WGBH Station; WGBH Forum Network; Arguing Affirmative Action / Whats the Purpose?

This is somebody by. Additional funding. Last time. We were discussing the distinction. That Rawls draws. Between two different types of claims. Claims of moral desert on the one hand. And of entitlements to legitimate expectations on the other. Was argued. That it's a mistake. To think. That distributive justice. Is a matter of moral desert. A matter of rewarding people according to their virtue.

Today we're going to explore that question. Of moral desert and its relation to distribute of justice not in connection with income and wealth. But in its connection with opportunities. With hiring decisions and admissions standards. And so we turn to the case of affirmative action. You read about the case of Cheryl Hopwood. She applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl Halpern had worked her way through high school. She didn't come from an affluent family. She put herself through community college. And California State University tech memento. She achieved a three point eight grade point average there later moved to Texas became a resident. Took the law school admissions test did pretty well on that and she applied to the University of Texas Law

School. She was turned down. She was turned down at a time when the University of Texas was using an affirmative action admissions policy. A policy that took into account. Race and ethnic background. The University of Texas said. 40 percent of the population of Texas. Is made up of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans. It's important that we. As a law school. Have a diverse student body. And so we are going to take into account not only grades and test scores but also the demographic makeup of our class including race and ethnic profile. The result and this is what happened complained about the result of that policy.

Is that some applicants to the University of Texas Law School. With the lower academic index. Which includes grades and test scores then hers. Were admitted and she was turned down. She said she argued I'm just being turned down because I'm white. If I weren't If I were a member of a minority group with my grades and test scores I would have been admitted. And the statistics admissions statistics that came out in the trial confirm that. African-American and Mexican-American applicants that year. Who had. Her grades and test scores. Were admitted. It went to federal court. Now put aside the law let's consider it from the standpoint of justice and morality. Is it fair or is it unfair. Does Cheryl Hopwood have a case a

legitimate complaint. Were her rights violated. By the admissions policy of the law school. How many say how many would rule for the law school and say that it was just to consider race ethnicity as a factor in admissions. How many would rule for Cheryl Hopwood in say her rights were violated. So here we have a pretty even split. All right now I want to hear from a defender of Cheryl Hopwood. Yes. You're basing something and that's an arbitrary factor. You know Cheryl couldn't control the fact that she was white or not in a minority and therefore you know it's not as if it was like a test score that she worked hard to try and show that she could you know put that out there. You know she had no control over her. That's good. What's your name. Bri. OK Bri. Stay right there.

Now let's find someone who is who has an answer for Bree. Yes. There are discrepancies in the educational system. Majority of the time. I know this in New York City the schools that minorities go to are not as well-funded are not as. Well supplied as white schools. And so there is going to be a discrepancy naturally between minorities and between whites if they go to better schools and they will not do as well on exams because they haven't had as much help because of the worse school system. So let me just interrupt you this to tell me your name and Eesha and Neisha an issue you're pointing out that. Minority kids may have gone in some cases. To schools that didn't give them that same educational opportunity as kids from affluent. Families. Yes. And so the test scores. They got. May actually. Not represent their true potential because they didn't receive the same kind of help

that they matter received had they gone to a school with better grades. All right. An issue has raised the point. That colleges still should choose for the greatest academic scholarly promise. But in reading the test scores and grades they should take into account the different meaning those tests and grades have in the light of educational disadvantage in the background. So that's one argument. In defense of affirmative action and issues argument correcting for the effect. Of unequal preparation. Educational disadvantage. Now. There are other arguments. Suppose just to identify whether there is a competing principle here. Suppose there are two candidates. Who did equally

well. On the tests and grades both of whom went to first grade schools. To candidates. Among those candidates. Would it be unfair for the college or university for Harvard to say we still want diversity. Along racial and ethnic dimensions even where we are not correcting for the effects. On test scores of educational disadvantage. What about in that case. Bri if it's that one thing that puts someone over the edge then it's I guess that would be you know justifiable if everything else about the individual First though everything they consider about that person you know towns and where they come from and who they are without these arbitrary factors is without these arbitrary factors you call.

