Q's for Discussion
This thread is for simply gathering questions for the discussion meeting on May 22. So, please post all of your questions from the book in the form of comments to this post.
Lets please keep this thread only for questions. So, please do not post your answers / discussion points right in this thread. You are welcome to do so by creating another thread / post. Thanks!
Lets please keep this thread only for questions. So, please do not post your answers / discussion points right in this thread. You are welcome to do so by creating another thread / post. Thanks!
posted by George | 9:39 PM
2 Comments:
- Levin implies that morality is a sufficient basis for law (page 79, para 1). Is that correct? If yes, whose moral standard should form the basis?
- "California argued that its compelling state interest in the special admissions program (a la affirmative action) was to (1) increase minority representation in medicine, (2) counter racial discrimination in society..." (page 91, para 3).
I personally believe that points 1 and 2 are very valid reasons for implementing affirmative action - but Levin points out that they are unconstitutional.
So, the questions?
1. How much do you subscribe / extend support to this cause?
2. If not for affirmative action what do you propose as counter measures for racism in scoiety?
From the book's page 138:
"Assume there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70% of State A, and only 40% of State B wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B move to State A.
State Power also allows for societal solutions best suited to satisfy a given locality and permits experimentation with different public policy initiatives."
This power of self-determination or self-government for the states is a great opportunity for everyone. In a way individual and civil liberties have flourished because of this.
But this is a double-edged sword - because this also empowers states to authorise and endorse policies generally considered to be against the moral grain. (For instance, Massachussets toying with the idea of making same-sex marriages legal.)
So how do you propose a balance to be drawn between the states' self-directing powers and their decisions in matters in the light of values and morals?
Post a Comment
<< Home