-
- QUESTION
Argument Reconstruction
Write a paper where you reconstruct one of the arguments below. Your paper should:
a) Begin with a brief summary of the argument.
b) Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is valid.
c) For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from.
d) Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length.
e) Have a brief concluding paragraph where you consider which premise an opponent of this argument would try to deny.HIMMA ON CONSEQUENCES
Affirmative action defenders often [cite] the beneficial cons equences of affirmative action, but this line of argument implicitly concedes the dispositive point to opponents. As Ronald Dworkin has shown, a right can be outweighed by another right, but never by consequences: "[t]he claim that citizens have a right to free speech . . . impl[ies] that it would be wrong for the Government to stop them from speaking, even when the Government believes that what they will say will cause more harm than good." Thus, if preferences violate a right, they are wrong no matter what their consequences might be.” (Himma p. 278)STROUD ON ROLE MODELS
“Insofar as affirmative action places Xs in positions for which they may be less well qualified, it seems less likely that those Xs will in fact be meritorious high performers who are suitable role models. Because a person needs to be truly exemplary in order to be an effective role model—as well as interacting regularly with young Xs—these are pertinent objections to the strategy of basing the case for affirmative action solely on its efficacy in creating such role models” (Stroud, p.391)the paper must follow the reconstruction form from the ppt i provide.
also the conclusion must be clear from the overall idea, not just same from one of idea.
| Subject | Uncategorized | Pages | 4 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Himma’s Argument on Consequences
Brief Summary of the Argument
Himma’s argument on consequences argues that affirmative action has beneficial consequences, which is why it is defended. However, with this line of thought, the opponents view it as conceding the dispositive point. Hence, they may end up believing that what happened in the past to a specific group is justifiable simply because the same is what the oppressed are now defending.
Argument Reconstruction into Standard Form
The argument on consequences can be summarised as shown below:
- Affirmative action has beneficial consequences. (premise)
- All affirmative actions will implicitly concede the dispositive point to opponents. (premise)
- So, all affirmative action will promote the idea of inequality to the opponents. (1-2)
- If a right can be outweighed by another right, but never by consequences, then affirmative action will never be effective. (premise)
- If preferences violate a right, they are wrong no matter what their consequences might be. (3-4)
No argument has been provided to support the belief that premise (1) is true. However, I can provide for this by arguing that affirmative action gives the oppressed an opportunity to also enjoy certain benefits that they were previously denied.
Premise (2) is argued for through induction since Himma indicates that the line of thought of premise (1) will trigger an outcome where dispositive points are surrendered to the opponents. Therefore, defending the affirmative action is linked to an automatic outcome where the opponents will perceive the message differently.
Premsie (4) is not argued for, but rather it is supported using the example of the right to free speech. It is true because the example shows how it does not make sense to support affirmative action when the outcome would not make sense. From the example, it would mean that the right to free speech is not contested even when the government expects negative outcomes.
My Objection
There is reason to believe that premise (2) is false. That is why I object by arguing that not all affirmative action will trigger the conceding of dispositive points to opponents. That is because some will benefit both parties, thereby showing them how the field can be levelled for all. Hence, this argument can be reconstructed as shown below.
- Affirmative action has both positive and negative consequences. (premise)
- Not all affirmative actions will implicitly concede the dispositive point to opponents. (premise)
- So, not all affirmative actions will promote the idea of inequality to opponents. (1-2)
- If a right can be outweighed by a right as well as consequences, then affirmative action can be acceptable under specific circumstances. (premise)
- Therefore, if preferences violate a right, then they are wrong only when the consequences are discriminative. (3-4)
Premise (1) is obviously true based on the fact that there are two types of outcome from affirmative action. Premise (2) can be argued for based on the fact that a beneficial consequence for both parties will not lead to the conveyance of dispositive points to the opponent. Lastly, premise (4) can be argued for based on the idea that both a right and consequence can outweigh another right. Hence, affirmative action is acceptable under specific circumstances where no party is discriminated.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have based my objection to the idea that all affirmative actions will trigger the same outcome. This is because there is reason to believe that this is not true since there are some consequences which will benefit both parties, meaning that there will be no opponent. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, affirmative action can be acceptable.
References
|
Appendix
|
|