But before you were suggesting that race and ethnicity are arbitrary factors outside the control of the applicant. Sure I would agree with that. And your general principle is that admissions shouldn't reward arbitrary factors over which people have no control Erin. All right. Who else who else would like to thank you both. Who else would like to get into this. What do you say. Well first of all I'm for affirmative action temporarily. But of what for two reasons. First of all you have to look at the university's purpose it is to educate their students. And I feel that different races people can come from different races have different backgrounds and they contribute differently to you know the education and second of all when you say they have equal backgrounds they. That's not true when you look at the broader picture and you look at slavery. And these are this is kind of a reparation I think affirmative action is a temporary solution to alleviate history and the wrongs done to African-Americans in particular. And what's your name David. David you say that affirmative action is justified at least

for now is a way of compensating for past injustice the legacy of slavery and segregation. Who wants to take on that argument. We need now a critic of affirmative action. Yes go ahead. I think that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens today. And I think that discriminating based on race should always be wrong. Whether you're discriminating against one group or another. Just because our ancestors did something doesn't mean they should have any effect on. What happens with us today. All right. I'm sorry your name is Kate Kate. All right. Who has an answer for Kate. Yes. I just wanted to comment and say that tell us your name. My name is Monsoor. Because of slavery because of past injustices. Today we have a higher proportion of African-Americans who are in poverty who face less.

Less opportunities than white people. And so because of slavery 200 years ago because of Jim Crow and because of segregation today we have. Injustice based on race. I think that there are differences obviously but the way to fix those differences is not by some artificial fixing of the result you need to fix the problem. So we need to address differences in education and differences in. Them. In upbringing with with programs like Head Start and giving more funny to lower income schools rather than trying to just fix the result so it makes it look like it's equal when really it isn't. Yes. With regard to affirmative action based on race I just want to say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years. It's called nepotism and quid pro quo. So there's nothing wrong with correcting the injustice and discrimination that's been done to black people before in. Color. Tell us your name.

Hanna. Hannah All right who has an answer for Hanna. And just to add to Hannah's point because we need we need now is how to respond. Hanna. You could have also mention legacy admission. Exactly. I was going to say if you disagree with affirmative action you should disagree with legacy admission because it's obvious from looking around here that there are more white legacies than black legacies in the history of Harvard University. And explain what legacy admissions are. Well legacy admissions is giving an advantage to someone who has an arbitrary privilege of their parent having attended the university to which they're applying. All right. So. A reply for Hannah. Yes. In the balcony. Go ahead. First of all if affirmative action is making up for past injustice How do you explain minorities that were not historically discriminated against in the United States who get these advantages in addition. You could argue that affirmative action perpetuates divisions between the races rather than achieve the ultimate goal of

race being an irrelevant factor in our society. And what. Tell us your name. Deniel. I disagree with that because I think that by promoting diversity in an institution like this you further educate all of the students especially the white students who grew up in predominantly white areas. It's certainly a form of education to be exposed to people from different backgrounds and you put white students at an inherent disadvantage when you surround them only with their own kind. Why should race necessarily be equated with diversity. There are so many other forms why should we assume that race makes people different. Again that's perpetuating the idea of racial division within our universities and our society. So with regard to African-American people being given a special advantage it's obvious that they bring something special to the table because they have a unique perspective just as someone from a different religion or socio economic background would as well as you say there are many different types of diversity. There's no reason that racial diversity should be eliminated from that criteria. Yes.

Go ahead. Racial discrimination is illegal in this country and I believe that it was African-American leaders themselves when Martin Luther King said he wanted to be judged not on the color of his skin but by the content of his character his marriage his achievements. And I just think that to do to decide solely based on someone's race is just inherently unfair. I mean if you want to if you want to correct based on disadvantaged backgrounds that's fine. But there are also disadvantaged white people as well. It shouldn't matter. Let me go white. Tell us your name Ted. Ted. Yes I think. It's unfair to count race. Or I assume you would also say ethnicity or religion. Yes. Do you think she has a right to be considered according to her grades and test scores alone. No. There's there is more to it than that you need to. Universities need to promote diversity and I agree with the goal of promoting diversity. There's ways to promote diversity besides discriminate against people solely

