I am not judging her on something other than her merits. I am, in fact, not judging her at all (or, if I am, I am not factoring that judgment into my decision making). I am making a decision regarding the institution of the program based not on who is worthy to receive its benefits but on the social utitlity of the program.conflictofinterests said:It's basically saying that you judge the woman not only by her merits, but also by the fact that she was discriminated against in the past. It's not a bad thing to add things other than merit to the equation, it's just a different thing than judging solely based on merit.DRobert said:These two beliefs supposedly contradict one another (paraphrased):
"Judge people only by their merits".
"Positive discrimination is desirable in some circumstances".
But they don't contradict!!! Just because I think that a program to, for example, encourage women to participate in the workforce would be a good thing doesn't mean that I judge them as being more deserving than men. It just means that I take the view that, in the circumstances, the social benefit of the program outweighs the fact that it does not consider the merits of the individual.
It is not me saying that I judge this woman or that as being more deserving of the program; it means that I judge the social benefit as being worth ignoring such judgments.
Continuing with this analogy, I could judge Jim next door as being a far better scholar than Jane but decide to award a scholarship to Jane because I feel that women have been typically disadvantaged in terms of access to education. That decision does not alter into my initial judgment of Jim or Jane.
I therefore am, both concurrently and legitimately, judging people solely on their merits, whilst viewing positive discrimination as desirable in the circumstances. There is no contradiction.