civil society.
Key Assumptions About Justice:
Rawls posits the following:All rational beings deserve moral worth and equal political participation.
Laws must acknowledge inherent moral worth irrespective of disadvantages.
Non-political inequalities will occur, and justice need not seek to eliminate them.
Inequality is just if it benefits the least advantaged.
Rawls and Nozick: Introductory Notes
Key Concepts:
Luck:
Inequalities in resource distribution arise from chance.
Desert:
“Moral desert” pertains specifically to what individuals deserve for moral reasons.
Rawls vs. Nozick:
Nozick accepts wealth inequality as part of justice; Rawls advocates for institutional intervention against unfair inequalities.
Human Capabilities and Inequities:
The capacity to succeed varies due to genetic, environmental, and social factors.
Initial life circumstances (assets, upbringing) heavily influence future capacities and opportunities.
The notion that personal effort alone is determinative of success is misleading; significant luck plays a role in both opportunities and abilities.
Examples Illustrating Luck and Desert:
Example 1: Petra, who was bitten by a rabid dog, brings up the idea of karma where one gets what one deserves based on their actions.
Example 2: Sam, who cheats, gets hit by a bus; raises moral judgment on deservedness of consequences.
Holdings:
This abstract concept refers to what is owned, including property, resources, advantages, etc.
'Moral desert' implies deeper reasons for what people deserve rather than contractual obligations.
Incorporates a broader spectrum than mere property, extending to all forms of vouchers for a good life.
Common Sense View on Holdings:
Link between effort/investment and the resultant holdings acquired.
E.g., hard work warranted fair compensation; undeserving holdings often overlooked, particularly in instances of luck.
Luck and Justice According to Rawls:
Rawls argues that luck undermines moral deservingness concerning holdings.
No one deserves their holdings, regardless of work input, since such capabilities resulted from luck.
Concluding Insight:
Justice operates without lodging moral concerns to a specific set of holdings; it is driven by the context of social and economic randomness.
Rawls on Legitimate Expectations
Ideal of Legitimate Expectations:
Introduced to express the fairness in holding resources, compatible with benefiting the least advantaged members of civil society without necessitating equal distribution.
Taxation and Civil Society:
If no one truly deserves their possessions, taxation can justly redistribute resources instead of being considered theft.
Civil society can govern resources controlling holdings irrespective of effort made by individuals.
Permissible Inequalities:
Rawls views some degree of income and opportunity inequality as acceptable as long as they beneficially impact the least advantaged.
Distribution perceived as legitimate must ensure the participation of the less fortunate to some extent.
Original Position and Rawls's Principles
Original Position: A thought experiment to derive principles of justice impartially.
Veil of Ignorance:
Individuals make decisions without awareness of their social position. Ensures fairness.
Final Principles of Justice:
Basic Liberties Principle:
Aims to maximize individual liberties while preventing conflicts among accepted liberties.
Difference Principle:
States social and economic inequalities ought to be arranged to benefit everyone, especially the least advantaged.
Basic Liberties Include:
Political liberties, freedom of speech and assembly, personal property rights, and protections against arbitrary arrests.
Nature of Social Inequalities:
Rawls categorizes social inequalities as products of cultural and historical contexts.
Economic inequalities emerge from natural economic interactions and free market decisions.
Equality of Opportunity:
Individuals must have non-discriminatory access to opportunities in society, no legal restrictions on improvement of rapport.
Importance of Collective Advantage:
Differences in social status should exist to enhance the dignity and self-worth of all societal members, creating a mutually advantageous environment.
Affirmative Action: Introductory Notes
Nature of Affirmative Action:
Intervention designed to promote fairness when ordinary systemic measures falter.
Legal Background:
Case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978):
Defined the constitutional basis for race-based admissions in college.
Admissions based on race permissible if:
There is a compelling interest in doing so.
Implementations are narrow in scope.
Target Demographics:
Preferred Minorities:
African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans.
Non-Preferred Minorities:
Other underrepresented groups.
Opposition to Affirmative Action:
Critics argue it conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause).
Affirmative Action: Strategies in Court Cases
Judge Thomas's View:
Opposes affirmative action, supporting admission based on academic merit alone.
