DOC PREVIEW
OU PHIL 1273 - Comparable Worth and Affirmative Action

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 4 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

PHIL 1273 1st Edition Lecture 20 Outline of Last Lecture I. Employers and EmployeesA. OverviewB. Sexual HarassmentOutline of Current Lecture I. Employers and EmployeesA. OverviewB. Comparable WorthC. Affirmative ActionCurrent LectureI. Employers and EmployeesA. Overview1. Treatment of employees in light of race and gendera. Individual actions (sexual harassment)b. Group action (comparable worth)c. Broadly proposed remedy: Affirmative Action2. Employee action in relation to employer3. Use of moral theoriesB. Comparable Worth1. Broader than one individual doing wrong to another2. What’s the moral issue?a. Utilitarian perspectivei. Lower pay keeps costs down for consumersii. Lower income for women means less welfareb. Deontological perspectivei. Response to lower costs idea: treating female employee as a meansii. Libertarian view- No wrong as long as there are voluntary agreements (Shaw 441)- Response: agreement might not be fully informed, since wage differences might not be knowniii. General fairnessThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- Moral principleo Treat like cases alikeo Need a reason for differential treatment- Is gender difference a sufficient reason, if work is actually comparable?3. Response to wronga. More complicated than simple cases from beforei. Correcting pay gaps can be expensive – raising welfare concernsii. What’s involved in “paying the cost of fairness”?- “Revising salaries could cost a medium-sized company millions of dollars in increased pay and benefits” (Shaw 442)- But may be doableC. Affirmative Action (AA)1. Much harder casea. Controversial and politically chargedb. Very complicated legallyi. Not the present concern for classc. Emotional issuesi. Historical injusticeii. Lingering prejudiceiii. Commitment to principled. Not going to resolve issuese. Goal: observe ideas from moral theories2. Persistent pattern of job discrimination in the pasta. Shaw 427 for evidenceb. Legacy of explicit discrimination in the pastc. Even though not acknowledged or intended, present structures sustain it (Shaw 426)i. Unconscious processes that disfavor members of minority groups3. What problem does AA address?a. Seems like a moral wrongi. Utilitarian preference- Disfavored groups of people less well off (lower utility), which is passed on through time- Society misses opportunities to develop ignored talentii. Deontological perspective- Individuals treated unfairly – not on own merits, as an end- They do not have equal opportunity of others4. Response to wronga. Goalsi. Make opportunity for individuals more equally available- Recognizing obstacles and compensating for them- Individuals benefit (increased utility)- Individuals treated fairly (as ends, according to duty)ii. Make organizations more effective by having employees who mirror the demographics of a society (increased utility; match principles)b. Reach goal through AAi. AA Definition: “Affirmative action here means programs taking the race or sex of employees or job candidates into account as part of an effort to correct imbalances in employment that exist as a result of past discrimination, eitherin the company itself or in the larger society.” (Shaw 437)c. Contradictioni. Attacking differential treatment according to race by attending to raceii. Address past unfairness to blacks with present unfairness to whitesd. A conflict between ends and meanse. Moral puzzle of AAi. Conflicting valuesii. Distinction between “form” and “substance”- Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep underbridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”o Rich and poor alike in “formal” sense but different in “substantive” sense- Both key values that pull in different directionsiii. Apply to AA- Formal considerationso Impartiality, fairness, treating each person as an individual, looking to an individual’s merits- Substantive considerationso History, basis of current disadvantaged societal group- In terms of moral theorieso First take: use utilitarian and deontological distinctionsa. Formal principles point to duties on how people are treated (impartially)b. Substantive sense point to concern for utilitarian concerns about differences in well beingo But more complexa. Utilitarian idea: make things worseb. Deontological idea: balance of dutyo Use moral theories to identify moral


View Full Document

OU PHIL 1273 - Comparable Worth and Affirmative Action

Download Comparable Worth and Affirmative Action
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Comparable Worth and Affirmative Action and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Comparable Worth and Affirmative Action 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?