【作者】 徐艳君；

【导师】 李伦；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 伦理学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 在美国由于历史的歧视导致黑人种族发展的滞后。出于补偿正义的考虑,二十世纪六十年代中期美国政府启动了照顾政策(Affirmative Action),在就业和就学方面不仅仅局限于平等的原则,对黑人种族等社会弱势群体提供优先考虑和优先机会,以期消除种族歧视的影响,促进真正的种族平等。照顾政策在10925号总统令里的定义原为,不同种族的的人平等地参与竞争,最有能力的人获得最后的机会,不能因为种族、肤色、性别等原因剥夺他们参与竞争的机会,最后凭借个人能力择优录取而不是择肤色和种族录取。但是美国社会崇尚的是自由竞争和能力原则,在同一的市场竞争机制下,每个人凭借个人的能力获得机会。因此有些人认为反歧视法废除了对黑人的歧视,给予黑人和白人同等的机会参与市场竞争,这相对于以前黑人没有人身自由,没有参与自由竞争的机会来说已经是个很大的进步,而且只能到此为止。有些人则认为这远远不够,除了废除种族歧视还应该积极主动帮助黑人,给予黑人更多的机会。由于照顾政策强调种族的存在,这在形式上正好与宪法规定的各种族平等保护以及能力原则相悖,所以引起了社会极大的关注和争议。照顾政策自实施五十多年以来,人们对照顾政策的理解一直随着社会政治和经济环境的变化而变化。六十年代中期人们对照顾政策的实施并没有很多疑义,然而到了七十年代中期照顾政策引发的争议日益激烈,九十年代以后,大众认为照顾政策的实施大多小于多元化的考虑,至于对于黑人种族的补偿问题,已经退出大家的视野。2000年以后大众认为照顾政策应由种族的区分(race-based)转向阶级的区分(class-based)。本文从伦理学角度分析争论最为激烈的问题：反歧视与反向歧视的冲突；差别与平等的冲突；合法性与合理性冲突；补偿原则与能力原则的冲突；配额制和人口代表制与机会均等原则的冲突；照顾政策与美国宪法第十四条修正案中平等保护原则的冲突等。有些人认为整体因为其中个人的不公正待遇而受到优惠照顾是不公平的,因为在道德意义上讲不存在这样的整体。有些人认为个人因其种族、年龄、性别等因素受到歧视,那么这些本身与道德无关性的因素,在补偿公正这里就具有了道德相关性。实施照顾政策的目的在于实现各种族的平等保护,建立一个“种族中立”的录用原则,种族的区分以及种族优惠只是一个达到种族无差别对待的一个手段。有些人认为社会制度影响人能力的高低。由于过去的歧视造成黑人能力发展的落后,那么根据能力标准作为聘用的标准,不但是不公平的,而且还会是社会恶化,加剧社会不公平。所以,对黑人在就业机会上适当照顾,帮助他们提高能力,将来更好地参与竞争,真正能够争取到机会,机会公平才不是一个口号,不是一句空话。所以从长远来看,照顾政策是对机会公平的保护,而不是破坏了机会的公平。照顾政策是否具有道德上的合理性呢?本文对美国照顾政策进行伦理考量,主要体现在以下两个方面：首先,在承认道义论或正义论的补偿正义原则与功利论的最大功利原则的基础上,考量照顾政策是否符合上述两项伦理原则；其次,审查美国照顾政策在当今的继续实施,是否已经涉及到上述两个伦理原则之间的相互冲突。照顾政策从当初的设计来看,更多的着眼于正义原则,认为对受到不公平对待的黑人实行照顾是公平的,但是照顾政策已经实施了很多年,现在继续执行更多地是基于功利方面的考虑,人们认为这项政策有利于美国社会的多元化等诸多社会功利,符合最大功利原则。对于美国的照顾政策,道义论者会认为,如果这项政策符合道德原则,或者符合正义原则的,那就必须去推行,而不管这样做是否有好的功利后果,是否会获得最大的社会功利。当上述两个伦理原则之间发生相冲突的时候,何者优先,两大原则如何排序?结合正义和功利原则来考察该政策,人们持有多种观点。本文提出,在中国我们对少数民族的优惠政策不是由于他们在历史上受到歧视而给予补偿,而是由于地域的原因社会资源占有不足,于是在社会资源分配上向少数民族倾斜,给予少数民族更多的照顾。虽然两国实施照顾政策或者优惠政策的原因不一样,实施政策采用的手段类似。在高考招生领域,中美两国有着多种相似之处。一个追求公平的社会,如果社会资源不均衡的分配,那么照顾政策就会存在。只是在社会发展的各个阶段,照顾的对象和手段不一样。只有提高社会最不利者的生活水平,这样的照顾政策或优惠政策才是公平的。比较了中美两国照顾政策和优惠政策的异同之后,具体分析了我国少数民族加分中所存在的一些问题。并且针对于我国高考加分中一些极端因素进行了案例分析,指出我国的高考分数线对教育资源发达的地方的考生的照顾是一种“伪照顾政策”,实为一种地方保护主义,向教育不发达地区倾斜才是真正的优惠政策。高考加分一定要维护社会“公平”的正义的基础理念,考虑到各种族的差别,做到在高等教育起点上实现教育公平,同时给予少数民族一定的加分优惠,达到起点公平和结果公平的统一。更多还原

【Abstract】 The blacks were lagged behind due to history of discrimination in the United States. For compensational justice, in the mid-1960s the government started to enact Affirmative Action and give the preferential treatment to minorities, women and the social vulnerable groups in areas such as employment, education and government contracts in order to eliminate racial discrimination, promote genuine racial equality and gender equality. But American advocate free competition and meritocracy principle. Under the same market competition mechanism, everyone relies on personal ability to get a chance. So some people think that anti-discrimination law abolished the discrimination against blacks, It is already a great progress to give blacks people and white people equal opportunities to participate in market competition, in relative to the blacks who had no personal freedom and no opportunity to participate in the competition, and we can only go so far. While others think it is not enough, in addition to the abolition of racial discrimination we should also be positive to help blacks and give blacks more opportunities. But Affirmative Action which emphasised on race, was contradictory to constitution of the racial equality protection principle and ability in form, so it caused the social attention and dispute. But American advocate free competition and meritocracy principle, under the same market competition mechanism, everyone relies on personal ability to get a chance. So some people think that anti-discrimination law abolished the discrimination against blacks, to give blacks people and white people equal opportunities to participate in market competition is already a great progress, in relative to the blacks who had no personal freedom and no opportunity to participate in the competition, and we can only go so far. While others think it is not enough, in addition to the abolition of racial discrimination we should also be positive to help blacks and give blacks