Comments

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

The analogy to property and theft is one possibility. There are others that you might think about. For example, how does compensation for black Americans compare to these other cases:

• Compensation or reparations to Native Americans
• Compensation paid by Germany to Israel after World War II
• Compensation to Japanese Americans for their internment during WWII
• Benefits (including job preference) given to veterans. Are any of these cases similar to affirmative action? Why or why not?

Argument by analogy is a standard form of ethical argument. It requires finding a case that everyone agrees on and then showing that a controversial case is similar in all morally relevant respects. Analogy is a powerful tool, but it has its limits. For example:

• It is often possible to dispute the analogy. Cases are seldom perfectly analogous.
• We do not always agree on which features of the cases are morally relevant. (Heated disputes often develop precisely because one group rejects another group's view on relevance. Is having to support a family relevant to pay scales? Why or why not?) Disputes over relevance can generate their own secondary arguments with their own analogies.
• Analogies do not always get to the bottom of moral disputes. They rely on moral judgments that are already accepted by the parties involved. In discussing compensation, for example, John proposes that we think of racial discrimination as analogous to theft. This presumes that we agree on certain moral rules about property. How do we justify those rules? What if we require a basis for a particular view of property rights? That will probably take us beyond analogies. It requires providing a rationale for a system of rights or for an ultimate moral principle like the principle of utility. What would such a justification look like?