based on a factor that they cannot control. All right. So what makes it wrong is that she can't control her race. She can't control the fact that she is white. That's the that's the heart of the unfairness to her. She made a similar point that basing admissions on factors that people can't control. Is fundamentally unfair to use. There's a lot of things you can't control and if you don't go for it based on merit like just basing your test scores a lot of what you can achieve has to do with the fact that background of you that if both your parents were scholarly then you have more of a chances of actually being more scholarly yourself and getting those grades and you can't control what kind of family you are born into. I could tell that's a great rejoinder. What's your name. Da da. Ted are you are you against an. Advantage to come from the family you were born into. What about legacy admission. I mean I I I do believe that in terms of a legacy admission you shouldn't

have a special preference. I mean if there is a legacy admission you could argue is another part versus you could say it's important have a small percentage of people that have a of just several generation family and family attendance at a place like Harvard. However that should not be a fact an advantage factor like race. That should just be another part of it promoting diversity counted at all. I think the alumni status should be counted all. Yes it should. It should camp. All right. I want to step back for a moment from these arguments. Thank you all for these contributions. We're going to come back to you. If you listen carefully. I think you will have noticed three different arguments. Emerge from this discussion. In defense of considering race and ethnicity. As a factor in admissions. One argument has to do with correcting for the effects for the

effects of educational disadvantage. That was the initial argument. This is what we might call a corrective argument correcting for differences in educational background the kind of school people who went to the opportunities they had and so on. That's one argument. Worth noticing though is that that argument is consistent in principle with the idea. That only academic promise and scholarly potential should count in admissions. We just need to go beyond test scores and grades alone to get a true estimate of academic promise and scholarly ability. That's the first argument. Then we heard a second argument. That said Affirmative action is justified. Even where there may not be. The need to correct for educational disadvantage in in a particular applicant's case.

It's justified as a way of compensating for past wrongs for historic injustices. So that's a compensatory argument compensating for past wrongs. Then we heard. A third a different. Argument. For affirmative action. From Hanna and others. That argued in the name of diversity. Now the diversity argument is different from the compensatory argument. Because it makes a certain appeal. To the social purpose or the social mission. Of the college or university. There are really two aspects to the diversity argument. One says it's important to have a diverse student body for the sake of the educational experience for everyone. And I made that point. And the other talks about the wider

society. This was the argument made by the University of Texas in the Hopwood case we need to train. Lawyers and judges and leaders public officials who will contribute to. The strength the civic strength of the state of Texas and the country as a whole. So there are two different aspects to the diversity argument but both are arguments in the name of the social purpose or the social mission or the common good served by the institution. Well what about the force of these arguments we've also heard objections to these arguments. The most powerful objection to the compensatory argument. Is. Is it fair to ask Cheryl Hopwood today. To make the sacrifice to pay the compensation for an injustice that was admittedly committed and was egregious in the past. But in which she

was not implicated. Is that fair. So that's an important objection. To the compensatory argument. And in order to meet that objection. We would have to investigate whether there is such a thing as group rights or collective responsibility that reaches over time. So having identified that issue let's set it aside to turn to the diversity argument. The diversity argument doesn't have to worry about that question about collective responsibility for past wrongs because it says. For reasons Hanna and others pointed out. That. The common good is served. Is advanced. If. There is a racially and ethnically diverse student body everyone benefits. And this indeed was the argument that Harvard made. When it filed a friend of the court brief

to the Supreme Court. In the 1978 case affirmative action case the Baki case. And the Harvard group the Harvard rationale. Was. Cited by Justice Powell who was the swing vote in the case upholding affirmative action. He cited that is providing the rationale that he thought was constitutionally acceptable. Harvard's argument in its brief was this. We care about diversity. Scholarly excellence alone has never been the criterion of admission the sole criterion of admission to Harvard College. Fifteen years ago diversity meant students from California and New York and Massachusetts city dwellers and farm boys violinist painters and football players biologists historians and classicists. The only difference now Harvard argue is that we're adding racial and

ethnic status to this long list of diversity considerations when reviewing the large number of candidates able to do well in our classes. Harvard road race may count as a plus. Just as coming from Iowa may count or being a good middle linebacker or pianist. A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly a black student can usually bring something a white student cannot offer. The quality of the educational experience of all students depends in part on these differences. In the background and outlook that students bring with them. That was Harvard's argument. Now what about the diversity argument. Is it persuasive. If it's to be persuasive it has to meet one very powerful objection that we've heard voiced here. By Ted.

