Introduction
When addressing violence, sexism, and racism, philosophers and sociologists may have different opinions about solutions to these issues. For example, Pojman (1998) and Mosley (1998) view the concept of Affirmative Action as a set of practices aimed at eliminating discrimination and increasing the privileges of minorities from opposing perspectives. According to Mosley’s (1998) views and the fact that it is challenging for an African American woman to find a good job, it is the best decision to choose Molly for the position in the Federal Government.
The Case’s Details
Before attempting to resolve a moral issue, it is essential to outline the key components of the case at hand. An African American woman named Molly and an Irish American male, Cameron, are candidates for a position in the Federal Government. This job has an excellent benefits package, but candidates are required to have a degree and demonstrate leadership skills.
Thus, Molly is an undergraduate in Anthropology with a minor in US Civics, having experience as a volunteer in US Civics for two years. In turn, Cameron studied at Princeton on a full scholarship, graduated with a degree in US History, and became a student body president who formed a union for teaching assistants. Molly’s family is affluent and takes an active role in politics, while the male candidate comes from a working-class household. Thus, it is uncertain whether Molly or Cameron should be selected because both have relatively similar characteristics.
Philosophical Exegesis of Pojman’s and Mosley’s Theories
Pojman’s View
It is essential to review the opinions, perspectives, and arguments of two philosophers who play important roles in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of intense Affirmative Action. Thus, in his article, Pojman (1998) raises some important questions about the difference between weak and strong Affirmative Action. Pojman (1998) states that the latter is a practice of discriminating and oppressing innocent people to provide exclusive benefits to underrepresented individuals.
He believes “Strong Affirmative Action creates a new Hierarchy of the Oppressed: Blacks get primary preferential treatment, women second, Native Americans third, Hispanics fourth, Handicapped fifth, and Asians sixth and so on until White males” (Pojman, 1998, p. 98). Therefore, supporting this practice might be even more morally wrong than slavery or oppression against Blacks centuries ago, because now it is reversed racism instead of equality and equity.
To sum up, the key idea of people who oppose the concept of Affirmative Action is that it ignores whether a White person is in poverty or in need as well, or if they have better qualifications, experiences, and skills. Putting in unconditional priority those whose ancestors once experienced violence and inequality, even if now their descendants live well, is wrong (Pojman, 1998). Such practices only promote inequality and do not help modern people atone for the mistakes of previous generations.
Mosley’s View
Another great philosopher has strong arguments against the outlined views. As indicated by Mosley (1998), “policies designed to facilitate the inclusion of blacks and women are meant not as an expression of the racial and sexual superiority of blacks and females over white males” (p. 161). Instead, such policies, interventions, and attitudes address the widely perceived supremacy and exclusivity of males and whites(Mosley, 1998; Mosley & Capaldi, 1996). The philosopher believes that neither Weak nor Strong Affirmative Action can reverse sexist and racist roles if it only seeks to establish equality and provide marginalized communities with enhanced access to the opportunities they lack.
Furthermore, in his book, Mosley counters the notion that preferential treatment indicates minorities are incapable of achieving anything on their own, and that Affirmative Action only harms them and fosters resentment (Mosley & Capaldi, 1996, p. 23). These questions pertain to specific attitudes, but in general, governmental support encourages individuals of color, women, and other marginalized communities to live better as they begin to believe in equality.
Comparison
Evidently, the power and objectives of Affirmative Action are seen differently. While Mosley (1998) insists that it is the task of the authorities to continue using Affirmative Action to stimulate minorities, emphasize equity and diversity, and solve the issues of racism and discrimination. On the contrary, for Pojman (1998), such methods are considered to be reverse racism and sexism, and only Weak Affirmative Action can be beneficial. The reason is that it is not preferential treatment, but rather a process of addressing actual issues that real people experience today.
Applying the Philosophers’ Arguments to the Case
Core concepts of the two philosophers’ views on Affirmative Action can help identify how each would have addressed the dilemma. As an opponent of Affirmative Action, Pojman (1998) would have given this job to Cameron because Molly does not appear to be oppressed. If she were, Pojman (1998) would have possibly referred to this as Weak Affirmative Action and supported the African American female. As the candidates have relatively similar starting positions, and since Cameron is from a working-class family, there is no reason for the philosopher to discriminate against the male merely to help Molly.
At the same time, Mosley (1998) would have provided Molly with an excellent opportunity. She is an African-American female who has undoubtedly experienced discrimination and oppression based on these two characteristics. Thus, it is more ethical to support her and reward her for her efforts and achievements.
Most Successful Solution
To define the best possible solution, one needs to set some criteria. First, it is necessary to determine which of the two candidates is most likely to have faced negative experiences in the past. Secondly, it is also helpful to understand which of them has a higher chance of finding a similarly good job if they do not secure this work in the Federal Government. As an African American woman, Molly most likely experienced hardship and discrimination during her studies and in her daily life, which is why she also has fewer opportunities to get a good job if she is denied this one.
According to Quillian and Midtbøen, organizations usually prefer hiring white males instead of African Americans and women. These factors suggest that the best option is to hire Molly, and Mosley (1998) would likely support this view. However, the theory of Pojman (1998) emphasizes that Molly is not from a low-income family, which makes her relatively privileged. Thus, for this philosopher, choosing her over Cameron equals reversed discrimination.
Personal Choice
I vote for Molly because the color of her skin is a reason for many to put an additional burden on her. If life is a marathon, then many people of color and many females, unlike white males, start running with extra weight on their backs. When getting rid of this burden of oppression and inequality, the unoppressed have already enjoyed the best benefits. Therefore, with excellent skills and qualifications, Molly must seize this opportunity and celebrate her victory.
Conclusion
To conclude, such ethical dilemmas are always challenging to solve. However, giving the job to Molly is a just action that does not contribute to discrimination against white males. When being in equal conditions, females and individuals of color have to be a priority because they experience many inequalities in their daily lives and lack numerous opportunities that are offered to others.
References
Mosley, A. (1998). Policies of straw or policies of inclusion?International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(2), 161-168.
Mosley, A. G., & Capaldi, N. (1996). Affirmative Action: Social justice or unfair preference? Rowman & Littlefield.
Pojman, L. P. (1998). The case against Affirmative Action. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 12(1), 97-115.
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021). Comparative perspectives on racial discrimination in hiring: The rise of field experiments. Annual Review of Sociology, 47, 391-415.