This week's current event is about affirmative action. Affirmative action is the effort to make education and employment available to people who have traditionally been treated unfairly, for example because of their sex or race, by giving them some advantages over people who have traditionally been more powerful.

The article above is about an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) that is suing the United States Naval Academy over its use of race in admissions decisions. SFFA is arguing that the academy based in Annapolis, MD is violating the Fifth Amendment, which the group says includes "an equal-protection principle that binds the entire federal government." The group is accusing the institution of engaging in racial balancing in their admissions of new classes, and argue that the policies harm white and Asian American students' chances of getting in. SFFA says the issue is with racial preferences used by the admissions office. The group argues that an applicant's race gives them an advantage in the Naval Academy's admissions process if they are Hispanic, African American or Native American.

Pojman would have agreed with SFFA's argument because he believed that respect for a person entails that we treat each person as an end in him or herself, not simply as a means to be used for social purposes. What is wrong about discrimination against Blacks is that it fails to treat them as individuals and instead judges them by their skin color not their merit. What is wrong about discrimination against women is that it fails to treat them as individuals and instead judges them by their gender, not their merit. What is equally wrong about affirmative action is that it fails to treat white males with dignity as individuals, judging them byboth their race and gender, instead of their merit.

2) This op-ed talks about how Democrats introduced Affirmative Action at the end of the civil rights movement, after already passing legislation guaranteeing equality under the law. "The idea was to punish or reward Americans based on the color of their skin. Ironically, this was precisely the evil practice that the civil rights movement was designed to abolish. Racial discrimination was unequivocally wrong." (Carlson, 2022). Democrats actually said that racial discrimination could be good, depending on who's being discriminated against. This was their argument, and still is. The reason this sounds wrong is because it is. Affirmative Action is wrong and immoral. For generations American society said that if you were smart and worked hard you could compete equally against anyone else. This was the "American Dream". This is why people came here from all over the world. But this a problem politically. Race politics can not be "played" in a meritocratic society because race has no role in advancement. Group interests are irrelevant, only individual initiative is what matters. This would be a great society to live in, but was a disaster for Democrats. The question posed is: If there was no racial grievances, what would get your voters to the polls? Currently, the Supreme Court is looking at a case of Affirmative Action in college admissions, specifically Harvard. Democrats are defending this because their power depends on keeping the system they created in place. Affirmative Action is embarrassing, and is the very definition of racism. If you elevate people on appearance alone, you don't get impressive people. "It's hard to imagine a more damning case against Affirmative Action than it's own results, and it's always going to be that way because the color of your skin is irrelevant." (Carlson, 2022).

Mosely would be on the side of the Democrats since he argued for the pro side of the debate. All three of his classifications (weak, medium and strong) of Affirmative Action are wrong and immoral in regards to the op-ed. Everything that Mosely presents as pros are what makes this system bad. In defense of Mosely though, he would choose the weak affirmative action path because it deals with the individual, not the group as a whole. Tucker Carlson also talked about the focus on the individual.

Pojman's case agrees with what Tucker Carlson presents in the op-ed. He believes in the meritocracy because people are treated as respectable people, they are rewarded for achieving excellence, and filling positions with the best qualified people is better form the work force as well as society. Affirmative Action creates a new hierarchy of the oppressed, just with reversed roles. We were always taught that two wrongs don't make a right, but this system says that it does.

3) Kant's moral philosophy is rooted in the idea of rationality, autonomy, and the inherent worth of individuals. According to Kant, moral worth is determined by the capacity to act based on rational principles, rather than external influences. This perspective evaluates actions based on intent and the ability to act according to moral laws one sets for themselves. For Bob, raised by wolves and devoid of human language and societal constructs, the capacity for rationality in the human sense is questionable.

In Kant's view, morality is intricately tied to rationality, and one could argue that since Bob lacks the framework of human moral reasoning due to his unique upbringing, he may not be morally accountable in the same way as someone who had the benefit of human societal norms and understanding. Therefore, from a Kantian standpoint, it could be argued that Bob's punishment should not be based on retributive justice, but rather on the need for protection of society and rehabilitation for Bob.

In conclusion, the evaluation of Bob's actions and the appropriate response heavily depends on the underlying philosophical perspective. A Kantian approach might emphasize understanding and rehabilitation, given Bob's lack of capacity for human rationality.

4) Consider Bob. Bobwas raised by wolves(literally - don't ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be normal, there is no way to test it, since Bob doesn't speak or read any human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up Downtown -- the snazzy part of the city. He was hungry (presumably), so he "found" some food in the normal wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There's no question that Bob is "guilty" of the crime. He did it and there were lots of witnesses. What punishment should Bob get? More isolation to open his mind for help to human society, if it is not too late as he is a grown man who has now killed a child.

Kant" utilitarianism I know at once what it contains. For as the imperative contains besides the law only the necessity that the maxims1shall conform to this law, while the law contains no conditions restricting it, there remains nothing but the general statement that the maxim of the action should conform to a universal law, and it is this conformity alone that the imperative properly represents as necessary." Bob is wrong but does he know he is wrong? He does have the ability to feel something because he is human, but does he have cognitive thoughts to understand that the baby is not food? He is hungry and in unfamiliar territory and now even scared. Life has nothing that can be compared so neither can a sentence of death of a person who is not well mindedhuman being, no maltreatment to rob him of humanity. Retributive punishment is the just in this case.