Most discussions involving social inequality accept that disparity is evidence of discrimination. That is not always the reality. For example: More men are locked up in prison than women. This is hardly evidence that men are suffering discrimination from the justice system.
For the sake of argument, assume that one group has genetic and cultural advantages and another group has the same disadvantages. This disparity causes the disadvantaged group to suffer inequality in income, social status, health, and education. My question is this:
Is it incumbent upon the advantaged group to to provide more opportunity for the disadvantaged group even though the disparity is fostered by behavior and not by prejudice?
Let's assume that races, genders, and cultures are not equal. Watch
- Thread Starter
- 17-10-2016 19:54
- 17-10-2016 20:07
That's an interesting question, and It's one that will ultimately be accused of being racist. In essence there is nothing racist about it. In intent there usually is. I would say if a society wishes to be pragmatic then, yes. Any measure of sustainable peace requires some balancing of the scales. Studies have proven that less disparity is more vital to happiness than a greater quality of life. Allow one race or gender to occupy a consistent position of dominance over another race or gender and there will be strife.
- 17-10-2016 21:21
I think that more advantage should be given to the disadvantaged group, ultimately with the aim that long term it will balance out and artificial balance will no longer be needed. I think it has to careful how this is done though, ideally in the form of opportunity rather than quota. If for instance there is a lower number of black people going to university, then I feel a reasonable solution would be to put extra money towards targeting black majority schools with open days etc, interview and application workshops targeted at such places. I don't feel universities should be forced into accepting a certain number of people purely because of their skin colour though. I think the final decision of who to accept/hire should always be as impartial as possible, but the chance to get to that stage should help groups that are failing.
You really could have picked a better example though. It's been shown that for the same crimes men are given stricter sentencing, but hey ho, not really the point you wanted to discuss.