About Philosophy 9^th ed., Chapter 6
Social and Political Philosophy

Humans, by nature, are social animals. (Aristotle)

Mill and Classical Laissez-Faire Liberalism

Liberalism

Liberalism = democracy + free markets

Classical Laissez-Faire Liberalism is the view of those nowadays called conservatives.

laissez-faire means "allow to do"
laissez-faire approach wants no government interference in the marketplace

Those now called liberals advocate a degree of socialism

In a broader sense of "liberal" both conservatives and liberals, nowadays, are liberal

Conservatives back when were antidemocratic: monarchists.

Utilitarian Background

Some say "The U.S. is a Christian nation."

Might with equal justice be said, "We're a utilitarian nation."
With regard to our political-economic institutions . . . might be said with greater justice.

James Mill (1773-1836)

Close Associate of Bentham
One of the Reformers
Father of J. S. Mill who was trained to be "a finely honed logical weapon" in the Cause

Reformers' Doctrine

Hedonism:

Pleasure is the one intrinsically good thing
pain is the one intrinsically bad thing

Pleasure comes from satisfaction of desires

no disputing desires: you're free to want whatever you like

at least on Democratic principles:

legislating desires would be mind-control legislation
& what could be more anti-democratic than that?

if not absolutely

"I want what I like" sort of a truism
a la Hume

desires & inclinations are givens: these determine our ends
choice & deliberation are just about the means

So the only questions worth debating about are questions of means

everyone is entitled to want what they like: the legitimacy of wants is not an issue
just the means: how to help satisfy their desires

So, the role of government ought to be to help as many as possible get what they want

to satisfy peoples' desires and preferences as much as possible

and if pleasure comes from satisfied preferences

this is to maximize pleasure
to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number

The Rest of the Story . . . besides laissez-faire:

Loose Implications

Leveling: one person's preferences are on a par with another's
no disputing pleasure

deciding if it feels good not exactly rocket science
or, more to the point, not exactly abstruse theology

Bentham's refusal to allow any intrinsic betterness to the "high-brow" pleasure in reading poetry to low-brow pleasure of playing pushpin

Democratic Principles

People -- not just aristocrats but all people -- act rationally

if their minds are not befogged by superstition
and they are given the tools

information: free press, free speech, free association follow from this
education

Education

the enemy of superstition
an educated population would govern itself wisely

supporting the policies that best served to "promote the general welfare"

Laissez-Faire Economics

laissez-faire means "allow to do": advocates government noninterference in the marketplace on the grounds that

the marketplace is self-regulating
in a way that naturally maximizes utility

Adam Smith's Theory

Basics

Producers want to sell (at a profit) to consumers

so produce what people want (to buy)

So consumers get what they want (to buy)

Supply & Demand

Conditions of scarcity: demand

consumers want something that's in short supply
bid up the price, competing to buy
which results in increased production
alleviating the scarcity

Conditions of oversupply or overabundance

there's more of the product around than consumers wanting (to buy) it
so suppliers cut prices, competing to sell
so profits go down
so producers produce less
getting rid of the overabundance

So the action of the marketplace, if unimpeded, tends naturally to an equilibrium point

works as if by "an invisible hand" (Smith)
that give the people (with money) what they want (to buy)
with maximum efficiency
it maximizes happiness
while at the same time maximizing liberty

leaves each individual free to seek their own profit
and in seeking to do this

they are promoting the general welfare
as efficiently as possible

Mills Departures from the Classical Theory

poetry is better than pushpin: Epicurean defense.

not all pleasure are equal

more cultivated & refined pleasures are inherently better than
less cultivated, more vulgar pleasures
the former may outweigh the later in utilitarian calculations even if the latter are more intense and long-lasting

the criticism motivating this modification: utilitarianism derided as a vulgar theory

beastly pleasures -- being among the most intense -- would seem best on this theory
presumably you'd have a moral duty to masturbate as often as possible
lizard brains in a vat might be the best of all possible worlds

the supporting argument

Platonic & Epicurean distinction between

mixed pleasures: physical pleasures

satisfy physical needs & extreme wants (i.e., sex)
the needs themselves are painful
so the pleasure is "mixed"

unmixed pleasures: of mind

not mixed with pain & need
exercise of highest capacity is pure unmixed joy
a more subtle but more noble pleasure than beastly physical pleasures

