When minorities are harmed it is reasonable that the the people who
maliciously caused the injury pay damage in kind or money. Set asides
however assume the guilt of non-minorities without due process, so set
asides are immoral in that respect.
In fact the persons who miss out on a job or promotion are at least
1/2 the time persons who help the poor and otherwise lend a helping
hand to minorities, so that makes it doublely unfair.
A utilitarian consideration is: If an inept minority with a bad
attitude gets a job, instead of a slightly more employable
non-minority, the non minority will likely find a job somewhere else,
so neither will be on unemployment insurance nor welfare. The children
and grandchildern of the hard working (but inept) minority may have a
better attitude and find sucessful employment which will benefit
society over the next century. The minor inconvenience to the
non-minority may be over welmed by a dozen or more successful persons
who might otherwise have been 2nd and 3d generation welfare. Even
though the needs of the many have been fulfilled, the revese
dicsrimination is not moral and the outcome often is not this
favorable. Dozens of other people will likely be harmed only sligthly
by the inept employee ie poor product or custmer service reduced share
holder profit and other employees who make up for the deficiencies of
the inept minority employee. Occasionally the inept employee learns to
be better than average, then we have a win-win situation, but that
might also have happened with the displaced non-minority.
Deontological has to do with group ethics and group resonsibility
which I have already addressed. Neil |
