>Under your proposed moral framework many whites would be justified in discriminating in favor of other whites. I haven't proposed any moral framework, I only

>Under your proposed moral framework many whites would be justified in discriminating in favor of other whites. I haven't proposed any moral framework, I only wanted to elucidate the positions on affirmative action and that it's not nearly as simple as the law itself being twisted to bad ends, but that it comes from a set of difficulties introduced as a result of the law being introduced. When I said "some philosophers", I meant it. If you'd like to read the paper I'm referring to in particular, it's Boxill (1972)[0]. >“We know that all blacks, lower class, middle class, and upper class, have been wronged by racial injustice” (Boxill 1984, 164). In Boxill 1978, 251, he argues that the correlation between “preferences received” and “compensation deserved,” though not perfect, is very high. A recent piece by D. W. Haslett (2002) also conceives of affirmative action as a way to neutralize “tainted” advantages enjoyed by whites, although he concedes that the neutralization is “extremely rough” (83). James Sterba carries on the tradition, striving to refute the claim that affirmative action distributes its benefits and burdens in an up-side down way, rewarding well–off blacks and placing the costs on unoffending whites. Well–off blacks are no less victims of discrimination, he insists, and nearly every white has unjustly benefited from racial discrimination (Sterba 2009, 89–90. Fiscus 1992 echoes Justice Brennan’s argument and generalizes it. [0] https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1972_0002_0001_0000_0000f https://www.pdcnet.org/soctheorpract/content/soctheorpract_1...