Abstract
This document explores the concept of positive discrimination, its implications on a just society, and its moral acceptability. It delves into the ideas of Kant and Hume, discussing the balance between equality and freedom. A philosophical analysis of the morality of positive discrimination is presented, considering its effects on human beings and society.
Extract
[...] Even if inequalities are tolerated in a just society, is it morally acceptable to resort to positive discrimination to restore equality? Yes, it is morally acceptable to use the principle of positive discrimination to achieve equity since a perfect equality between all men remains impossible according to Hume. No, positive discrimination is not morally acceptable because it is the origin of moral principles that are not universal, that is to say injustices that do not take into account the happiness of all according to Kant's philosophy. [...]
[...] In addition, we cannot establish perfect equality between men, but we can respect equality while preserving the differences of all, unlike strict equality which would prevent human beings from developing their skills. All men are different by their nature, their skills, their talents. Positive discrimination can be implemented to promote equal opportunities. This is the case for the boss who wants to hire more women than men to have the same number of people of each sex in his management team. [...]
[...] Certainly, positive discrimination corrects, among other things, prejudices, helps with equality of opportunities, but it must be the result of reflection in order to respect freedom and equality, fundamental values for our society. This means that a just society cannot flourish with strict equality but with an equality that tolerates justified inequalities that are the subject of reflection, an equality associated with a dose of inequality. Positive discrimination could favor equality. However, lacking miracles, lacking resources, how can human beings evaluate the extent of the inequality generated by positive discrimination, unless by acting with full awareness? [...]
[...] In fact, the people targeted by the inequality generated by positive discrimination are stereotyped. This means that instead of leading to a justified inequality, we could end up in a situation of injustice if the differences between men are not taken into account, except if, like Kant, the State is considered a moral being that gives an ethical dimension to the relationship between human beings. Then, we must pay attention not to end up in this situation of injustice. By generating stereotypes, positive discrimination does not correspond to Kant's philosophy, which prefers a universal moral action to a restricted and temporary moral action like that generated by positive discrimination. [...]
[...] This moral action must adopt a universal character. This means that every individual has the freedom to decide for himself, but on the condition of considering all men equally in his happiness, unlike the utilitarianism of Hume, whose moral action brings happiness to the majority. [Conclusion. Therefore, positive discrimination is necessary in our society, but it must not lead to injustice. In fact, only inequalities are tolerated in our society, which aims to be just, that is, every individual is equal before the law. [...]