Vibrio. Unless you are a utilitarian you believe that individual rights can't be violated. And so the question is. Is there an individual right that is violated. Is Cheryl Hopwood right violated. If she is used so to speak. Denied admission. For the sake of the common good in the social mission that the University of Texas Law School has defined for itself. Does she have a right. Don't we deserve to be considered according to our excellence it's our achievement our accomplishments our hard work. Isn't that the right at stake. Now we've already heard an answer to that argument. No she doesn't have a right. Nobody deserves to be admitted. Notice how this gets us back to the issue of dessert

versus entitlement. They're arguing there is no individual right and Hopwood has she doesn't deserve to be admitted according to any particular set of criteria that she believes to be important including criteria that have only to do with her efforts and achievements. Why not. I think implicit in this argument. Is something like waltzers rejection of moral dessert as the basis of distributive justice. Yes once Harvard defines its mission. And designs its admission policy in the light of its mission. People are entitled Who who fit those criteria. They are entitled to be admitted. But according to this argument no one deserves. That Harvard College define its mission and design its admission criteria in the first

place. In a way that prizes the qualities they happen to have in abundance whether those qualities are test scores or grades or the ability to play the piano or to be a good middle linebacker or to come from Iowa or to come. From a certain minority group. So you see how this debate about affirmative action. Especially the diversity argument takes us back to the question of rights. Which in turn takes us back to the question of whether moral desert. Is or is not. The basis. For distributive justice. Think about that over the weekend and we'll continue this discussion next time. Suppose. We're distributing. Fluke's. Who should get the best ones. But Aristotle censor. Anyone.

His answer is the best Flude should go to the best flute players. Because. That's what flutes are for. When we ended last time. We were considering arguments for and against affirmative action counting race as a factor in admissions. And in the course of the discussion. Three arguments emerged three arguments for affirmative action. One of them was the idea. That race and ethnic background should count as a way of correcting. For. The true meaning of test scores and grades. Getting a more accurate measure of the academic potential those scores.

Those numbers represent second was what we called the compensatory argument. The idea of writing past wrongs. Past injustice. And the third was the diversity argument. And when Cheryl Hopwood. In the 1990s challenged the University of Texas law schools affirmative action program in the federal courts the University of Texas made another version of the diversity argument saying that the broader social purpose the social mission of the University of Texas Law School. Is to produce leaders. In the legal community in the political community among judges lawyers legislators. And. Therefore it's important that we produce leaders. Who reflect. The background and the experience and the ethnic and the racial composition

of the state of Texas. It's important for our serving our wider social mission. That was the University of Texas law schools argument. And then we considered. An objection. To the diversity argument which after all is an argument in the name of the social mission. The common good. We saw that was does not simply believe that arguments of the common good or the general welfare should prevail. If individual rights must be violated. In the course of promoting the common good. You remember that was the question the challenge. To the diversity rationale that we were considering when we finished. Last time. And we began to discuss the question well what right might be at stake. May be the right to be considered according.

To factors within one's control. Maybe this is the argument that Cheryl Hotpoint. Implicitly was making. She can't help the fact. That she's white. Why should her chance at getting into law school depend on a factor she can't control. And then Hanna who is advancing an argument last time. Said Harvard has the right. To define its mission anyway it wants to it's a private institution. And it's only once Harvard defines its mission. That we can. Identify. The qualities that count. So no rights are being violated. Now. What about that argument. What I would like to do is to hear objections

to that reply and then see whether others have an answer. Yes. And tell us your name. Da da right. You spoke up last time. I mean how do you answer that argument. Well I think those two things in there one of them was that a private institution to define its mission however once but then that is a make. However it defines it right. Like I could define my personal mission as I want to collect all the money in the world. But does that make it even a condition. So you can't you can't say that just because a college is a private institution it could just define or whatever once is we to have to think about whether the way to finding it is right and and that case of affirmative action a lot of people have said that since there's a lot of other factors involved with it why not base like we are we know that this is right let's relax. I want to stick with your first point here is does objection. Can a college or university define its social purpose anyway. It wants to and then define admissions criteria. Accordingly.

What about the University of Texas Law School. Not today. But in the 1950s. Then there was another Supreme Court case. Against the admissions policy of the University of Texas Law School because it was segregated. It only admitted whites. And when the case went to court back in the 50s. The University of Texas Law School also invoked its mission. Our mission as a law school is to educate lawyers. For the Texas bar for Texas law friends. And no Texas law firm. Hires African-Americans. So to fulfill our mission we only admit whites. Or consider Harvard. In the 1930s.

When it had. Anti-Jewish quotas. President Lowell. President of Harvard in the 1930s said. That he had nothing personally against Jews. But he invoked the mission the social purpose of Harvard he said which is not only to train. Intellectuals. Part of the mission of Harvard he said is to train stockbroker's for Wall Street. Presidents and senators. And there are very few Jews who go into those professions. Now. Here's the challenge. Is there a principled distinction. Between the invocation of the social purpose. Of the college or university. Today. In the diversity rationale and the invocation of the social purpose or mission of the university by Texas in the 1950s or

Harvard in the 1930s. Is there a difference in principle. What's the reply. Hanna. Well I think that the principle that's different here is is that the distinction between inclusion versus x occlusion. I think that it's morally wrong of the university to say we're going to exclude you on the basis of your religion or your race. That's denial on the basis of arbitrary factors. What Harvard is trying to do today with its diversity initiatives is to include groups that were excluded in the past. Good let's see if. I stay there. Let's see if someone would like to. Reply. Go ahead. As Actually this is kind of in support of Hanna Rather than reply that I was going to say another principle difference can be based on malice being the gist of the Division I guess for the historical segregation AXO. It's saying that we're not going to let blacks or Jews in because they're worse as

people or as a group. Good. So the element of malice isn't present. And what's your name Stevie. Stevie says that in the in the historic segregationist racist anti-Semitic quotas or prohibitions. There was built into them a certain kind of malice a certain kind of judgment. That. African-Americans or Jews were somehow less worthy than everybody else. Whereas present day affirmative action programs don't involve or imply any such judgment. What it amounts to saying is so long as a policy. Just. Uses people in a way as valuable to the social purpose. Of the institution. It's ok provided it doesn't judge them maliciously. Steve even my dad

has intrinsically less worthy. I'd like to raise a question. Doesn't that concede. That. All of us. When we compete for positions. Or for seats in colleges and universities in a way. Are being used not judge. But used. In a way that it has nothing to do. With moral desert. Remember we got into this whole discussion of affirmative action. When we were trying to figure out. Whether distributive justice should be tied to moral desert or not. And we were launched on that question. By Rawls and his denial his rejection of the idea that distributive

justice whether it's positions or places in a class or income and wealth. Is a matter of moral desert. Suppose that were the moral basis of Harvard's admissions policy. What letters would they have to write. To people they rejected or accepted for that matter wouldn't they have to write something like this. They were unsuccessful applicant. We regret to inform you that your application for admission has been rejected. It's not your fault that when you came along society happened not to need the qualities you had to offer. Those admitted instead of you are not themselves deserving of a place. Nor worthy of praise for the factors that led to their admission. We are in any case only using them and you as instruments have a wider social purpose. Better luck next time. What was the letter you actually

got when you were admitted. Perhaps it should have read something like this. Dear successful applicant. We are pleased to inform you that your application for admission has been accepted. It turns out Lucky for you. That you have the traits that society needs at the moment. So we propose to exploit your assets for society's advantage. You are to be congratulated not in the sense that you deserve credit for having the qualities to let your admission. But only in the sense that the winner of a lottery is to be congratulated. And if you choose to accept our offer you will ultimately be entitled to the benefits that are attached to being used in this way. We look forward to seeing you in the fall. Now there is something a little odd morally odd. If it's true. That those letters do reflect.

