Positive discrimination is a type of affirmative action intended to equalize the disadvantage that minority groups have previously experienced. It centers on the idea that justified discrimination is required in certain circumstances in order for minority groups and individuals to gain equality in society. While both Kant and Aristotle would argue against positive discrimination, Kant would do so based on his principle of morality, whereas Aristotle would base his argument on the fairness of the outcome.
Kant had firm ideas concerning the differentiation between principled and unprincipled policies. Kant argues that proper political thinking should start by confirming two propositions: “the freedom of every member of society as a human being,” and “the equality of each with all the others as a subject” (Kant). Kant’s philosophy is uninterested in outcomes, partly because he believes that different people have differing versions of happiness, opinions on society, and views on which policies would ensure happiness. Kant argues, therefore, that society ought to be based on morality and not on happiness. A society such as this would not side with any person over another for any reason; instead, it would allow each person to make his or her own decisions. Therefore, Kant would disagree with positive discrimination. Kant introduced the idea of the categorical imperative, a morality law that all people must abide. This categorical imperative indicated that any moral decision ought to be based on what could be universalized. Therefore, to make the highest moral choice in any moral conundrum, the choice must be appropriate to be willed on all other people in the same situation. If someone offered a job to someone of an ethnic minority, rather than to the person with the highest qualifications or skills, Kant would ask that employer whether they would will that every employer offering a job should do the same thing. If they said no, then Kant would say they are not making the highest moral choice.
Aristotle argues that justice centers on giving individuals their due or, in other words, what they deserve. When deliberating the subject of allocation, Aristotle believes that the important factor is the goal, or the purpose of whatever is being allocated. A famous example is that the best flutes ought to be allocated to the most proficient violin players. According to Aristotle, justice involves allocating appropriate roles to individuals based on their skills or qualities. Therefore, based on this theory, Aristotle would disagree with positive discrimination. If a job is being offered, it ought to be offered to the person with the most closely fitting skills, not to someone of a minority but with lesser skills. Aristotle’s argues that the highest character type was the virtuous character. According to him, the virtuous character knows what is morally right, but also has the emotional desire to do what is right, and so behaves with virtue. It is unlikely that Aristotle would consider positive discrimination to be virtuous.
While Kant and Aristotle would both disagree with positive discrimination, they would do so for different reasons. Kant would argue that all people should be equal and free; he does not place importance on outcomes. He also believes that any moral choice should be based on the categorical imperative, with which discrimination, positive or otherwise, could not be reconciled. Conversely, Aristotle believes that choices about allocation should be made based on the purpose of the allocation and whichever person best fits whatever is being allocated. Unlike Kant, Aristotle is focused on the outcome, rather than the process.
While both philosophers would disagree with positive discrimination, Kant would do so based on his views on morality, whereas Aristotle would center his argument on fairness of the situation outcome. Positive discrimination, or affirmative action, is a controversial topic in many areas of society, and one that tends to polarize views. While Kant and Aristotle’s philosophies could be interpreted in varying ways, it seems clear that both would oppose positive discrimination.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Equality of Rights. 1791. Print.
