Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: “ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION”
Author: admin | Filed under: Motors
PART ONE: ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PART TWO: WHAT’S THE PURPOSE? Part 1 Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the schools affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a students efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a universitys stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission? PART TWO: WHATS THE PURPOSE? Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and …
Similar posts:
- Justice Larry Whalen’s decision on Treena Edwards child abuse case
- Hard Justice: S1E5 (Halo 3 Machinima)
- Action City 18214 – Car Carrier 5pc
- Toy Brokers 9360 Total Action Football
- Clone High Episode 1 Escape to Beer Mountain: A Rope of Sand (Part 1/3) (HQ)
Tags: Action, AFFIRMATIVE, ARGUING, Episode, Justice, right, thing, What's
Michael Sandel is just excellent. He listens, comprehends and replies rationally, and is never prejudiced or discourteous. He’s a true gentleman and a scholar. L
this is very interesting like im in highschool and i always thought that university lessons were boring and depressing but i was wrong
Suppose you gave the better flutes to the lesser players and the lesser flutes to the better players such that the music produced by all is of equal, average quality. From an economic standpoint, the total product may be lower, as we have a mismatch between resources leading to inefficiency. But everyone can earn the same wage from producing the same average quality music.
I think that affirmative action should favor people of poorer socio-economic backgrounds. That would diversify the student body the most and that would help account for those who didn’t have all the privileges of the wealthy (SAT classes, piano lessons, tutors, etc.). There are poor white people.
I think race-based affirmative action further supports the assumption that minorities need extra help.
I think that affirmative action should favor people of poorer socio-economic backgrounds. That would diversify the student body the most and that would help account for those who didn’t have all the privileges of the wealthy (SAT classes, piano lessons, tutors, etc.). There are poor white people.
I think race-based affirmative action further supports the assumption that minorities need extra help.
I think that affirmative action should favor people of poorer socio-economic backgrounds. That would diversify the student body the most and that would help account for those who didn’t have all the privileges of the wealthy (SAT classes, piano lessons, tutors, etc.). There are poor white people.
I think race-based affirmative action further supports the assumption that minorities need extra help.
If I ever need a risky surgical procedure I sure as hell would want the best surgeon possible and not necessarily the most diverse. Thus I know if a young white dude is my doctor, he probably has gotten there on his own merits. Just sayin
I just Kant take Hannah’s arguments seriously.
@ 21:02 Sandel speaks about the Chewbacca Defense during the so called Bacci (short for Chewbacca) Case. Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?
Hannah is pretty hot.
the topic with Hannah is the sign, that the Harvard Uni is a kind of political enterprise and has nothing to do with the KNOWLEDGE
In communist countries there were Universities of Marxism and Leninism and she would perfectly suit it. And later she would be a party aparatchik
Hannah, if you hear me, please DO NOT GO THIS WAY !
Please, listen to Vladimir Bukowski. He said about this kind of system “I have lived in your future, and it didn’t work”
Please, please, Hannah, change your mind
@LeoLeoni13 – the newest version of iPod ?
what’s this thing that hannah is wearing at 29:58?
@DroidNoir ad hominem ftw
@lawlroy No no no no, all views are put forth on the table regardless of the fact that some, Hannah’s in your opinion is “idiocy”. Do not belittle that which you disagree with, no matter how the argument is put forth, state your opposition and support reasonable debate.
12:22 is a good answer to the question. danielle’s answer pwns hannah’s
@ColinTheMedStudent The argument at hand is seeing that while Affirmative Action may be a way to correct past injustice, is it injust to those who don’t benefit from it.
Your answer is that Affirmative Action should not be used because other races or nationalities have been treated poorly and received no Affirmative Action, so no one should receive any Affirmative Action. In effect u are saying no group (or persons) should be compensated b/c other groups were not compensated. weak argument
@ColinTheMedStudent You have it all wrong; she’s not “anti-nepotism and legacy”. I think she was using that as an example of why there should be affirmative action based on Quid pro quo or “tit for tat”. Her argument was that there should be affirmative action because it is the “quid pro quo” for white nepotism.
I think pple r saying there should not be affirmative action simply b/c of the way the case was presented by the Prof. however, you’re disagreeing for the wrong reason
@fletchaurason good intention but I’d say your logic is still fallacious. While it is good you purport forgiveness as the solution, it inherently produces an injust condition. Namely, the forgiven transgressors gets away with injustice. Forgiveness is forbearance of injustice whereby no justice is really enacted. That sort of defeats the whole purpose this course which is trying to understand Justice. Your response is more emotionally driven than logically driven.
Asian sugar babies # lushfmlk.info#
@StevenThePhilosopher EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!
55 min…
hannah is a complete moron.
Hannah is hot.
@StevenThePhilosopher Bias, my friend.