This paper is a utilitarian critique of Kant’s categorical imperatives. I maintain that constants exist in consequences (such as happiness and pain), but not in moral actions. Therefore, Kant’s emphasis on intent and universalizability disregards consequences and the complexity of situations in favor of rigid and impossible moral laws.
By studying the build-up and fallout of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), this article explores the cases for and against affirmative action, especially in the context of public universities and their admissions processes.
This article seeks to uncover the democratic mindset through the practice of speaking with dissenters; hopefully teaching readers how to communicate with the ominous ‘other side,’ as well as how to understand their perspective and accept/embrace them as your national cohort.