Mill's Argument

Cultivated people -- the educated classes -- since they have tasted amply of both
are the only people competent to judge whether there is a qualitative difference

between bestial pleasures
and intellectually refined pleasures

and such people judge that the cultivated pleasures are more admirable & choiceworthy -- i.e., better
And so they are

of course the under classes mistakenly prefer the bestial pleasures
because that's all they've ever known

Upshot contra egalitarianism of leveling tendency of Bentham's view

it tempers the egalitarian implications of Bentham's theory
or "emasculates it" -- so much for its democratic implications -- an egalitarian might say

Justified Exceptions to laissez-faire: considerations favoring some government regulation of commerce restrictions on the free operation of the marketplace

Ideal conditions of free competition envisaged by Smith don't exist any more than the triangles imagined by Euclid

departures from this ideal are counterproductive by Smith's own lights

monopoly conditions, e.g.
effects of custom & other extraneous "interfering factors": folks are not just consumers

custom
nonmonetary values: life, beauty, health, dignity, tradition
emotional reactions:

"we have nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR)
pollsters are always polling "consumer confidence"

government intervention in the workings of the marketplace may be needed to keep the marketplace itself working: Alan Greenspan's job

There are "things of the worth of which the demands of the market is by no means a test"

cultural value to not having gladiatorial combat (on television) even if there's a market for it

as there certainly would be
what about dogfights & cockfights?

consider the matter of selling of human organs for transplantation

to the highest bidder
vs current approach

current need-and-prognosis based allocation
of donated organs

Segue

there are things are beyond price
there are beings whose happiness & unhappiness counts

who have no clout in the marketplace
whose desires will not be satisfied

The Socialist Attack on Capitalism

Overview of the Critique of Liberalism

Contra utilitarianism: crass materialism: "the ethics of English shopkeepers"

happiness treated like a commodity that can be bought & sold
subtext: products v. processes; outcomes v. activities:

part of the ideological justification of a system of alienated unfulfilling labor
in which -- when you're working day is through -- you are supposed go shopping to "buy happiness"

on the contrary: activity is where human fulfillment lies: a good (happy) life is mainly a matter of doing well, not having goods.

Contra the ideology of "free enterprise" or "Free Markets"

Smith's best of all possible economic systems
is, in fact, deeply irrational & shot full of contradictions.

Analysis of Capitalism

Marxian Analysis of Society

Materialism (turning the usual idea of mind over matter on its head . . . or "back on its feet" as Marx put it.)

relations of production are the horse
science, religions, politics, & culture are the cart

Societies are built on a material base: activities basic to the human survival and reproduction (and the adjuncts of such activities, e.g., tools & materials).
1. Means of production: raw materials, land, energy resources, etc.
2. Forces of production:
3. Social relationships of production:

Centrality of the Social Relationships of Production

Human Beings are socially productive animals (Aristotle supplemented)
which leads, naturally, to the division of labor
- some hunt

some gather
others guard the camp & tend the fire

which leads in turn to the need for a system of exchange

the meat I killed for the veggies you gathered
the spear point I made for the coat you made
etc.

