Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on affirmative action
Affirmative action thoughts and essays
An essay on equal access to education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on affirmative action
Teleological reasoning is reasoning from the “telos,” meaning of the goal, the end or the purpose of something being distributed. This is Aristotle’s way of positioning the idea that the appropriate purpose of a social goal results from reason from the telos which ties into Michael Standel’s lecture “Arguing with Affirmative Action.” Now the question arises; is Aristotle correct? Is it so that justice is giving people their dues? Perhaps this is true when one considers the respects of equality. All in all there are several ideas to consider however; perhaps affirmative action has become solely a temporal way of alleviating the discrimination done in the past. Students provide their different perspectives to questions that rose from Standel’s discussion of a court case with a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood. Hopwood argued that she was not admitted because of the fact that she was white despite her outstanding grades and academic achievements. The students more so were led towards the idea in which universities’ missions are to increase diversity in their institutions. Standel also introduced Aristotle and his idea that everything must be equally distributed respectably if it stands for distributing items or opportunities to those who are assigned to them. When discussing Aristotle’s belief of fitting a person’s virtue with a suitable goal explains or describes his belief of teleological reasoning. Standel provided a vivid example as to precisely justifying what Aristotle proposed being teleological reasoning with Winnie the Pooh, “That buzzing-noise means something. You don’t get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something. If there’s a buzzing-noise, somebody’s making a buzzing noise, a... ... middle of paper ... ...ng inequality in educational backgrounds shall be taken into consideration for different ethnical backgrounds however not to compensate our past dues rather to be given the opportunities and advantages those who were slaves and segregated were never provided. Nevertheless, it is not a violation of a white person’s rights to deny admission when it is for the sole purpose for a university to satisfy their mission and bring others who may have more to offer and contribute. Moreover, Aristotle’s belief, that, “in general we say that persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them” conceivably is incorrect considering the fact that not everyone is given an equal opportunity to begin with. It is common to come across those individuals who will oppose increasing diversity but as Cesar Chavez once said, “once social change begins, it cannot be reversed.”
This claim, is not only false but also ignores the diversity among students that mirrors U.S. today. Ethnic Studies acknowledges that everyone is from various backgrounds, they tailor the curriculum as needed to make sure inclusiveness even with students who aren’t considered part of the Mexican American culture. In addition, those opposed hold the concept that all students will be treated equally and gives the dangerous, rather radical notion of color blindness,in treating all students the same and not accounting for their cultural backgrounds, language barriers, socioeconomic status etc. This is very harmful to their overall well-being because one is disregarding crucial aspects of one’s lives that negates opportunities for POC and goes along with the rhetoric of individualism. In the article “Edu as an Instrument”, illustrates how legislators such as Horne and Huppenthal thought about Ethnic Studies, their false assumptions and critiques of the program. Since their culture shown as dominant to what's considered “American”, these legislators have white privilege. This place of simply being the dominant culture, gives little leeway for them to understand what it means to become discriminated against based on the color of one’s skin and don’t
middle of paper ... ... Rangasamy’s piece makes an impact on the academic structure that could guide institutions to integrate the principles and policies of diversity and equality in their educational program. The author of the article is a respected authority on the subject of racism and education.
It is required by laws to place children under the Education Systems. The article The Costs of Inequality states that there is a vast inequality in education for the minorities. In my opinion, the article seem to point the problem out as a racial inequality or a discrimination, almost. However, to me, that is not the case. Millions of people, including myself, came to America to enter the doors of opportunity, and I believe that I have as much chance as the white Americans that are born and raised here. To justify this article’s claim, I believe that there isn’t any inequality of education among us, but difference in knowledge and understanding. For example, people from MSU has the same chance to become a doctor as everyone else, but it is those who take advantage of the opportunities that are given that succeeds. In conclusion, everyone at MSU, or even in this class, comes from all walks of life, yet with the same potential. When it is all said and done, it is up to how bad the student want to succeed because everyone has equal opportunity in
Justice is part of revenge; as also for revenge is part of justice. “Justice” comes from a Latin word that means “straight, fair, equal”, it’s the quality of being righteous and loyal towards one’s state, although serves the interests of the stronger (Hourani, 1962), while revenge is the act of taking retaliation for injuries or wrongs. What ever the circumstances are being the individual who experiences a unjust act, results in the hunt for one of these two things: Justice or revenge. What are the key differences between the two? Justice can be defined as the concept of moral rightness, which is based on the rules of law, fairness, ethics, and equality among the governed citizens. Revenge, on the other hand, refers to an action taken by an individual as a response to an act of injustice. The principle of revenge is “an eye for an eye”…. Can revenge be justified and be as equally part of justice if they both seek retribution for a wrongdoing?
Before a serious investigation of any aspect of Aristotle’s political theories is undertaken, we must take a moment to acknowledge that many of the institutions and doctrines he defends have been repudiated in modern political thought. In fact many such institutions are appalling and simply morally wrong. One such institution is slavery. Aristotle argues in the Politics that slavery is just. No argument is needed to conclude that Aristotle made a terrible ethical and moral error in defending slavery. Further we must accept that the argument of the abolition of slavery was available to him as his defense of slavery is in response to critics who claim slavery is unjust. What sparks intriguing debate is questioning why Aristotle defended slavery, and whether there is a flaw in Aristotle’s logic in his defense of slavery, or if it is in fact internally consistent with the rest of his writings on justice and virtue. Some scholars have claimed that Aristotle’s defense of slavery is a “battered shipwreck” of an argument. Yet, others maintain that the argument is in fact internally consistent. Any argument in favor of Aristotle’s defense of slavery is not in any way meant to morally support the institution of slavery; only that Aristotle used proper or unflawed logic in that argument. Likewise any argument against Aristotle’s defense is not a moral judgment toward slavery by this author. I am only concerned in how Aristotle builds his argument, and where flaws or contradictions may be located. Consideration of the context of slavery within Greek life of Aristotle’s time is also of importance.
