不匹配

K. Lippert‐Rasmussen
{"title":"不匹配","authors":"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter scrutinizes objections pointing to the putative fact that affirmative action is both under- and overinclusive, i.e. it both benefits people who are not relevantly disadvantaged and harms people who neither bear responsibility for nor are innocent beneficiaries of the injustice that the relevant affirmative action schemes address. While the empirical premise of the initial version of the under-/over-inclusion objection is true, its normative premise is implausibly demanding, i.e. that any degree of under-/over-inclusion renders a scheme unjust. Hence, I propose to revise this argument such that its normative premise becomes less demanding and, thus, more plausible in that, inter alia, it coheres with the belief that a penal system might be justified even if it raises issues about under-/overinclusion similar to those raised by affirmative action. The resulting argument is a better objection in that its normative premise, with some qualifications, seems relevantly true. However, it is no longer clear that the required empirical premise is true, i.e. that the mismatch between deserved and actual harms and benefits is not smaller with affirmative action than without.","PeriodicalId":365406,"journal":{"name":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mismatch\",\"authors\":\"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter scrutinizes objections pointing to the putative fact that affirmative action is both under- and overinclusive, i.e. it both benefits people who are not relevantly disadvantaged and harms people who neither bear responsibility for nor are innocent beneficiaries of the injustice that the relevant affirmative action schemes address. While the empirical premise of the initial version of the under-/over-inclusion objection is true, its normative premise is implausibly demanding, i.e. that any degree of under-/over-inclusion renders a scheme unjust. Hence, I propose to revise this argument such that its normative premise becomes less demanding and, thus, more plausible in that, inter alia, it coheres with the belief that a penal system might be justified even if it raises issues about under-/overinclusion similar to those raised by affirmative action. The resulting argument is a better objection in that its normative premise, with some qualifications, seems relevantly true. However, it is no longer clear that the required empirical premise is true, i.e. that the mismatch between deserved and actual harms and benefits is not smaller with affirmative action than without.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Sense of Affirmative Action\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Making Sense of Affirmative Action\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章仔细审查了反对意见,指出了平权行动既缺乏包容性又过度包容性的假设事实,即它既有利于那些没有处于相关弱势地位的人,也伤害了那些既不承担责任也不是相关平权行动计划所解决的不公正的无辜受益者的人。虽然最初版本的经验前提是正确的,但其规范前提是令人难以置信的苛刻,即任何程度的不足/过度包容都会使方案不公正。因此,我建议修改这一论点,使其规范性前提变得不那么苛刻,从而更加合理,因为除其他外,它与这样一种信念相一致,即刑罚制度可能是合理的,即使它提出了类似于平权行动所提出的关于包容性不足/过度的问题。由此产生的论点是一个更好的反对意见,因为它的规范性前提,加上一些限制,似乎是正确的。然而,所需的经验前提是否成立已不再清楚,即有平权行动的情况下,应得的和实际的伤害和利益之间的不匹配并不比没有平权行动的情况小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mismatch
This chapter scrutinizes objections pointing to the putative fact that affirmative action is both under- and overinclusive, i.e. it both benefits people who are not relevantly disadvantaged and harms people who neither bear responsibility for nor are innocent beneficiaries of the injustice that the relevant affirmative action schemes address. While the empirical premise of the initial version of the under-/over-inclusion objection is true, its normative premise is implausibly demanding, i.e. that any degree of under-/over-inclusion renders a scheme unjust. Hence, I propose to revise this argument such that its normative premise becomes less demanding and, thus, more plausible in that, inter alia, it coheres with the belief that a penal system might be justified even if it raises issues about under-/overinclusion similar to those raised by affirmative action. The resulting argument is a better objection in that its normative premise, with some qualifications, seems relevantly true. However, it is no longer clear that the required empirical premise is true, i.e. that the mismatch between deserved and actual harms and benefits is not smaller with affirmative action than without.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信