Historical Stages of Development of the Social Relationships

Hunters & gatherers

land -- the natural environment -- virtually the only means of production
tribes might quarrel over hunting & fishing rights
but no one owns the land

"The whole tribe owns it collectively" we might think.
Probably they didn't think of it that way . . .

just didn't have our ideas about ownership
more of a cooperative share & share alike kind of life

Agricultural revolution

initially land is owned by whoever -- by force of arms -- can hold it

every title search, if pushed back far enough, leads to an act of naked forceful expropriation
Why Israel belongs to the Jews: "They stole it last."
eventually custom & familiarity create a sense of entitlement

what was originally got by force
is now held by "right" & "title", e.g.,

via sale
or inheritance

the ruling class creates "high" culture (folk culture may exist alongside)

living off the labor of others, they have the leisure to pursue artistic & intellectual activities
also create & shape culture by endowing others to create artworks

yesteryear: e.g., the system of patronage in earlier time: the rich would pay an artists to produce works of art-- also a kind of sharecrop arrangement?

since the patrons -- members of the ruling class -- control what's funded
the ruling class controls what what gets produced

nowadays, when artists are more dependent on the market, they still have to make what people with money want, if they're to succeed in making a living at it.

ideas also shaped by a similar funding-effect: ideology

philosophical justifications of the existing social relations
and religious blessings upon them: "The Church of England would sooner give up 19 of its 20 principles than 5% of its annual income"

financial solvency of the church depends on
telling the people with money what they want to hear

most important cultural institution to evolve is the State or Government

the agency by which the ruling class controls the workers
and shapes the other institutions to best serve their interests
"The state is the organized committee of the ruling class."

Democrats = good cops (the carrot of social programs & wage supports, etc.)
Republicans = bad cops (the stick of law enforcement (e.g., the WOD), union busting, etc.)

evolves a system of Feudalism

few powerful landowners -- the Lords -- own the land
serfs or vassals -- who work for the Lords as share croppers (in effect)

serfs work the land & receive in exchange
a share of the crop
a small share, to be sure: given that the Lords hold all the power, except

don't want the serfs to all die -- or who would work the land?
might even try to treat them decently in hope of increasing production

others

associated hangers on

who beg: the unemployed lumpenproletariat
borrow: those dependent on the kindness of kin & friends
steal: the criminal element

the small craftspeople & artisans: a nascent middle-class: the original bourgeoisie

blacksmiths
candle makers
brewers

Industrial revolution

Transition

Underlying process

Development of means of production besides land & forces of production besides agricultural ones
Not owned by landowners but by the bourgeoisie
Changes in the forces of production give rise to changes in the social relationships of production.

Historical expression: violent struggle for control of the forces of production

Evidenced by

English Civil War
French Revolution
American Revolution

These express the underlying struggle of the bourgeois against the landed aristocracy

Ideological expression: new currents in philosophy & religion

Protestant Reformation: the Prosperity Doctrine v. Catholic prohibition of usury
Secularization: Church divided & considerably weakened (if not conquered)
growth of sciences as technology spawning adjuncts of the capitalist system of production

Capitalist system

owners of the means & forces of production: the bourgeoisie
the workers: the proletariat

receiving compensation in the form of wages

others

the lumpenproletariat

the unemployed "reserve labor force": oversupply of workers keeps wages -- the market price of labor -- down (beggars)
thieves (stealers)
those dependent on the kindness of strangers or kin

the petit bourgeoisie: owners of small "mom & pop" operations

peripheral to the main forces of production in advanced stages of industrial capitalism
the main forces are controlled by big corporations (& ultimately) their stockholders.

Critique of Capitalism

Overview

it's fundamental irrationality or "internal contradictions" are the seeds of its own destruction
two kinds of irrationalities

instrumental
substantive

Instrumental Irrationality

Basic contradiction: unable to solve the problem of distribution because production is for profit, not use

needs that don't get satisfied because there's no profit in

most all of the needs of some people: the poor
some of the needs of all people: the things that money can't buy

desires that shouldn't get satisfied do because there is profit in that

desires for jewel encrusted eggs when people are starving all around
desires for private cars -- even SUVs -- which degrade the environment
all of the desires for all the useless things that advertising instills

The business cycle of overproduction - depression - overproduction

the workers (would-be) consumers are compensated at less than the market value of the product
the rest -- profit or "surplus value" (as Marx called it) -- is kept by the owners
since the owners are siphoning off so much surplus value the workers can't afford to consume all they produce

the owners themselves can only consume so much caviar & so many jewel encrusted eggs

so there's endemic overproduction (more goods produced than can be sold)

resulting in layoffs
taking more purchasing power out of the hands of consumers

A vicious cycle leading eventually to recession & depression
Depression the ultimate in irrationality

production ceases
while, at the same time, the people are desperately needy
Example: during the Great Depression farmers were literally forced to plow piglets under with their tractors while millions were hungry.

Substantive (more basic) Irrationality: Alienation

How work is meant to be

being by nature productive animals, human beings naturally seek fulfillment in productive activity:

in making things: manufacture & construction
and doing things: service & study

productive activity is at the same time self-productive or self-fulfilling & self-actualizing

How work is under Capitalism is not like that but unfulfilling

products of the workers labor are take from them -- "expropriated" -- by the owners: what we make is theirs
owners who also control the productive process: they tell us what to make & how to make it: "the very labor process itself -- which should be the flower of our human self-expression -- is turned into an act of submission"
we become estranged from the product and the labor itself: it's alienated labor: "wage slavery"

Characteristics of Alienated Labor

forced: not autonomous: workers are not self-directed but under the command of another

dictatorial command: workers don't elect the bosses (the syndicalist plan)
bosses are appointed by the owners & have absolute authority: hierarchical command structure typical of corporations

misdirected:

away from fulfilling crying human needs
towards fulfilling manufactured wants & luxurious self-indulgences for the wealthy

competitive:

sets worker against worker:

if you do more work in an hour than your co-workers

you're co-workers can get screwed: the boss wants everyone to do that much now
though, if your lucky, you might get promoted

if you're promoted for your productivity, or kissing the boss's ass, or some of each -- you are put in the position of being boss (middle manager) over your former coworkers

you can rise from the ranks but not with the ranks: Debs' line
advancement requires

breaking solidarity with the coworkers
aligning yourself with the interests of management

worker against management

workers want to be paid as much as possible for doing as little work as possible (since alienated labor is onerous)
management wants to get as much work as possible for as little compensation as possible.

Marxist Remedy: Communism

Collective ownership of the means of production

overthrow of the Capitalist system of ownership
"expropriate the expropriators"

Production for need or use rather than profit: for instance.

there's more profit in building golf courses but there's a greater need for new & improved urban parks & green spaces so it'd be more useful to produce these.

Work-based then ultimately needs-based distribution

transitional stage aka Socialism: "From each according their ability, to each according to their work": "the dictatorship of the proletariat"

people used to alienated labor won't work without the monetary carrot of wages
does away, notice, with distribution on the basis of ownership

interest on capital is in effect a stipend society pays to the rich for being rich

final stage aka Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs"

a classless society
in which government "withers away"

the function of government is to serve the organizational & control needs of the ruling class
so government serves no useful purpose in a classless society

Rousseau and the Theory of the Social Contract

Overview: What's the Theory About

Central concern thus far in discussion of Liberalism & Communism

What is the good society?
With an emphasis on just distribution of wealth.

Social philosophy is ethics writ large (as Plato thought)

as virtue is to individuals: a condition of their governing faculty, their minds or intellects
so justice is to societies: a condition of their governing part: the state

Nature of the State

State is the ruling group or organization within a society

a single individual: autocracy

monarchy: hereditary:

"I am the state" (Louis XIV)
"We are not amused" (Queen Victoria)

dictatorship: non-hereditary

a class of individuals

oligarchy: the rich
aristocracy: hereditary class: the nobility

the whole populace: democracy

Alleged Impossibility of Teleological Definition of the state in terms of inherent purposes of functions

some states exist to impose an ideology

secular: communist states
religious: Iran, Calvin's Geneva

some to secure peace and prosperity for some or all of the populace
some just to enrich the rulers themselves

Structural definition: an organization or group claiming the right to enforce obedience to their commands within a territory and succeeding in getting most of the people there to accept their claim.
1. exercise of compulsory power over all persons within some territorial boundaries
2. by right, they claim: their exercise of compulsory power is claimed to be legitimate
3. by consent: the governed acquiesce to the exercise and accept the legitimacy of the group's authority

Political authority (the type of authority exercised by states), then, is compulsory control over all residents of a territory, claimed to be legitimate by the governors, and generally accepted as legitimate by the governed.
Fundamental question of all political philosophy: When does a group calling itself the state really have the right -- a moral right -- to command?: the legitimacy question

what's claimed to be so ain't necessarily so:

Ptolemy claimed the earth was at the center of the universe
David Koresh claimed to be the Messiah

even if a majority -- or everyone for that matter -- accepting that it's so doesn't make it so

as most everyone did with Ptolemy
David Koresh's followers accepted his authority within the compound

Legitimate authority: the right to give commands that others have a moral duty to obey

Overview of theories of legitimacy

Preabsolutist: Ancient & (Early to Mid) Medieval)

limited obligation of the populace
conditional obligation to obey the just commands of the sovereign

Absolutist Sovereignty: Late Medieval, Preenlightenment:

Feudalism's Last Grasp at Power
the governed have absolute duty to obey
sovereign is appointed by God & rules by divine right
populace has an unconditional obligation to obey the divinely appointed sovereign

Enlightenment (18th century flowering of arts, sciences, & letters)

associated with historical transition from Feudalism to Capitalism
claims of absolute authority unacceptable: contrary to dawning democratic ideals of liberty & autonomy of individuals
the problem for chief political theorists of the enlightenment:

to reconcile individuals' rights to self determination with the state's claim to obedience
to find a happy medium between absolutism & anarchism
Social Contract Theory: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Social Contract Theory a la Rousseau

Basic idea:

exercise of political authority would not be not contrary to individual autonomy if individuals freely consented to acceptance of the authority
if government was instituted by the consent of the governed it's authority would be legitimate

The idea of a contract

a voluntary agreement between parties
to some quid pro quo: an exchange of goods or services

The idea of a Social Contract

citizens freely contract or agree to bring the state into existence
and are therefore morally obligated to obey the laws of the state

or else they'd be going back on their agreement

Popular Sovereignty: the people rule

we are the state
in obeying the state we have constituted by mutual agreement we are, in effect, obeying ourselves

Two Problems with the Institution of Popular Sovereignty: In Practice
1. Assembly problem
  - sovereignty of the populace entails equal involvement of all in collective decision making
  - but in a large territory, with a large population, it's impractical to assemble everyone in one place at once as seems to be required
  - Two proposed solutions:
2. Disagreement Problem
  - initial consent supposed to be unanimous: consent of all the governed
  - but inevitably conflicts of interest & opinion arise -- how are such conflicts to be resolved?
  - Majority rule: the usual expedient
    - Issue: how are the minority free when they're submitting to laws and policies to which they don't consent?
    - Rousseau's attempted solution
      - citizens are ruling themselves legitimately only
        
        when aiming at the general welfare or public good
        
        when their decisions are expressions of the general will not their own partisan & particular wills
      - when I enter into the contract I consent to obey for the sake of the general welfare or public good
        
        so when I obey laws I oppose but the majority approves I am obeying by my own consent
        
        doing what I myself have willed, i.e., pursuing the public good
        
        Since the will of the majority aims at the public good
      - Criticism of Rousseau's "solution"
        
        Even if the majority does aim at the public good, its aim may not always be accurate
        
        Even worse, often the majority doesn't even aim at the public good
        
        the tyranny of the majority
        
        oppression of minorities:
        
        e.g., in Serbia & Croatia
        
        Nazi Germany
        
        the southern U. S. before the civil rights movement
General Criticisms of Social Contract Theory
- the "contract" is a fiction

no actual state was ever actually brought into being by such an explicit agreement of the populace
The U. S. Constitution comes close or at least feigns this: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, do ordain to establish this constitution of the United States."

inheritance problem: contractual obligations not inherited: why am I obligated to obey the Constitution . . . even if my great great great grandfather personally signed it!

Locke's attempted solution: "Love it or leave it."

Common law principle of tacit consent: when a person over a period of time acts in such a way as to give other persons a reasonable expectation the they will continue to act so, and if they benefit from that unspoken understanding, then they have made a "quasi-contract," which the law will enforce just as it will an explicit, spoken contract.
Locke's own slant: tacit consent given mainly by holding property within a jurisdiction

Echo: U. S. Constitution's original limitation of the full rights of citizenship to property owners.

More generally: by staying here you are tacitly accepting the contract

by accepting the benefits of residency: use of the roads, police protection, etc.
you tacitly accept the obligation to obey the laws

Criticism of Locke's attempted solution

Assumes that if you don't like it here, you're free to leave

true in Locke's time: for the colonies or even -- once in the colonies -- for the frontier
but no longer

every speck of land on earth is claimed by some government
emigration requires visas & passports: you're not free to leave

bonds of family, tradition, and language also -- even in Locke's time - constrain your acceptable options

if I love my culture & traditions & family & stay
even though I completely disapprove of the established government
am I really consenting to the authority of that government by staying?

Theoretical point: contracts are valid only if freely & voluntarily entered into

null and void if agreed to as a result of coercion or under duress
but the supposed tacit agreement to the social contract is given under duress

no choice: you have to live somewhere
bonds of family & tradition & language hold me here

duress pertains also to explicit agreements

Examples of explicit acceptance of social contract

upon naturalization immigrants swear allegiance to the constitution
elected officials swear a similar oath

The question of duress also enters here

I might be hard pressed to make out a claim of duress: I could work elsewhere
but what if such a loyalty oath were a requirement for all employment?
coercing explicit agreement from all not a solution to the general problem of legitimacy.

The Pluralist Theory of the State

Key assumption of the social contract view: that the state is constituted & legitimated by

immediate or unmediated agreement of individuals

Contrary pluralist assertion: the state is formed through competition and compromise between competing interest groups

territorial groups with their local interests
religious groups with their interests
economic & occupational groups with their interests

corporations & chambers of commerce
labor unions & welfare rights organizations
trial lawyers association
fraternal order of police

racial and ethic groups
special interest groups, e.g.,

gun control groups & the NRA
pro-choice & pro-life groups

etc.

It is the interactions of such groups that determines what really goes on

how decisions are made
how power is wielded
who really governs

"The state . . . is merely one group among many, without superior right to dominate other associations" which

referees the group struggle
ratifies the victories of the successful coalitions
records the terms of surrenders, compromises, and conquests

Legitimacy question:

this may be the way politics does work, but is it the way it should work.
sounds like "might makes right"

The danger of factionalism: Latham's "interest groups" are Madison's "factions"

definition of a faction: "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united or actuated by some common interest or passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." (Madison)
danger of factionalism: where factionalism prevails the true interests of society will be ignored in the struggle for partisan advantage

Normative defense of pluralism

in a democracy everyone's vote counts equally regardless of the intensity and specificity of the voter's interests in the issues at hand
but not everyone has an equal stake in every issue: individuals with more at stake deserve a greater voice

women have a greater stake in reproductive rights issues
African Americans have a greater stake in civil rights issues
small business owners have a greater stake various economic issues
workers have a greater stake in workplace safety issues
etc.

interests group politics provides a way for the complexity, specificity, and intensity of individuals' concerns to impact public policy.

Problem for the the normative defense of pluralism: unequal resources

influence will vary not just with the complexity, specificity, and intensity of individuals concerns
influence will vary also with the resources these concerned individuals command

time, education, connections
and especially wealth

resulting in a perversion of democracy: reversion to oligarchy

the interests of the influential -- especially the wealthy -- count more
oligarchic result: the wealthy rule, not the people

The Racial Critique of the Social Contract Theory of the State

Certain parties were excluded when the original social contracts were agreed to

e.g., Founding Fathers contracted with one another

not only as to how they would treat each other
but also as to how they would treat various nonsignatories, e.g.,

African American slaves: would be, in effect, cattle
Native Americans: would be driven from the land & exterminated
women: no vote; no right to hold property once married.