more opportunities. But Affirmative Action Which emphasised on race, was contradictory to constitution of the racial equality protection principle and ability in form, so it caused the social attention and dispute. People’s understanding of affirmative action has changes with social political and economic environment. Mid sixties people didn’t have a lot of questions of Affirmative Action, but by the mid-seventy of the issues were increasingly fierce, and in the ninetys calls for cancellation of affirmative action.The debates about the Affirmative Action were never discontinuous since it was put into action. The first chapter expounds the development path of the Affirmative Action. The debates about it are fierce. From the perspective of ethics the second chapter analyze the most intense debates: conflict against discrimination and reverse discrimination; conflict against the differences and equal; conflict against the legitimacy and rationality; conflict against compensational principle and the principle of merits, conflict against the quota and the representitive system; conflict against the principle of color-blind of the constitutional14th amendment etc. Does Affirmative Action have moral rationality? The third chapter does some ethics research in the following two aspects:first, we acknowledge the moral theory of the justice principle and the theory of compensation and the utilitarian theory on the basis of the maximum utility principle. We consider if Affirmative Action is in compliance with the above two ethical principles; Second, do the above two ethical principles conflict when we continue to implement the policy today? From the point of the the time of the design, Affirmative Action is focused more on principles of justice. It is fair to give the black people preferential treatment, but the Affirmative Action have been implemented for many years and now continued which is more likely to be based on utilitarian principle. People think that the policy conformed to the principle of maximum utility is beneficial to the diversity of American society and many other social utility, but it raises a question:can utilitarian (including social utility) sacrifice justice? People think that the policy is beneficial to the diversity of American society, and many other social utility, conform to the principle of maximum utility. But this raises a question:can utilitarian (including social utility) sacrifice justice? If we continue to enact the Affirmative Action, does it really lead to be unfair for the whites? Does it transition the discrimination from black to white?The fourth chapter compares the similarities and differences of preferential policies in the United States and the policy of group preference in China. Although the implementation of Affirmative Action and the preferential policy is different between the two countries,but the means are essentially the same. In the field of college entrance examination enrollment our two countries have a variety of similarities. Implementation of Affirmative Action and preferential policies in the two countries also met a lot of social disputes. As long as it is a fair society, Affirmative Action will exist.But in various stages of social development object and means of Affirmative Action are different. Only improving the living standards of the disadvantaged Affirmative Action or preferential policies are fair.There are some problems of plus points for ethnic minorities in the college entrance examination in our country.The author analyzes some factors in the extreme case on our country college entrance examination, and detailed elaborate the uneven distribution of education resources in Beijing, Shanghai and in the college entrance examination enrollment every year, regional recruitment differences of the student proportion in the national key university.The college entrance examination must maintain social justice. To reealize educational fairness on starting point of the higher education, we should give minority plus preferential treatment to achieve the unity of the starting justice and result justice.更多还原