Comments

Review these ideas and then use the BACK key in your browser to go back to the page you were on.

Many people would agree with John's principle; but we will see that when it is applied to racial relations it leads immediately to controversy. There are several conservative and liberal interpretations. The most conservative formula will require compensation only to the specific blacks who were discriminated against by a specific school or employer. This is sometimes called "victim specific" compensation. The most liberal interpretation will look at the overall disparities between blacks and whites and, assuming that the disparities are largely the result of unfair treatment over the years, require compensation to blacks as a way of reducing the disparities. There are also various positions between these two.

John's principle is phrased in terms of individual actors, individual actions, individual responsibility, and injustice to individuals. (This requires us to count a school or an employer as an individual.) This approach works well for most of the moral judgments we make. Does it work well when a large number of people, a long period of time, acts of government, and customs with strong social sanctions are involved? This question arises when we try to work affirmative action into moral theory. When, if ever, does it make sense to analyze events in terms of groups rather than individuals?