From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affirmative Action (was Re: ...at the Y
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:17:07 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <10190038@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (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".) 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?

>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.

>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.

>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???????????

>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? 

>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 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.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc