sender
londondare
source
Unspecified
share
view
londondare
Unspecified
You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Positive discrimination is the same as negative discrimination, but "on the other foot."
In a zero-sum situation every act of positive discrimination of one group or individual results in negative discrimination of another group or individual of equal magnitude.
And because negative discrimination is immoral, positive discrimination in a zero sum situation is equally immoral.
Positive discrimination to balance inequities comes from the as yet unproven premise that inequality is inherently wrong and unjustifiable.
Does anyone else find it paradoxical that proponents of diversity are waging a war against inequity, which is a form of difference and "diversity"?
Disadvantaged groups suffer or have suffered from discrimination within a culture which created inequalities in employment, pay and access to education.
This is beside the point of the original premise. If you wish to argue that, because some people are at a disadvantage, positive discrimination is not immoral, you may do so, but you have not done so here. nobody
Positive discrimination is effective in balancing existing inequalities in employment, pay and access to education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#cite_note-83
That may or may not be the case, but it does not address the premise that positive discrimination is immoral. You may argue that such effects offset the immorality of positive discrimination, but you have not done so. nobody
Existing wrongs and imbalances can not be - in reasonable time - fixed by means of equal opportunities (level playing field). Therefore positive discrimination is a necessary lesser evil.
This assumes that it is necessary and possible to "fix" such "existing wrongs and imbalances," and that it is necessary or possible to enforce a "level playing field," while leaving such a situation undefined. nobody