James Biller

Graeme Cave
Professional Ethics
2 November 2014

Keeping Things Fair & Efficient

In The Case against Affirmative Action, Louis Pojman argues that sometimes a
wrong cannot be compensated and that descendants of wrong-doers do not owe anything
to the people of which their ancestors did wrong to. From this, Pojman concludes that he
who benefits from a wrong done in the past does not have to help pay for the wrong. In
this paper, I will argue that selectors should consider merit and experience but nothing
else when selecting from a pool of candidates since nothing else makes a person
qualified, this is because the point of being selective with hiring or admitting is to ensure
that the best qualified candidates come through..
Louis Pojman has nine arguments against affirmative action; however, in this
analysis I will be examining only his third. Pojmans thesis is that The Argument for
Compensation from Those Innocently Benefitted From Past Injustice (Argument C)
doesnt work, Argument Cs operative principle is: He who knowingly and willingly
benefits from a wrong must help pay for the wrong. (Pojman, 470) So, since Pojmans
claim is that this principle is faulty, he is saying that even if a wrong done in the past
benefits you, you should not have to pay for it if you had no entanglement with the wrong
and it was out of your control.

Pojmans initial response to Argument C is direct, critical, and rational: If A

harms B regarding x, B has a right to compensation from A in regards to x. If A steals B's
car and wrecks it, A has an obligation to compensate B for the stolen car, but A's son has
no obligation to compensate B. (Pojman, 470) His evidence for this reason is that
compensation is normally individual and specific, but also that often times a wrong
cannot be compensated- life isnt fair.
His second reason gives a scenario of his hypothetical neighbor stealing a growth
hormone from him that would have turned him into a professional basketball player. The
neighbor gives the hormone to his son who actually happens to be Michael Jordan. Big
surprise right? Michael Jordan clearly has established a name and built wealth for
himself. Pojman claims that it wasnt the sons fault that he grew an extra 13 inches; it
was his fathers. Michael Jordan himself does not owe me anything, either legally or
morally. (Pojman, 471) The idea being that Michael is not responsible to compensate for
his fathers theft even though his life has directly benefitted from his fathers
wrongdoings.
Pojmans idea is that individuals who benefitted from past harms out of their
control do not have to compensate those who were wronged and also that attempting to
take from those who have benefitted from these wrongdoings would be morally wrong.
These logical reasons clearly defeat The Argument for Compensation from Those
Innocently Benefitted From Past Injustice and its operating principle. (Pojman, 470)
The point of being selective with admitting is to ensure that the best-qualified
candidates come through. This means selectors should consider merit and experience but
nothing else when selecting from a pool of candidates since nothing else makes a person

qualified (except rare situations like when a movie director needs a black actor, etc.).
Compensation for African-Americans because of their past harms done on them through
slavery is not right because it causes reverse discrimination for whites, who are often
times more qualified. For example, students admitted to Harvard have an outstanding
GPA and ACT/SAT score because Harvard is an extremely selective university and
wants only the best and the brightest, not the blackest or the whitest. Admission
counselors should not regard things that people cannot help, but only the things that
people can.
Some may argue against this point, saying that not all backgrounds have an equal
opportunity to excel from birth to achieve high merits. They may say, for example, that
many blacks come from a rough up bringing and may work just as a hard as whites only
to achieve less merit because of their unfortunate circumstances -- such as poor
performing public schools, poverty, or a lack of family support towards academic
achievement. Basically the argument is that history has caused an uneven playing field
that needs to be balanced through means of affirmative action.
The flaw in this objection is that it will result in unqualified candidates earning
spots that they do not truthfully deserve. For example, a number of qualified white males
will not be admitted to a university because the university decides to diversify by
bringing in less-qualified black females. This is not logical thinking, since the university
is not choosing to select a student based on the fact that slavery and history made those
potential students less likely to do well in school. This is something that todays white
males cannot help. If the best qualified candidates are the ones chosen then everyone will
be better off in the long run because there will be maximum efficiency and no one will be

in a place where they should not be. These efficiencies are based on peoples skills,
talents, educations and abilities- not their race. Although the black ladies may have been
at a disadvantage, the university is not acting morally because it is selecting students
based on something that they have absolutely no control over- their race.
Life isnt fair, but that does not mean that universities and companies should not
be unfair either. The purpose of being selective while admitting is to filter through the
best candidates for the school. There are those that will say certain people have
disadvantages that make it harder for them to become qualified and should therefore be
given a bump up in the eyes of the selector. However, this quick fix is a flawed solution
that will result in the hiring or admittance of unqualified candidates. Therefore, Pojman is
right when he says that we cannot make up for the wrongdoings of our ancestors by more
wrongdoing.
In The Case against Affirmative Action Louis Pojman argued that sometimes a
wrong cannot be compensated and that descendants of wrongdoers did not owe anything
to the people of which their ancestors had done wrong to. From this, Pojman concluded
that he who benefits from a wrong done in the past does not have to help pay for the
wrong. In this paper, I argued that selectors should consider merit and experience but
nothing else when selecting from a pool of candidates since nothing else can make a
person qualified, this is because the point of being selective when hiring or admitting is to
ensure that the best qualified candidates come through.