Affirmative action is a public policy purposed to compensate the victims of injustice at the cost of priviledged groups; hence to some it appears as opposing the notion of equality and being against human dignity. Thinkers like Leslie Pickering Francis and John Rawls, on the other hand, argue that affirmative action policies should be implemented for the sake of the oppressed and under-represented groups. Louis P. Pojman in his article “The Case Against Affirmative Action” sets forth nine arguments against strong affirmative action. This paper sets out to challenge Pojman’s arguments one by one, and prove the author’s thesis in support of strong affirmative action.
The concept of justice has been a constant issue since its conception. The Greeks also attempted to define justice. They have observed justice as goodness in deeds and so a virtue. In the Greek mind, fairness was an attribute of the spirit or soul, while injustice was a sin. Both Plato and Aristotle defined justice as kindness as well as a desire to follow the law. It alluded to the connection between rights and duties. In human interactions, justice was the pinnacle of excellence and the attitude that animates folks in the right fulfillment of their responsibilities. The development of harmony and peace in thinking and conduct was pre-eminently social. In the same way, Aristotle's and Plato's fairness are complementary; both philosophers seek to discover a concept of ability by which unity, harmony, virtue, and pleasure may be produced in a community. Despite this shared agreement, they are fundamentally different in many ways. In this paper, an attempt has been made by the author to discuss the similarities and dissimilarities in theories of justice propounded by Plato and Aristotle.
Despite being endlessly debated, a unanimous impetus on the nature of just, justice, and distributive justice appears entirely untouched to the desirable scientific certainty so far. Aristotle asserts treating" equals equally and un-equals unequally" but in proportion to their relevant differences. John Rawls says 'justice as fairness.' To both Aristotle and John Rawls, justice meant for the good and a willingness to act by the laws to ensure the highest good of society. Antecedently, both agree that justice is a master imperative for good human relationships and coexistence. However, despite the universal agreement, they differ in many fundamental respects. Aristotle denies the outbound distribution of an individual's rights as only the head of the family has the right to free speech in the family. But, Rawls distributes each right to the individual level. The paper attempts to discuss the similarities and dissimilarities in Aristotle's and John Rawls'ideas of just, justice and distributive justice. It has been argued that the aim of both philosophers was the same, i.e., to find out a theory of justice through which unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness can be attained to the fullest in a nation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.