C 10 CIA 3

Question 1

What is moral desert, what did he advocate for instead?

Answer 1

individuals shouldn’t be rewarded for their natural abilities/moral virtues since they’re arbitrary

he advocated for distributive justice

Question 2

what is distributive justice

Answer 2

a system of justice based on research and principle not chance

Question 3

Moral desert vs Entitlement and EX

Answer 3

you can have an entitlement but not deserve it

Ex. Lottery winning, you’re entitled to the money but not morally deserving

Question 4

what does our society value

Answer 4

modern capitalism rewards market value NOT moral value – whose profits have more to do with market demand rather than what ppl actually deserve

Question 5

what is affirmative action

Answer 5

a set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on a number of classiifications.

first used by president johnson in 1965: required federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to race

Question 6

the four theories of justice

Answer 6

1. feudal/caste system (fixed hierarchy based on birth)
2. Libertarian (free market with formal equality of opportunity)
3. Meritocratic (free market with fair equality of opportunity)
4. Egalitarian (Rawls difference principle)

Question 7

Feudal/Caste system

Answer 7

1. Rawls says no because its arbitraru and unfair
2. no social mobility

Question 8

Libertarian

Answer 8

1. possibility of social mobility but you wont know if they will be rich or poor

Question 9

meritocratic

Answer 9

1. distribution of income and wealth that results from a free market is just ONLY if everyone has the same opportunity to develop their talents (everyone beings at teh same starting line)
2. a system where peoples success is based on skills NOT social background/wealth/connections. Rawls doesnt like it bc it doesnt take into account peoples backgrounds

Question 10

Egalitarian

Answer 10

1. everyone should have the same exact things no matter the differences between ppl

Question 11

Hopwood Vs. Texas

Answer 11

1. an individual who attended community college then applied to law school in Texas but was denied
2. fought against the school on the grounds of discrimination against race (white) in favor of POC – (race in admissions violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, court ruled in favor of the plantiffs stating the use of race was unconstitutional)
3. first circuit ruling: stopped using race in admission. it spurred the creation of the top 10% rule in texas (guarantees automatic admission to all state funded UNIS for students who graduate in the top 10% of their HS class)

Question 12

Justifications of AA discussed in the book

Answer 12

1. correcting for the testing gap
2. compensatory for past wrongs
3. promoting diversity

Question 13

Correcting for the testing gap

Answer 13

correcting for possible biases in standardized tests. Assessing test scores in light of students racial/ethnic/ and economic backgrounds doesn’t challenge the notion that colleges should admit students with the greatest academic promise. it’s simply an attempt to find the most accurate measure of each individual’s academic promise.

Question 14

compensatory for past wrongs

Answer 14

1. views affirmative action as a remedy for past wrongs. minority students should be given prefrence to make up for past history of discrimination that has placed them at an unfair disadvantage

Question 15

compensatory for past wrongs Critiqs

Answer 15

1. those who benefit are not necessarily those who suffered. Many are middle-class minority students.
2. Critics say AA should be based on class not race
3. Whether the comepnsatory case for AA can answer this objection depends on the concept of collective responsibility: can we ever have a moral responsibility to redress wrongs committed by previous generations.

Question 16

Promoting Diversity

Answer 16

1. doesn’t depend on controversial notions of collective responsibility or on showing that the minority student given preference in admission has personally suffered discrimination/disadvantage. Treats admission less as a reward to the recipient, more as advancing a socially worthy aim.
2. Common good
   - holds a racially mixed student body that is desirable bc it enables students to learn more from one another
   - equipping disadvantaged minorities to assume positions of leadership in key public and professional roles advances the universities civic purpose/contributes to the common good
3. diversity argument is most advanced by colleges/unis, citing civic good

Question 17

Promoting diversity Critiques

Answer 17

1. Practical: does not claim that AA is unjust, but rather that it’s likely to achieve its aim and may do more harm than good
2. Principle: questions the effectiveness of AA policies. Arguing that the use of racial preferences won’t bring about a more pluralistic society or reduce prejudice, but WILL damage the self-esteem of minority students/increase racial consciousness on all sides/heighten racial tensions/provoke resentment

Question 18

Class arguments for AA

Answer 18

Race and ethnicity in admissions
1. corrective: correcting for differences in educational backgrounds
2. Compensatory: compensating for past wrongs
3. Diversity: benefits the educational experience and beneficial for society as a whole

Question 19

Dredd Scott V Stanford decision through the lens of theories of justice

Answer 19

An African American slave who had been taken by his owners to a free state attempted to sue for his freedom.

7 Vs 2 denied Scott’s request even though he had the right to be free because the duty of the court at the time was that they couldnt claim his case or take it into consideration because they didn’t consider him someone who could have a court trial. They believed they had to interpret the Constitution in its literal form (interpreting by the rule of law)
He got his freedom 10? 15? Years later, and died one year after getting his freedom.

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. After losing, Scott brought a new suit in federal court. Scott’s master maintained that no “negro” or descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Benjamin Robbins Curtis and John McLean were the two who sided with Scott with his freedom.