References and Further Reading 1. Applied Ethics as Distinct from Rawlsian affirmative action essay Ethics and Metaethics One way of categorizing the field of ethics as a study of morality is by distinguishing between its three branches, one of them being applied ethics.
By contrasting applied ethics with the other branches, one can get a better understanding what exactly applied ethics is about. The three branches are metaethicsnormative ethics sometimes referred to as ethical theoryand applied ethics. Metaethics deals with whether morality exists.
Normative ethics, usually assuming an affirmative answer to the existence question, deals with the reasoned construction of moral principles, and at its highest level, determines what the fundamental principle of morality is.
Applied ethics, also usually assuming an affirmative answer to the existence question, addresses the moral permissibility of specific actions and practices. Although there are many avenues of research in metaethics, one main avenue starts with the question of whether or not moral judgments are truth-apt.
The following will illuminate this question.
Consider the following claims: A large proportion of people, and perhaps cross-culturally, will say that this claim is true and hence truth-apt. So, it is the branch of metaethics that deals with this question, and not applied ethics.
Normative ethics is concerned with principles of morality. This branch itself can be divide into various sub-branches and in various ways: A consequentialist theory says that Rawlsian affirmative action essay action is morally permissible if and only if it maximizes overall goodness relative to its alternatives.
Consequentialist theories are specified according to what they take to be intrinsically good. Modern utilitarians, on the other hand, define goodness in terms of things like preference-satisfaction, or even well-being.
Other kinds of consequentialists will consider less subjective criteria for goodness. But, setting aside the issue of what constitutes goodness, there is a rhetorical argument supporting consequentialist theories: I take this straight from Robert N.
For example, consider the Transplant Problem, in which the only way to save five dying people is by killing one person for organ transplantation to the five.
Such theories either place rights or duties as fundamental to morality. One is not morally permitted to save five lives by cutting up another person for organ transplantation because the one person has a right against any person to be treated in this way.
Similarly, there is a duty for all people to make sure that they do not treat others in a way that merely makes them a means to the end of maximizing overall goodness, whatever that may be.
Finally, we have virtue theories. But given that we live in a world of action, of doing, the question of what one ought to do creeps up. Therefore, according to such theories, what one ought to do is what the ideally virtuous person would do.
What should I do? Then whatever I do from there is what I should do now. This theory is initially appealing, but nevertheless, there are lots of problems with it, and we cannot get into them for an article like this. Applied ethics, unlike the other two branches, deals with questions that started this article — for example, under what conditions is an abortion morally permissible?
Notice the specificity compared to the other two branches. Already, though, one might wonder whether the way to handle these applied problems is by applying one of the branches. Actually, this may be wrong. It might be the case that even if we are in error about morality existing, we can nevertheless give reasons which support our illusions in specified cases.
More concretely, there really is no truth of the matter about the moral permissibility of abortion, but that does not stop us from considering whether we should have legislation that places constraints on it. Perhaps there are other reasons which would support answers to this issue.
The pursuit and discussion of these purported reasons would be an exercise in applied ethics. Furthermore, suppose we go with the idea that there is a finite list of principles that comprise a theory with no principle being fundamental.
In summary, we should consider whether or not the three branches are as distinct as we might think that they are. Of course, the principle questions of each are distinct, and as such, each branch is in fact distinct. But it appears that in doing applied ethics one must or less strongly, may endeavor into the other two branches.
Suppose that one wants to come to the conclusion that our current treatment of non-human animals, more specifically our treatment of chickens in their mass production in chicken warehouses, is morally impermissible.Rawlsian Affirmative Action Essay - Rawlsian Affirmative Action: Compensatory Justice as Seen from the Original Position * ABSTRACT: In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls presents a method of determining how a just society would allocate its "primary goods"-that is, those things any rational person would desire, such as opportunities, liberties, rights, wealth, and the bases of self-respect.
The philosophy of happiness is the philosophical concern with the existence, nature, and attainment of ph-vs.comophers believe, happiness can be understood as the moral goal of life or as an aspect of chance; indeed, in most European languages the term happiness is synonymous with luck. Thus, philosophers usually explicate on happiness as either a state of mind, or a life that goes well.
“there are circumstances under which affirmative action will necessarily eliminate negative stereotypes,” (Coate ).
This provides evidence that the system worked when it was first implemented.5/5(1). Rawlsian Affirmative Action: Compensatory Justice as Seen from the Original Position * ABSTRACT: In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls presents a method of determining how a just society would allocate its "primary goods"-that is, those things any rational person would desire, such as opportunities, liberties, rights, wealth, and the bases of self-respect.
Thomas Nagel (/ ˈ n eɪ ɡ əl /; born July 4, ) is an American philosopher and University Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University, where he taught from to His main areas of philosophical interest are philosophy of mind, political philosophy and ethics..
Nagel is well known for his critique of material reductionist accounts of the mind, particularly in. Affirmative Action Essay - Affirmative Action Affirmative action is a deliberate effort to provide full and equal opportunities in employment, education, and other areas for women, minorities, and individuals belonging to other traditionally disadvantaged groups.