Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!geoff
From: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination and AA
Message-ID: <745@burl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 14:37:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.745
Posted: Thu Jun 13 14:37:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 00:35:30 EDT
References: <483@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 79
Xref: watmath net.women:5777 net.politics:9392
Summary: 

In article <483@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>Geoff Sherwood writes:
>
>> If you pursue racist policies against racists, it is still racism.
>
>So what?  This is what I have repeatedly asked without getting a
>straight answer.

Some of us do not believe that racism is morally defensible.  You obviously
do if it supports a cause you believe in.  Racism is a very loaded word,
and has all sorts of negative connotations.  AA is a more 'acceptable' term.
I consider them two faces of the same thing.  Since I do, I feel that if one
is wrong, so is the other.  You draw a distinction between them that I
feel is non-existant, and can therefore say one is good (i.e., you agree
with it) and one is bad (i.e., you don't agree with it).

>Supposing that affirmative action is "racism"
>according to your favorite definition of the term, how does that
>prove that AA is wrong?

It doesn't, of course.  It shows the parallel between them.  You cannot
'prove' anything is 'right' or 'wrong' unless you agree on the postulates.
The universe is neither good nor bad -- it just IS.  You consider
discrimination based on sex/race/etc to be acceptable if it supports a
cause you believe in.  I am afraid my views are not so flexible.  And
I very strongly oppose government-mandated discrimination because that
institutionalizes (with my money) something I feel is wrong.  Also, if you
don't like a company, you can always leave.  There are a lot (millions)
of companies out there and one may be to your liking.  The choices available
if you don't like what the government does are much more restricted.

>(When the US fought Nazi violence in WW2
>with violence, it was still violence.  Was the US morally wrong to do
>so?  Did we believe that "the end justifies the means"?) 

Yes, we did.  I still think so.  When the ends are sufficiently bad, they
do justify the means.  Judging where this point is is easy, of course
(just beyond wherever (generic you) want it to be).   And that is why the
argument is dangerous, because it can so easily give a rationalization to do
just about anything -- because YOU (generic) decide the ends are worth the
means (regardless of what those directly affected have to say).  In this
case, you (Richard) say that discrimating against people because they are
white males is justified because of discrimination which OTHER white males
inflicted on minorities.  Unfortunately, this punishes the innocent on the
basis of his color.  I do not consider that the ends justifies the means
in this case.

>But to look
>for a rational argument here is to miss the point.  The only reasons
>I can discern that net-posters keep saying that "AA = racism" are:
>(1) to score debating points on the net (no difficult task), and (2)
>to annoy liberals.  To quote Ayn Rand out of context:  "Philosophy:
>who needs it?"

To look for a rational argument here is the point of this whole thing,
isn't it?  You may or may not agree with me, but that does not make my
argument more or less rational.

>
>> 'The ends justifies
>> the means' is the argument that such things are justified, and has 
>> justified some of the most atrocious things. 
>
>Another instance of being attacked for something one did not say.
>Careful readers will have noted that I never claimed that the
>intention of eliminating racism is sufficient to justify any and all
>actions taken with that end in view.  Nor do I know of anyone who
>believes this.
>
>Richard Carnes

Disagreement is not an 'attack'.  As discussed above, any time you
wish to take actions which are harmful to someone, there has to be
a judgement as to whether the ends you expect to gain justify the
harm.  While I agree with your ends (to a certain extent -- I oppose
discrimination) I do not feel they justify the discrimination against
innocent (at least of discrimination in the marketplace) men.

	geoff sherwood