Positive discrimination is a phenomenon which is aimed at targeting and acting in favor of those groups of people which have been actively discriminated against in the past. Hence it can be named as the policy which allows providing such individuals with benefits and advantages because they had been deprived of them in the past. The premise for positive discrimination is not favoritism or nepotism rather it is an action which is allowed only to those who have suffered from the act’s deprivation in the past, due to their gender, race or disposition at that particular time. Therefore, positive discrimination is rendered acceptable and applicable in such cases because it allows for gaining balance and providing opportunities to people in life. There are different stances in ethics according to two main philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, regarding positive discrimination. Their reasons for favoring and disfavoring positive discrimination have also been elaborated.
The Kantian philosophy believes that people must place their actions on the basis of their moral responsibilities rather than focusing on the desires, vested interests or the consequences of those actions. There are two main Kantian philosophies which fall in place here, namely the Principle of Universality and the Principle of Humanity (Gosepath). The Principle of Universality states that it is upon people to develop their understanding of how to go about with life because that will become their universal law in the future. The Principle of Humanity states that people need to treat other people as an end and not simply a means to an end. Therefore, to safe-keep the integrity and positivity of the people, it is important that they are treated well. As both the needs are not met in either of the categories, Kant renders discrimination as unethical and disallows it morally (Gosepath). Positive discrimination also goes against Kant’s belief regarding the people developing their own capacities and being benevolent towards others.
Aristotle places focus on the achievement of human happiness which is to live a good life. Such a life is only possible for people who live a virtually upright life. For instance, to be respectful, fair, just, compassionate are some of the traits a virtuous person should possess. He believes that discriminating against working mothers is against the virtue of being compassionate and fair (Fullinwider). This is why Aristotle is against discrimination because it is not a virtuous trait. In order to live a good life, a person needs to do what they can achieve at their maximum. For doing so, one needs to set a goal or mission in life and work towards it. In Aristotle’s time, women were mostly working in the domestic circle, being mothers and taking care of the home. Hence he was pro-discrimination in this regard (Fullinwider).
Therefore the difference between the Kantian and Aristotelian thought in positive discrimination is that Kant disallows is on the basis of it being immoral, opportunistic and lacking ethical touch. Aristotle on disallows it on the basis of the time he saw how certain discriminatory actions needed to be supported because he observed the role of men and women in society. Men worked outdoors and gained the dominant impression. Women maintained the domestic circle and worked in the home thus had an emotional side. Therefore he favored discrimination in light of the assigned gender roles and equilibrium it maintained in society. Kant sought it to be a means of social unrest, and he believed it would destroy social peace.
Conclusively Kantian and Aristotelian philosophy regarding positive discrimination varies on their ethical approach toward it. Kant disagrees with it because it can disrupt society’s delicate moral framework and cause unrest. Morals are integral to his approach, and he believes good morals raise a good society. Aristotle believes that it is a virtue that guards man’s life. Respect, compassion, and good deeds are all that is required to live a full life. Moreover, it is virtuous that people follow moral guidelines of life and play their assigned gender roles, which makes his pro-discrimination.
Works Cited
Fullinwider, Robert. Affirmative action. 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2017.
Gosepath, Stefan. Equality. 27 June 2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2017.
