I N T R O

Intro to Compensation

Comment
Source / Source

MAIN PATH: John
Ann
John
 
 
 
 

The idea of compensation seems to be closely tied to the idea of justice. Justice is difficult to define, but most philosophers agree that it is at least partially determined by a rule that requires us to TREAT EQUAL CASES EQUALLY. For example, a judge presented with two people with similar cases should hand out the same sentence. The equal treatment rule, however, assumes that we can decide when two cases are equal. (Should our judge consider two cases to be the same if two people commit the same crime? What if the two people have very different criminal records? What if one is old and one is young? What if one is black and one is white?) The cases must be similar or equal in the relevant respects, but in many cases deciding what is relevant is part of the problem. There is no agreed upon way to do it.

What happens when we take ideas like these and apply them to the case of black Americans? The whole history of race in the United States becomes relevant. Everyone agrees that blacks were treated unjustly for centuries: through slavery, through laws requiring segregation, and through the hiring practices of many employers. Is it morally permissible to compensate blacks for these injustices? Is there a moral obligation to do so? If so, why? Who should receive compensation? Who should pay? Does affirmative action provide such compensation? Or is it "racism in reverse"? Does it violate the moral rights of white Americans? If so, what rights does it violate? These are all questions that the conversation needs to cover.
Similar questions about compensation and the value of social goals can be raised about women. Like blacks, women have been treated differently from men by law and custom. Different treatment has often meant restriction. For example, in the early 19th century married women did not have the same right to hold property as married men. Their right to vote was not guaranteed until 1919. Until recently, many of the best schools in the country did not admit female students. Were these restrictions morally wrong? Did they violate the rights of women? If so, what rights did they violate? Could affirmative action be justified as compensation for harm done? Could it be justified on the basis of broadly defined social benefits?
Reference: There is a large literature on justice. You can find discussions in Social Justice edited by Richard Brandt, Social Philosophy by Joel Feinberg, and Problems of Political Philosophy by D. D. Raphael. For longer treatments, see John Rawls A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia. There are anthologies dedicated to the last two books that discuss their ideas at length.
Ariadne Home Affirmative Action
Bibliography		 Affirmative Action
Home