353861 ai report
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Egerton University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
451
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
Pages
8
Uploaded by DrSnow2035
The University of Dodoma
Quick Submit
Quick Submit
e
E E
Document Details
Submission ID
trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Submission Date
Nov 12, 2023, 3:42 PM GMT+2
Download Date
Nov 12, 2023, 3:44 PM GMT+2
File Name
353861_Punishment_and_Affirmative_Action.docx
File Size
20.3 KB
6 Pages
1,303 Words
8,041 Characters
Page 1 of 8 - Cover Page
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 1 of 8 - Cover Page
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
How much of this submission has been generated by AI?
0%
of qualifying text in this submission has been determined to be
generated by AI.
Caution: Percentage may not indicate academic misconduct. Review required.
It is essential to understand the limitations of AI detection before making decisions about a student's work. We encourage you to learn more about Turnitin's AI detection capabilities before using the tool.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the percentage mean?
The percentage shown in the AI writing detection indicator and in the AI writing report is the amount of qualifying text within the submission that Turnitin's AI writing detection model determines was generated by AI.
Our testing has found that there is a higher incidence of false positives when the percentage is less than 20. In order to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation, the AI indicator will display an asterisk for percentages less than 20 to call attention to the fact that the score is less reliable.
However, the final decision on whether any misconduct has occurred rests with the reviewer/instructor. They should use the percentage as a means to start a formative conversation with their student and/or use it to examine the submitted assignment in greater detail according to their school's policies.
How does Turnitin's indicator address false positives?
Our model only processes qualifying text in the form of long-form writing. Long-form writing means individual sentences contained in paragraphs that make up a longer piece of written work, such as an essay, a dissertation, or an article, etc. Qualifying text that has been determined to be AI-generated will be highlighted blue on the submission text.
Non-qualifying text, such as bullet points, annotated bibliographies, etc., will not be processed and can create disparity between the submission highlights and the percentage shown.
What does 'qualifying text' mean?
Sometimes false positives (incorrectly flagging human-written text as AI-generated), can include lists without a lot of structural variation, text that literally repeats itself, or text that has been paraphrased without developing new ideas. If our indicator shows a higher amount of AI writing in such text, we advise you to take that into consideration when looking at the percentage indicated.
In a longer document with a mix of authentic writing and AI generated text, it can be difficult to exactly determine where the AI writing begins and original writing ends, but our model should give you a reliable guide to start conversations with the submitting student.
Disclaimer
Our AI writing assessment is designed to help educators identify text that might be prepared by a generative AI tool. Our AI writing assessment may not always be accurate (it may misidentify both human and AI-generated text) so it should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student. It takes further scrutiny and human judgment in conjunction with an organization's application of its specific academic policies to determine whether any academic misconduct has occurred.
Page 2 of 8 - AI Writing Overview
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 2 of 8 - AI Writing Overview
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Surname 1
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Institution
Date
Punishment and Affirmative Action
The debate over affirmative action in education, especially in situations similar to Paul and Robert's graduate program applications, has sparked intense philosophical conversations. This paper profoundly explores the significant viewpoints on justice and punishment held by philosophers Louis Pojman and James Rachels, thoroughly analyzing their positions within the complex framework of affirmative action. Also, this research attempts to clarify the complexity involved in these philosophical discussions by tracing the historical development of affirmative action, from its beginnings as a means of correcting historical injustices to its current function in promoting diversity. In these settings, Pojman defends punishment and the importance of individual merit. At the same time, Rachels, viewing the world through a practical lens, questions the inflexibility of fairness and supports affirmative action as a social correction. This essay analyzes different philosophical stances while presenting my viewpoint that carefully balances societal equality and individual excellence.
Postman's Analysis
Prominent supporter of retributive justice, Louis Pojman, bases his theory on the idea that each person's qualification and merit are the cornerstones of a just society. Retributive justice, firmly rooted in the concept of a moral desert, holds that people ought to be held accountable for their conduct and given rewards or penalties accordingly (Maurya et al., p. 90). Pojman would be against affirmative action in the circumstances of Paul and Robert's situation because he would argue that it basically violates the meritocracy concept, which is the Page 3 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 3 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Surname 2
foundation he believes ensures a just and equitable social system. According to Pojman, merit is the basis of the machinery of justice, and any departure from this idea compromises the entire system's integrity.
Furthermore, a deeper examination of Pojman's theories regarding the function of punishment in upholding personal responsibility and social order offers an elaborate comprehension of his general philosophy. Through linking Pojman's approach to its application, there is a disclosure of both the advantages of his viewpoint and how it fits with personal accountability and simultaneously points out its drawbacks (Vaught, p. 42). Examining Pojman's position reveals that, although his dedication to meritocracy promotes individual independence, it could accidentally ignore the social elements that lead to inequality. This is something that should be taken into account in the larger conversation about justice and affirmative action.
