On the piece Reverse Discrimination as unjustified, Lisa Newton argues that ‘simple justice” is contradictory and goes against the basic form of justice that it is meant to correct. She argues that because of years of mistreatment of women and Blacks that a culture of affirmative action has emerged that aims to correct the injustices of the past with reverse discrimination. She argues further that no form on injustice should ever be justified.
I find Lisa Newton’s argues quite boring because even though she argues from an idealistic view-point, her views can be dismissed on multiple fronts. First of all, Blacks and Women have been mistreated and went through harsh circumstances, and it is the duty of our society to help them succeed. Blacks and Women when combined constitute the largest group in America and neglecting their success on the grounds that it conflicts with some idealistic notions on justice that are based on romantic principles is quite wrong.
Leaving Blacks and Women to strike on their own, we risk alienating not just the largest demographic group in our society but also this blunder will have a negative influence on the rest of our society in general.
She argues that, “logically, the conclusion is simple enough: all discrimination is wrong prima facie because it violates justice, and that goes for reverse discrimination.” However, what Lisa Newton terms as “reverse discrimination,” is in its truest form simply justice.
She lists many of the great injustices done against women and Blacks and then goes to assert that still those injustices done against those groups shouldn’t be grounds for what she terms as “injustices” against other groups by giving those groups preference and chance to play catch up in work force and education.
The idealism she preaches is not only self-defeating but also quite a curious administration of justice. In what way can assisting an oppressed group be termed as an injustice?
As a Black person and a minority, it worries me that people are even questioning the validity of affirmative action.
Tooley argues on Abortion and infanticide that, “being human is not essential to having a right to life, and indeed many non-human animals may have,” and states that “abortion and infanticide will be morally permissible, at least if the right to life is the only consideration relevant to the issue.” The interesting aspect of Tooley’s arguments is the distinctive difference noted between being a “human being” and being a “person.” This sound strategy allows Tooley to lay a very convincing argument. Tooley uses “person” in a moral sense to mean “an individual with the right to life.”
Finnis on the other hand uses both the potential and vagueness arguments to argue that there is a life from the moment of conception. I disagree with Finnis argument that abortion should not be carried out to save the mother is unfair because of “unfair prioritizing,” since I don’t think that the fetus has the right to use the mother’s body and as the sole owner of her body, the mother should have the right to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. On the question of rape too Finnis’ arguments fail terribly because the idea that a woman should carry a fetus that was forced on her and one she had no freedom to decide on is something that is quite hubristic. No-one should be forced to carry a fetus that came about through rape or a bad judgment.
Tooley’s arguments seem very comprehensive and mature and are analytic in their approach, and I was really pleased with his argument that “An individual has a right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.” I think in addition to his distinct separation between being a “human being” and being a “person,” this further enriches and wins the argument for him.
The tendency for the anti-abortion camp to equate abortion to infanticide is not simply boring but also such a disservice to plight of the hundreds of thousands of female infants whose lives are taken every year in the developing world ( especially India) based on preconceived prejudices in the male-dominated societies of Asia and Africa. There is no contradiction in being a pro-abortionist and at the very same time being vocal against the cruel practices of female infanticide.
As a supporter of abortion, Tooley’s arguments make more sense to me and appeal to my moral convictions more than Finnis.
The Washington Post reports that an American Air Raid has killed the alleged mastermind of the Israeli-owned resort in Kenya in 2002. Saleh Ali Nabhan and 3 other suspects were killed and their bodies taken by the US Navy in the second such attacks. It must be noted that the US Military was able to assassinate the founder of Al Shabab Hashi Aden Ayro in 2008.
The Somali-government is battling religious extremists that are linked to Al Qaida. Today’s deadly blow to Al Shabab will help weaken the Al Shabab militia that has already lost public support.
