从不平等到平等:评价平权行动作为种族救济的规范性理由

IF 0.6 Q4 BUSINESS
Susan Hall, M. Woermann
{"title":"从不平等到平等:评价平权行动作为种族救济的规范性理由","authors":"Susan Hall, M. Woermann","doi":"10.15249/8-2-85","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick’s entitlement theory and Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls’s theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls’s theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls’s theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.","PeriodicalId":42425,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From inequality to equality: Evaluating normative justifications for affirmative action as racial redress\",\"authors\":\"Susan Hall, M. Woermann\",\"doi\":\"10.15249/8-2-85\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick’s entitlement theory and Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls’s theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls’s theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls’s theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Business Ethics\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Business Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15249/8-2-85\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15249/8-2-85","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我们将探讨诺齐克的权利理论和罗尔斯的正义即公平理论能否以及在多大程度上为平权行动政策提供规范性依据。我们的发现是,诺齐克的计划没有为大规模的纠正提供指导,而罗尔斯的立场支持平权行动作为纠正,但只是以更柔和的形式。因此,如果一个人接受罗尔斯的理论所基于的平等自由和公平的假设,那么他就有两个选择:要么拒绝罗尔斯的理论,因为它不支持配额制度;要么接受罗尔斯的理论,拒绝配额制度作为一种合法的补救形式。我们支持后一种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From inequality to equality: Evaluating normative justifications for affirmative action as racial redress
We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick’s entitlement theory and Rawls’s theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls’s theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls’s theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls’s theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.
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
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信