Charles Mill's characterization

the social contract on which this country was founded was largely a contract between white males
over nonwhites, and women
a racial contract

To the extent that existing sociopolitical arrangements perpetuate the original terms of the racial contract

they are not legitimized as being in effect by the consent of the governed
since the governed nonwhites & women never consented
example: about 30% of African-American males in most southern states are disenfranchised

as convicted felons (mostly for nonviolent, drug-related "felonies")

exploiting a loophole in the 1969 Voting Rights Act

continuing the previous policies of denial of voting rights to blacks by various tricks (e.g. "literacy tests" & intimidation)

exploiting various loopholes in the 14th amendment

a kind of de facto disenfranchisement that has arisen in place of the original de jure disenfranchisement of African Americans under slavery.

Contemporary Application: Affirmative Action

"The problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line." (W. E. B. DuBois)
Most recent steps taken in the Twentieth Century to enforce Equal Opportunity (Recent Timeline http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html)
- 1954: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The ruling paves the way for large-scale desegregation. The decision overturns the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that sanctioned "separate but equal" segregation of the races, ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
- Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The law also provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation.
- Voting Rights Act of 1965, making it easier for Southern blacks to register to vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other such requirements that were used to restrict black voting are made illegal.
- 1965: Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment.
- 1967: In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court rules that prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time are forced to revise their laws.
- Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.
Affirmative Action: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html
- "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result." (Lyndon Johnson: 1965 Commencement Speech at Howard University)
- AA goes beyond EO to give reverse preferences advantaging previously disadvantaged classes.
  - women
  - nonwhites: African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, etc.
- Controversy
  - "From the outset there has been enormous opposition to affirmative action."
  - "In recent years ... opposition to affirmative action has been growing stronger."

Reverse Racism or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black
by Stanley Fish

The "Reverse Racism" Argument Against AA
- Whites once set themselves apart from blacks and claimed privileges for themselves while denying them to others.
- Now, on the basis of race, blacks are claiming special legal status and reserving for themselves privileges they deny to others.
- Isn't one as bad as the other?
Fish replies: No!

A Key Distinction

To equate AA with past racial discrimination ignores the historical differences between and different motives behind them
- Historical discrimination against blacks served to oppress and subjugate them.
- Affirmative action preferences favoring blacks are meant to undo those effects.
"'Reverse racism' is a cogent description of affirmative action only if one considers the cancer of racism to be morally and medically distinguishable from the therapy we apply to it."
This equation is as misguided as equating Zionism with Racism, and for the same reasons.

A Tilted Field

The "Level Playing Field" Objection to AA: "the truly democratic way is to have a level playing field to which everyone has access and where everyone has a fair and equal chance to succeed on the basis of his or her merit"
Fish Replies: "The playing field is already tilted, and the resistance to altering it by the mechanisms of affirmative action is in fact a determination to make sure that the present imbalances persist as long as possible."

The Reality of Discrimination

Why shouldn't "'Universities ... retain their policies of preferential treatment, but alter their criteria ... from race to socioeconomic disadvantage'" as D'Souza proposes?
Because, "Racism is a cultural fact, and although its effects may to some extent be diminished by socioeconomic variables, those effects will still be sufficiently great to warrant ... the continuation of affirmative action policies."

Why Me?

Argument: AA unjustly penalizes white males who are disadvantaged by it since these individuals were not the perpetrators of past discriminatory practices
Reply: no offense intended
- it's unfortunate for those negatively impacted
- but not unjust
  - unavoidable negative are side-effects of well-meaning policies
  - not the expression of unjustified prejudice those unfortunately affected

The New Bigotry

"First one says, in the most solemn tones, that the protection of individual rights is the chief obligation of society."
"Then one defines individuals as souls sent into the world with equal entitlements as guaranteed either by their Creator or by the Constitution."
"Then one pretends that nothing has happened to them since they stepped onto the world's stage."
"And then one says of these carefully denatured souls that they will all be treated the same way, irrespective of any of the differences that history has produced."