The Court Majority’s Rulings:
Allowed affirmative action based on compelling interest in diversity, emphasizing minimal reliance on race without racial balancing.
Aggressive Affirmative Action Strategy:
Associated with institutions using overt racial categories for admissions, often legally contested.
Dworkin criticizes the “narrow” approach, arguing for justice-oriented admissions processes that truly reflect equity.
Affirmative Action: Introductory Notes
Nature of Affirmative Action:
Intervention designed to promote fairness when ordinary systemic measures falter.
Legal Background:
Case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978):
Defined the constitutional basis for race-based admissions in college.
Admissions based on race permissible if:
There is a compelling interest in doing so.
Implementations are narrow in scope.
Target Demographics:
Preferred Minorities:
African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans.
Non-Preferred Minorities:
Other underrepresented groups.
Opposition to Affirmative Action:
Critics argue it conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause).
Sandel's Arguments for Affirmative Action
Sandel identifies two distinct arguments for affirmative action:
Third Strategy: Righting Wrongs Approach:
Draws on past and present racial injustices, advocating for the decisive use of race and group categories in admissions as a form of reparation or correction.
Premise: Some groups were (and are) harmed by systematic racial injustices, leading to disadvantages. Society has a history of purposeful intervention making things worse for these groups.
Goal: Intervene to restore benefits, opportunities, and advantages to members of these groups that would not have emerged otherwise.
Proponent: Dworkin supports this approach.
Argument: If a member of a group was/is wrongly deprived of a benefit due to past/present harm, then institutions should repair the wrong by providing education to members of that same group.
Second Strategy: Diversity in Higher Education Approach:
Focuses on promoting diversity for the sake of learning outcomes, distinct from righting wrongs.
Core Idea: Educating students effectively by fostering diverse student bodies, which is believed to enhance academic and professional success for the entire student body.
Commitment: Universities are committed to whatever fosters student learning.
Evidence: Overwhelming body of evidence suggests students learn best in diverse environments.
Nature: Simpler and generally more difficult to challenge than the "Righting Wrongs Approach," though libertarians may still oppose it.
Criticisms of the Righting Wrongs Approach (Third Strategy)
This approach is highly controversial and subject to several criticisms:
First Criticism (Past Wrongs):
Claim: Only the originally wronged person can be truly compensated. Since those wronged in the past are often deceased, providing benefits to present-day group members (who are not the original victims) does not genuinely "right" the past wrong.
Conclusion: Institutions cannot right past wrongs through present affirmative action beneficiaries.
Second Criticism (Present Wrongs):
Claim: Similar to past wrongs, the beneficiary in the present may not be the specific person who suffered the original wrong (e.g., if they didn't apply for college admission).
Conclusion: It may be impossible to right specific present wrongs by benefiting a general member of the group.
Third Criticism (Best Case Scenario):
Claim: Even if the beneficiary is the exact person wronged, the benefit (college admission) is extracted from an innocent third party (another academically qualified applicant) who had no role in the original harm.
Conclusion: Providing a benefit to a victim by harming an unrelated innocent party is unjust, making affirmative action admissions policies unjust on this basis.
Responses to Criticisms
Addressing these criticisms is challenging and requires complex conceptual introductions:
For the first and second criticisms: A response must establish why an individual (who wasn't the original victim) can receive reparations for a group's past/present harm.
For the third criticism: A response needs to justify forcing a member of a "harming group" (even if not the perpetrator) to 'pay' moral debts by relinquishing benefits. This implies a concept of "group responsibility" where detriments stemming from one member's wrong can be borne by another member of the same group.
The "Righting Wrongs" argument, while having potential, necessitates significant philosophical elaboration on group responsibility, retribution, and the nature of collective moral debts.
Affirmative Action: Strategies in Court Cases
Judge Thomas's View:
Opposes affirmative action, supporting admission based on academic merit alone.
The Court Majority’s Rulings:
Allowed affirmative action based on compelling interest in diversity, emphasizing minimal reliance on race without racial balancing.
Aggressive Affirmative Action Strategy:
Associated with institutions using overt racial categories for admissions, often legally contested.
Dworkin criticizes the “narrow” approach, arguing for justice-oriented admissions processes that truly reflect equity.