NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/1594

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-15 | 5.5 KB

From: [e-mail] (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:05:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affirmative Action (was Re: ...at the Y
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscdc!hplextra!hpfcso!daq
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 119

In talk.philosophy.misc, [e-mail] (Peter Cash) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
> ...
> >Well, Peter, I really do not deny that affirmative action is based on
> >an unjust principal.  But we, as a society do not really seem to
> ...
> >You and I can agree until we are blue in the face that AA is not, in
> >itself just, however, I do not assume out of hand as you seem to
> >that an unjust events cannot lead to justice.  I still grant the
> >POSSIBITLY (not the probability or the surety) that this kind of
> >agitation could, in the very long run, produce real attitude changes
> >that will effect more real social justice.  It is just as possible
> >that these policies will have no effect at all or backlash and
> >have a negative effect.
>
> So the ends justify the means. (I think not; as someone once remarked, "our
> means shape our ends".)

It seems as if most people grant that the ends justify the means as long
as it is their means being justified.  Was the civil war good?  Was
the revolutionary war good?

> Are you perhaps a utilitarian? This would be
> consistent with what you're saying here: we commit a number of injustices,
> and hope to obtain "the greatest good for the greatest number". Since you
> bridle at my putting words in your mouth, I won't go any further with
> this--I won't sketch out the horrifying conclusions of the view I'm
> attributing to you. ;^) I will ask you whether my assumption about your
> utilitarian orientation is correct. Indeed, have you thought out your views
> well enough to be able to answer this question?

I will be honest with you Pete, I am currently thinking out these views
and have not reached firm conclusions yet.  I am not utilitarion
in the sense you suggest, since I would be more likely to say that
some ends probably justify some means sometimes.  Yes, that is quite
noncommital of me, but I am very leary of extreme viewpoints, while
I am still aware that real change and social justice seem to have
always required agitatioln of some sort or another.

>
> >Regardless, affirmative action seems to be like many things in
> >America now.  It is born of the awakening of minorities to their
> >political voice.  They, and their supporters use this voice to
> >try to effect changes in the system that will be to their advantage.
>
> In other words, the oppressed minority is trying to use its newfound power
> to oppress others.  Yes--typical human nature, all right.

To some extent, this view is accurate.
But I doubt their goal is oppression.  They want justice for themselves
and they pursue it in the only way that is obvious to them within the
system.

>
> >There is nothing inherently wrong with this, I suppose, but
> >it does put a lot of stress on the system.
>
> It's wrong for white people to do it, but not black people? Do tell me why.

I do not think that I said it was wrong for white people to do it.
Many white folks are included in AA groups.  When arguing these social
struggles, I have a real hard time figuring out who is right and wrong.
The struggles happen, and I guess one just has to hope that they
will lead to greater justice in the long run.  As I said, I do not
rule out that they could.

>
> >In arguing over
> >AA, we seem to be ignoring the bigger question, a question that
> >is related to what seems to be the inevitable march of capitalist
> >democracies to socialism.
>
> Huh? HUH???????????

I think that to some degree the AA phenomenon is a socialist phenomenon,
and I merely meant to suggest that understanind why we move toward socialism
may help us to understand more of these other questions.

>
> >The question:  Is this force, where
> >the minority of have-nots, in concert with sympathisers amongst
> >the haves, impose their will upon the majority through coersive
> >tactics (I am condescending to us objectivist wording)
>
> What has the neglible ideology of o'ism got to do with this?

Nothing really, but the question remains, are things like AA an
inevitable consequence of granting everyone freedom.  AA is just
and example I use here of a socialist force.

>
> >an inevitable
> >and inescapable fact of capitalist democracies?  If it is, then
> >we have the option of either tolerating it or suppressing it, and
> >if it is an inevitable expression of human mass and momentum, what
> >consequence will suppressing it have?
>
> You've lost me.

I am not sure why.  I am not really suggesting something all that
complex.  I am merely suggesting that AA is a symptom of a larger
fact and trying to establish the basis for a discussion of the
larger forces.

>
> >I am beginning to get the impression that this move toward socialism
> >is somehing that is based on facts of human nature, and that in
> >opposing it, we are opposing a very strong force.
>
> I've TOLD you to stop smoking that stuff.

Don't be patronizing.  If you are going to argue against what I am
suggesting, you are going to have to convince me that Western
democracies are NOT moving toward socialism.  This will be difficult
to do.  Please try to understand that I am observing a social
tendency here and I am NOT saying that it is a good or a bad thing.

doug