The theory the philosophy. Underlying the policy. So here's the question they pose. And it's a question that takes us back to a big issue in in political philosophy. Is it possible. And is it desirable. To detach. Questions of distributive justice. From questions of moral desert. And questions of virtue. In many ways. This is an issue. That separates. Modern political philosophy from ancient political thought. What's at stake in the question of whether we can. Put desert's moral desert aside. It seemed when we were reading Ralls. That the incentive the reason he had for detaching distributive

justice from world desert was an egalitarian one. That if we set desert to one side. There is greater scope for the exercise of egalitarian considerations. The veil of ignorance. The two principles the difference principle helping the least well-off redistribution and all that. But what's interesting is if you look. At a range of thinkers we've been considering. There does seem to be a reason they want to detach justice from desert. That goes well beyond any concern for equality. Libertarian rights oriented theorists. Of the kind we've been studying as well as egalitarian rights oriented theorists. Including Ralls and for that matter also including Kant. All agree despite their disagreement over distributive justice and a welfare

state in all of that. They all agree. That justice is not a matter of rewarding or honoring virtue. Or or moral desert. Now why do they all think that it can't just be for egalitarian reasons. Not all of them are egalitarians. This gets us to the big philosophical question we have to try to sort out. Somehow they think tying justice to moral merit or virtue. Is going to lead away from freedom from respect for persons as free beings. Well in order to see. What they consider to be at stake. And in order to assess their shared assumption. We need to turn to a thinker to a philosopher. Who disagrees with them who explicitly

ties justice to. Honor honoring virtue. And. Marriage and moral desert. And that thinker. Is Aristotle. Now in many ways. Aristotle's idea of justice is intuitively very powerful in some ways it's strange. I want to bring out both its power its possibility and its strangeness so that we can see what's at stake in this whole debate about justice and whether it's tied to dessert and virtue. Show what is. Aristotle's answer the question about justice for Aristotle justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve. Giving people their due. It's a matter of figuring out the proper fit. Between persons

with their virtues and their appropriate social roles. Well what is this picture of justice look like. And how does it differ from the conception that seems to be shared among. Libertarian and Galut Herrion rights oriented theorists like. Justice. Means giving each person his or her do giving people what they deserve. But what is a person to do. What are the relevant grounds of marriage or dessert. Aristotle says that depends on the sort of things being distributed. Justice involves two factors things. And the persons to whom the things are assigned. In general we say Aristotle writes that persons who are equal should have equal things assigned to them. But here there arises a hard question. Equals in what

respect. Aristotle says that depends on the sort of thing we're distributing. Suppose we're distributing. Flutes. What is the relevant merit or basis of dessert. For flutes. Who should get the best ones. What's Aristotle's answer anyone. The best the best flute players right. Those who are best in the relevant sense the best flute players. Is it just to discriminate in allocating flutes. Yes all justice involves discrimination. Aristotle says. What matters is that the discrimination be according to the relevant excellence according to the virtue. Appropriate to having flutes. He. Says it would be unjust to discriminate on some other basis. In giving out the

flute say wealth. Just giving the best flute to the people who can pay the highest price. Or nobility of birth just giving flutes to aristocrat. Or physical beauty giving the best Luc's to the most handsome. Or chance having a lottery. Aristotle said. Birth and beauty may be greater goods than the ability to play the flute. And those who possess them may surpass the flute player more in these qualities than he surpasses them in his flute playing. But the fact remains that he is the person who ought to get the best flute. It's a strange idea this comparison. By the way. That I mean how could you say. Am I more handsome than she is a good lacrosse player. It's a strange kind of comparison. But putting that aside Aristotle says we're not looking for the best overall whatever that might mean. We're