The Sins of Admission
by James Q. Wilson

Affirmative action = "selecting persons based on their group membership"
It's a mixed bag: "not one program but many" with "consequences that range from acceptable to intolerable"
Acceptable
- "When a television commercial displays white and black actors"
- "when a political party endorses candidates from a variety of ethnic backgrounds"
Intolerable
- "should someone suggest that the musicians in a major symphony orchestra or the players in the National Basketball Association should be chosen to create a specific racial balance.
Applied to admissions
- Least intolerable in undergraduate admissions
  - where a host of ulterior factors (besides prospective students' academic portfolios already intrude, e.g.,
    - legacies
    - athletes
  - exposing students to people from diverse backgrounds may be an important educational consideration in its own right: diversity of student population may be educationally
- Intolerable in graduate and professional school admissions
the least intolerable cases
- unlike legacy status or athletic ability race "according to the Supreme Court, is a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny"
- Bakke v. California Board of Regents ruling
  - use of quotas outlawed due to the subject status of the classifications
  - still permitted use of race as a "plus factor"
  - but it's commonly not just a "plus" factor: "It is decisive."
in the intolerable cases heavy preferences are the similarly the rule
- medical school admissions
- law school admissions
irrationality of AA's classifications: CA's four URMs: African American, Native American, Mexican American, mainland Puerto Rican
- why not Cubans?
- why not Japanese Americans after the discrimination they suffered during WWII?
- why not Vietnamese?
Conclusion: "Affirmative action has lost its moorings."
- diversity in undergraduate admissions is a legitimate aim but "their definition of diversity is limited to ethnicity, excludes ideology and favors some but not other ethnic groups"
- affirmative action in professional school admissions
  - is "lowering the quality of the professionals they produce"
  - while fostering resentment among those passed over

The "Q" Word
by Thomas Sowell

Affirmative action bases hiring and admissions decisions on "group quotas instead of ... individual performance"
Such quota systems
- include "goals" ... which are quotas by another name
- are never "temporary"
- are inescapably culturally divisive
Affirmative action should be abolished before it leads to
- more polarization
- intergroup violence
- even civil war as in Sri Lanka.

Pork Barrel Quotas
by Linda Chavez

Affirmative action is inefficient & corrupt
- inefficient: commonly fails to target the disadvantaged:
  - LC's own UMC son was a targeted "Hispanic"
  - 19 separate programs benefit minority bankers
  - others include set-asides for minority contractors
- corrupt: "nothing more than pork barrel politics with a fancy name"
There is no "third way": only two alternatives
- "get rid of quotas"
- "preserve them pretty much as they are"
"So long as we continue to count by race, ethnicity and gender and to distribute benefits and preferences accordingly, civil rights will be a hollow and corrupt substitute for equal opportunity."

Chapter 6:
Social and Political Philosophy
Key Concepts
affirmative action
alienation
anarchism
aristocracy
autocracy
bourgeois
capitalism
communism
democracy
oligarchy
proletarian
social contract

LH's Mostly Modern Philosophical Glossary

About Philosophy 9th ed., Chapter 6 Social and Political Philosophy

Mill and Classical Laissez-Faire Liberalism

The Socialist Attack on Capitalism

Analysis of Capitalism

Critique of Capitalism

Rousseau and the Theory of the Social Contract

The Pluralist Theory of the State

The Racial Critique of the Social Contract Theory of the State

Contemporary Application: Affirmative Action

Reverse Racism or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black by Stanley Fish

A Key Distinction

A Tilted Field

The Reality of Discrimination

Why Me?

The New Bigotry

The Sins of Admission by James Q. Wilson

The "Q" Word by Thomas Sowell

Pork Barrel Quotas by Linda Chavez

About Philosophy 9^th ed., Chapter 6
Social and Political Philosophy

Reverse Racism or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black
by Stanley Fish

The Sins of Admission
by James Q. Wilson

The "Q" Word
by Thomas Sowell

Pork Barrel Quotas
by Linda Chavez