Justice can be defined as a way of seeing what is right and wrong and being able to administer it in a correct way. Sometime the act of justice can teeter on revenge more then what is right. There is a very thin line to what we think is right then what actually is. We can see a lot of examples of this in Homer’s Odyssey. Which will be looked at and reviewed in this paper.
ABSTRACT: Ancient Greek education featured the pedagogical exercise of dialectic, in which a student defended a thesis against rigorous questioning by an instructor. Aristophanes’ Clouds, as well as Plato and Aristotle, criticize the practice for promoting intellectual skepticism, moral cynicism, and an eristic spirit - the desire to win in argument rather than seek the truth. I suggest Aristotle’s logic is meant to reform the practice of dialectic. In the first part of my paper, I defend the thesis that Aristotle’s syllogistic is an art of substantive reasoning against the contemporary view that it is a science of abstract argument forms. First, I show that Aristotle’s exclusive distinction between art and science makes syllogistic a techne for the higher forms of knowledge, science and practical wisdom. Then I argue that Aristotle’s treatment of demonstrative and dialectical syllogisms provides rigorous standards for reasoning in science and public debate. In particular I discuss a) the requirement that a demonstration use verifiable premises whose middle term points out a cause for the predicate applying to the conclusion; b) how his analysis of valid syllogisms with a "wholly or partly false" universal premise applies to dialectical syllogisms.
Education inequality has been present throughout the years, discriminating between the minority student and its Caucasian counterpart. Education is an important factor to become successful now days. Although children of all backgrounds are provided access to education, the American education system still has a gap between the rich and poor. Students of the high class are granted with liberal education, where they can share their thoughts, opinions, and ask questions because the teachers encourage them to do so. But the lower class (minorities) are getting education in a mechanical method (banking)-where the teachers share their thoughts and opinions but do not encourage the student to participate. In the article “500 nation” When the student
Wilson present this idea and explains that while this is true, everyone’s actual definition of fairness varies and is something that differs across cultures. As oppose to Aristotle, Wilson argues the basis of a successful society is not the solely the betterment of a community through the fulfillment of telos, but the creating a society through the interconnectedness of individuals, which in turn leads to a better society. Wilson’s text supports the belief that there’s indisputably a better chance for those with more sociable behavior and ability to problem solve were, and still are, more likely to survive. Through natural selection those with the inability to successfully reproduce, whether it be bad parenting or ineffective biology, could not pass down their genetic traits and therefore sociability was vital for our ancestors’
"The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans,” (Singer, 397) is a way to view the goal of happiness for any given society. To discuss what the principle of equality means there are two terms to define: description and prescription, which are the two words that contrast each other and raise the discussion. Description is a representation, or process of describing: a person, object, or event that is either spoken or written and this is what society bases equality among humans. In reality equality should be based on the prescription, which is the establishment of a claim based on the long or indefinite period of uninterrupted use
All civilizations require justice, the one fundamental requirement for any society. Nowhere is the value of justice portrayed more clearly than in William Shakespeare’s play, King Lear. King Lear is a cruel play, packed with human brutality and, seemingly, meaningless disasters. The lack of justice within the play causes these disasters. A society is often tempted to build its foundation on a simple concept such as mercy, but this simplicity is its flaw. On the other hand, justice is objective, which is why it is more important than mercy. First, not punishing people for their crimes is not an effective deterrent; they will just go right on committing these crimes. Furthermore, forgiveness often only benefits the forgiver by relieving them of anger, but does little to teach the perpetrator a lesson. Finally, commitment to justice is the only way to restore a situation to the way it should be. Shakespeare’s King Lear clearly portrays the fundamental societal truth that justice brings about proper resolution, whereas mercy is just a luxury that mankind can rarely afford; justice therefore is society’s highest value.
The United States of America is a pool of different nationalities; immigrants come to the country to find a better way of living, to find the greener grass. But this is not how things go all the time, especially in schools. Racial discrimination still exists. Physical differences are easy to spot and ignorance and bias lingers in today’s schools. This is disappointing because there is no such relation between one’s race and their capability to be educated. As an institution, schools must address this issue as it greatly affects the students, not only in their academic life but also their social
Another solution to our racism crisis in America is unequal education, which leads eventually leads to economic inclusion. In a study done by Jake News for an article called Graduation Gap he noticed that from 2003- 2013 black student’s graduation rates went up 2.1 percent, at the same time, white student’s graduation rates increased from 54percent to 60, an entire 5
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
In order to understand the nature of the relationship between law and justice, we first need to understand what both these terms mean in isolation. First, lets consider justice. Justice is often used interchangeably with “fairness”. While this relationship is true to an extent, justice is more of a social term, geared towards achieving fairness for the entire society. Fairness is a subjective term, where every individual’s concept of what is fair is different from one another. What one person may consider fair for them, may not be viewed by another as fair at all. Justice is a concept that looks to incorporate all these individual’s personal concepts of fairness and come to a solution that is suitable for all parties. A just society, according to Plato, is a society in which all its constituents are happy.(Kelson, 3) However, the subjective nature of justice makes the term very hard to adequately define. While what mentioned above may serve to illustrate the broader meaning of justice, in practice, what is considered justice for one party does not necessarily mean the same for another. For example, a starving person steals bread from a bakery to quench his hunger. The baker catches him and turns him over to the authorities. The authorities in turn punish the starving man for stealing. In this case, justice is served from the perspective of the baker. Justice is also served from the perspective of society, as a just man would not steal. However, for the starving man, taking one loaf of bread, which, had the baker