looking for the best musician. Now why this is important to you. Why. Should the best flute go to the best flute players. Well why do you think. Anybody. Why. They'll produce the best music. Well and everybody will enjoy it more. That's not Aristotle's answer. Aristotle is not a utilitarian. He's now just saying that maybe there will be better music and everyone will enjoy it. Everyone will be better off. His answer is the best flute should go to the best flute players. Because. That's what flutes are for. To be played. Well. The purpose of flute playing. The purpose is to produce excellent

music and those who can best perfect that purpose. Ought properly to have the best ones. Now it may also be true. As a welcome side effect that everyone will enjoy listening to that music. So. That answer is true enough as far as it goes but it's important to see that Aristotle's reason is not a utilitarian reason. It's a reason that looks. Here's where you might think it's a little bit strange. It looks to the purpose the point. The goal. Of flute playing. And. Other way of. Describing this. Looking to the goal to determine the just allocation. The Greek for goal or end was telos. So Aristotle says you have to consider the point the end the goal the kilos. Of the thing in this case a flute playing.

And that's how you define a just allocation just discrimination. So this idea of reasoning from the goal from the kilo's. Is called teleological reasoning. Teleological moral reasoning. And that's Aristotle's way. Reasoning from the goal from the end. Now this may seem as I said a strange idea. That we're supposed to reason from the purpose but it is does have a certain intuitive. Plausibility. Consider the allocation. Let's say at Harvard about the best tennis courts or squash courts. How should they be allocated. Who should have priority in playing and the best courts. Well you might say. That. Those. Who can best afford them set up a fee system charge money for them.

Aristotle would say no. You might say well. Harvard bigshots the most influential people at Harvard. Who would. Be. The senior faculty should have priority. In playing the best tennis courts. No Aristotle would work rig check that. Some scientists may be a greater scientist than some. Varsity tennis player is hurt player but still the tennis player is the one who should have priority. For the best. Playing the best tennis court. There is a certain intuitive possibility this idea. Now one of the things that makes it strange. Is that in Aristotle's world in the ancient world it wasn't only social practices. That were governed in Aristotle's you. By. Teleological reasoning

and teleological explanation. All of nature. Was understood to be a meaningful order and what it meant to understand nature to grasp nature to find our place in nature was to inquire into and read out the purposes or the laws. Of nature. And with the advent of modern science it's been difficult to think of the world that way and so it makes it harder perhaps to think of justice in a teleological way. But there is a certain naturalness. To thinking about even the natural world as teleologically ordered as a purpose of. Whole. In fact children have to be educated out of this way of looking at the world. I realized this when my kids were very young and I was reading them a book. Winnie the Pooh. And Winnie the Pooh gives you a great

idea of how there is a certain natural childlike way. Of looking at the world. In a teleological. Way. You read it you may remember a story of Winnie the Pooh walking in the forest one day he came to a place in the forest. And from the top of the tree there came a loud buzzing noise. We need the pool sat at the foot of the tree put his head between his paws and began to think. Here's what he said to himself. That buzzing noise means something. You don't get a buzzing noise like that just buzzing and buzzing with out its meaning something. If there's a buzzing noise somebody is making a buzzing noise and the only reason for making a buzzing noise that I know of is because you're a bee. Then he thought for another long time and said The only reason. For being a bee that I know of is making honey.

And then he got up. And he said. And the only reason for making honey is so I can eat it. So he began to climb the tree. This is an example of teleological reasoning. It isn't. It isn't so impossible after all. Now. We grow up. And we're talked out of this way. Of thinking about the world. But. Here's the question. Even if teleological explanations don't fit with modern science even if we've outgrown them in understanding nature. Isn't there something still. Intuitively and morally plausible even powerful. About Aristotle's idea

that the only way to think about justice is to reason from the purpose the goal the kilos of the social practice. And isn't that precisely what we were doing when we were disagreeing about affirmative action. You could almost recast that disagreement. As one about what a proper appropriate. Purpose or end. Of a university education consists in. Reasoning from the purpose or from the telos. Or from the end. Aristotle says that's indispensable to thinking about justice. Is he right. Think about that question as you turn to Aristotle's Politics. Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of justice. Join the conversation take

a pop quiz much like you seem to miss and learn a lot more. Is it just Harvard. It's the right thing to do. Funding for this program is provided by. Additional funding provided by