Author Question: Work and Family: Should Parents Feel Guilty I need claims and supporting arguments on this one. ... (Read 103 times)

Arii_bell · **on:** Jun 19, 2018

Work and Family: Should Parents Feel Guilty

I need claims and supporting arguments on this one. Thanks.

Question 2

The Moral Status of Affirmative Action

What would be your main claim and possible arguments to the statement?

mariahkathleeen · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 19, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The guilt that working parents feel over not giving their children enough personal time and attention is, in many instances, morally appropriate. The view that absence-related guilt feelings are generally irrational and inappropriate rests on failure to acknowledge the moral foundations of guilt feelings and a narrow conception of parents' obligations.

Guilt feelings cannot be understood apart from unsatisfied moral ideals.
Feelings of unhappiness, regret or anxiety can exist independently of feelings of guilt and need make no reference to unsatisfied moral ideals.
It is a mistake, therefore, to explain guilt feelings in terms of unhappiness, regret or anxiety.

Whether or not guilt feelings are morally appropriate depends on the moral appropriateness of the underlying moral ideal.
If the underlying moral ideal is appropriate then feelings of guilt can play a positive role inasmuch as they encourage conduct that affirms important moral values.
We should not, therefore, simply seek to eliminate guilt feelings, but rather evaluate the moral ideal behind the guilt feelings and how, if that ideal is morally appropriate, we can live our lives more in accordance with it.

Many parents hold as an ideal that they should be concerned not only with the physical, intellectual and social skills children need to develop, but also with their developing deep personal relationships of love.
Alternative caregivers cannot be expected to provide the commitment that is essential to such relationships.
Parents are in a unique position to develop deep personal relationships of love with their children, but this can only occur if they are prepared to spend a great deal of time with their children.
It is therefore appropriate for parents holding this ideal to feel guilty if they have structured their lives so that they do not have the time they feel they should devote to their children.

Answer to Question 2

Strong affirmative action, i.e. the preferential hiring of less qualified candidates in order to address racial or gender inequalities is unjustified.
Pojman begins by defining what he means by discrimination, prejudice, bias, equal opportunity and affirmative action. He then gives a short history showing how weak affirmative action, i.e. attempts to ensure equal opportunity in employment and education opportunities has shifted to strong affirmative action, i.e. the preferential hiring or admittance of less qualified candidates on the basis of race or gender. He attempts to establish his main claim by considering seven arguments for strong affirmative action and seeking to destroy them. He concludes by giving seven arguments against affirmative action.

Argument 1: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as it provides role models for under-represented groups.
Replies: (a) More important than having role models of one's own type is having genuinely good people, of whatever race or gender, to emulate.
(b) It is counterproductive to provide under-qualified role models for under-represented groups.

Argument 2: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as it breaks stereotypes.
Reply: Affirmative action is an ineffective way to remove stereotypes and may in fact serve to reinforce stereotypes.

Argument 3: Affirmative action is justified inasmuch as we know that inequalities in society are the result of prejudice, i.e. we would have the same proportions from every race , gender and ethnic group in the higher positions in society if prejudice were not a factor.
Reply: This ignores the fact that many factors other than prejudice may bring about inequalities of representation in certain jobs.

Argument 4: Minorities have been wronged by whites, therefore white society should compensate minorities through programs of strong affirmative action.
Replies: (a) Normally, we think of compensation being owed by the individuals who did the wrong to the individuals they wronged. It seems impossible to fine tune affirmative action to this degree.
(b) There is no way to know what would have been the case if prejudice had not intervened.

Argument 5: Young white males, although innocent of any wrongdoing, have benefited from past prejudice and therefore it is appropriate that less qualified minority members receive preferential treatment over them.
Replies: (a) Normally, we think of compensation being owed by the individuals who did the wrong to the individuals they wronged.
(b) There is no reason to think that being the innocent beneficiary of wrongdoing means that one should not be hired on the basis of one's qualifications.

Argument 6: Strong affirmative action is justified inasmuch as no individual deserves the talents upon which his or her qualifications are based.
Reply: This undermines the notion of moral responsibility. If we accept the notion of responsibility at all, we must hold that persons deserve the fruits of their labor and conscious choices.
Arguments Against Affirmative Action
Argument 1: Strong affirmative action requires unjustified discrimination against young white males who are innocent of any wrongdoing. It especially handicaps ethnic and poor white males.
Argument 2: Strong affirmative action encourages members of under-represented groups to think of themselves as victims.
Argument 3: Strong affirmative action encourages mediocrity and incompetence.
Argument 4: Strong affirmative action tends to assume that any under-representation is the result of prejudice and thus shifts the burden of proof, i.e. unequal representation is taken to indicate prejudice unless one can prove otherwise.
Argument 5: Strong affirmative action tends to undermine a proper valuing of merit.
Argument 6: Strong affirmative action programs lead to slippery slopes in which many groups other than those initially targeted insist on preferential treatment.
Argument 7: There is mounting evidence that programs of affirmative action do not lead to the results that are intended, i.e. in some cases they do more harm than good.