{"title":"结论","authors":"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The brief final chapter does three things: (1) it summarizes the content of the book; (2) it sets out four of its main claims; and (3) it ends with some remarks about real-life affirmative action schemes mentioned in earlier chapters. Roughly, the pertinent four main claims of the book are (1) the cautious pro-affirmative action claim—that affirmative action is justified to the extent that it mitigates discrimination or reduces inequality of opportunity; (2) the plurality claim—that affirmative action schemes differ hugely in justification-relevant ways; (3) the contingency claim—that the justifiability of any particular affirmative action scheme depends significantly on contingent social facts; (4) and the incongruence claims—that the principle underlying different arguments for (or objections against) affirmative action often pull in different directions.","PeriodicalId":365406,"journal":{"name":"Making Sense of Affirmative Action","volume":"295 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conclusion\",\"authors\":\"K. Lippert‐Rasmussen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190648787.003.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The brief final chapter does three things: (1) it summarizes the content of the book; (2) it sets out four of its main claims; and (3) it ends with some remarks about real-life affirmative action schemes mentioned in earlier chapters. Roughly, the pertinent four main claims of the book are (1) the cautious pro-affirmative action claim—that affirmative action is justified to the extent that it mitigates discrimination or reduces inequality of opportunity; (2) the plurality claim—that affirmative action schemes differ hugely in justification-relevant ways; (3) the contingency claim—that the justifiability of any particular affirmative action scheme depends significantly on contingent social facts; (4) and the incongruence claims—that the principle underlying different arguments for (or objections against) affirmative action often pull in different directions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":365406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Sense of Affirmative Action\",\"volume\":\"295 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/9780190648787.003.0013\",\"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/9780190648787.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The brief final chapter does three things: (1) it summarizes the content of the book; (2) it sets out four of its main claims; and (3) it ends with some remarks about real-life affirmative action schemes mentioned in earlier chapters. Roughly, the pertinent four main claims of the book are (1) the cautious pro-affirmative action claim—that affirmative action is justified to the extent that it mitigates discrimination or reduces inequality of opportunity; (2) the plurality claim—that affirmative action schemes differ hugely in justification-relevant ways; (3) the contingency claim—that the justifiability of any particular affirmative action scheme depends significantly on contingent social facts; (4) and the incongruence claims—that the principle underlying different arguments for (or objections against) affirmative action often pull in different directions.