Sameness, like discrimination, is a bad thing. By Ken Tucker Our society rightly puts a premium on equality and same treatment for everybody. Discrimination based upon gender, color of skin and culture is a bad thing. It is destructive to people and society. But equality and fair treatment does not mean we should value or extol sameness.
Du Bois believes that separate is inherently unequal, because it automatically grants one race privileges over the other. "So far as Mr. Washington apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value the privilege and duty of
With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral. Within the Principle of Liberty, Mill also claims that it is not acceptable for society to put restrictions on an individual’s conduct, for reasons that they feel would be in the best interest of that person. The majority only has the right to develop laws that confine the conduct of individuals with the purpose of protecting the basic rights of others; otherwise they would be obstructing that person’s right to individuality. Mill believes that everyone is entitled to certain moral rights that cannot be denied. Every member of society is entitled to rights of security of his person and property, as well as basic liberties such as freedom of opinion and the right to live his life as he so chooses.
Yet from the perspective of the minorities, "racism" is defined not only in terms of individual prejudice, but also in terms of a power structure which protects the only the interests of the dominant culture and actively discriminates against the ethnic minorities. According to this perspective, they claim that while members of ethnic minorities may be prejudiced against members of the dominant culture, they lack the political and economic power to actively oppress them, and they are therefore incapable of "racism". The precise usage of this term is still in the process of defining, but this sure has become an objective existence in this
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.
This difference of opinion suggests that there is a tension between the two ideologies. The multicultural belief in communitarianism is at odds with the classic liberal belief in negative freedom as it is based around the harm principle, which states an individual can act as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else. This is because even if a community in a liberal society leaves other individuals and groups to do as they wish they might not offer the same negative freedom towards those within their own community, this is a tension with
Is there a difference between ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘equality of outcome’? I will argue that equality of opportunity and outcome are not distinguishable. ‘Formal’ equality of opportunity doesn’t go far enough to equalise what should be equalised. Real equality of opportunity stipulates that all morally arbitrary factors should be equalised, but if you are saying this than you must consider things such as talent as morally arbitrary. If you endorse real equality of opportunity than it is unclear where to stop, and in the end equality of opportunity will just end up being equality of outcome because if you have to equalise everything, everyone will be end up being given the same.
"Thus, when a law contradicts with high social morals ,ethic or religions, it is reasonable for them to find a suitable way to protest against laws. That is also the reason why we have so many anti-war parades and civil rights movements. The second fundamental problem is that in what way an individual can show discontent towards an unfair law. The consequences of merely disobeying or resisting a law for some people, more often than
Today, these quotas have long since been banned, but some argue that special considerations toward minorities are still apparent and disrupt their rights for equal opportunity. On the one hand, they argue that qualifications should be based on merit rather than race or gender, and that it implements reverse discrimination. One the other hand, those who support the concept of Affirmative Action insist that equal opportunity is reached by helping those races faced with disadvantages and that it compensates for discrimination in the past. My own view is that special consideration should not be given to minorities because it is contradictory in their intent to create equal opportunity, therefore increasing racial tensions instead of promoting it. By protecting and giving preference to minorities, Affirmative Action unwarily discriminates against the majority, therefore contradicting its own intent for equal opportunity.
Affirmative Action: Both Sides The Question: Is it constitutional to make up for past discrimination by setting quotas for allowing minorities into certain programs over non-minorities, or does it violate the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause by refusing to allow a certain person into that program due to their nationality and heritage. Side A: Opposition to Affirmative Action programs. Those that are in opposition to affirmative action programs around the country believe that it is unconstitutional to refuse to allow someone into a program or institution because they are not a minority. They believe that although those institutions and programs should be given the right to choose who to