Rachels' Critique of Pojman
James Rachels, an established utilitarian philosopher, approaches justice from a perspective based on consequences, which is a significant divergence from Pojman's retributive justice. Rachels' philosophical perspective directly opposes Pojman's unchanging meritocracy by emphasizing the broader social effects of choices and behaviors. Pojman's position would come under heavy fire from Rachels, who argues that rigid devotion to meritocracy could accidentally ignore systemic drawbacks and maintain social injustices (Akpan et al., p. 15). Rachels makes the utilitarian case that justice must consider the well-being of society and not only be limited to personal moral deserts. Affirmative action appears as an essential corrective move to deal with structural and historical injustices that prevent the community from thriving.
It is crucial to investigate Rachels' possible responses to responses and counterarguments to deepen our comprehension of his critique. As a utilitarian, Rachels would argue that objections based on individual merit should be balanced against the larger good that Page 4 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 4 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Surname 3
affirmative action brings about for society (Wreen, p. 361). Examples from real life or case studies can give readers a clear understanding of how Rachels' utilitarian framework functions in practice and show how his philosophy can be applied to confront and correct societal inequities.
For example, Rachels could cite earlier models in which affirmative action made it easier for marginalized groups to be included, which led to a more vibrant and diversified society. This method demonstrates the practical effectiveness of Rachels' critique and supports its theoretical foundations. As we examine Rachels' argument, it becomes clear that his utilitarian viewpoint offers a more comprehensive understanding of justice than Pojman's individualistic meritocracy. Rachels supports affirmative action as a way to promote individual well-being and the success of the community by considering the broader societal consequences.
Personal View on the Philosophers
Narrowing one's position necessitates carefully analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of Pojman's retributive justice and Rachels' utilitarian view of affirmative action as the philosophical debate between them plays out. To create a perspective that goes beyond the conflict of these ideologies, it is essential to recognize the complexities of justice in the context of affirmative action. Although Pojman and Rachels both make significant contributions to the philosophical discussion of justice, my opinion tends to favor a synthesis that considers aspects of both viewpoints. While acknowledging Pojman's emphasis on individual merit, I agree with Rachels that affirmative action is necessary in some situations.
Pojman makes a strong case based on personal accountability for retributive justice, which is emphasized by the meritocracy concept. The focus on individual responsibility is consistent with the fundamental justice principle that acts should have repercussions. But Pojman's unwillingness to allow affirmative action inside this structure highlights a weakness. His strict meritocracy may accidentally reinforce structural inequality by ignoring the Page 5 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 5 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Surname 4
challenges some people have historically encountered (Vaught, p. 42). Although the emphasis on individual merit is commendable, it might need to adequately address the larger social context, which would limit its application in situations when restorative justice is required.
On the other hand, considering the implications of justice for society, Rachels' utilitarian approach offers a more comprehensive perspective. In this context, affirmative action becomes useful for redressing historical injustices and promoting social justice (Wreen, p. 361). Rachels skilfully balances the needs of the group with those of the individual. His utilitarian logic, however, has drawn criticism for perhaps undermining individual merit, which raises questions about justice and the unexpected effects of affirmative action. The difficulty is in minimizing these adverse effects while keeping the welfare of society in mind.
The integration of diverse points of view becomes crucial for creating a well-reasoned viewpoint. Pojman's emphasis on individual merit and Rachels' utilitarian calculation contradict one another, so a balanced approach that recognizes both merits is required. A compromise is reached, one that acknowledges the necessity of affirmative action in redressing systemic imbalances while also emphasizing the significance of personal accountability. There must be more than one inflexible philosophy in the ever-changing justice field. It becomes necessary to take an adaptable and context-sensitive strategy guided by a continuous discussion between the ideas that Pojman and Rachels advocate. This viewpoint combines Rachels' more expansive sociological view with Pojman's emphasis on human accountability to create a more comprehensive framework that considers the nuances of justice in various situations.
I support a dynamic, context-aware approach to justice that acknowledges the complexity of societal inequality by articulating a well-reasoned viewpoint. From this perspective, affirmative action should be incorporated to redress past injustices, as Rachels suggests, while simultaneously emphasizing individual accountability, as recommended by Pojman. The combination of different viewpoints results in a more thorough framework that Page 6 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 6 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Surname 5
can be adjusted to meet the changing justice needs in modern society. By taking this fair-
minded position, I hope to negotiate the nuances of justice, appreciating Pojman and Rachels's merits while pursuing a flexible and inclusive strategy. This viewpoint is consistent with the understanding that justice is a complex idea and that a one-size-fits-all ideology may not adequately address social injustices' need-toed and ever-changing nature.
Page 7 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 7 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Surname 6
Works Cited
Akpan, Christopher Offong, and Samuel Akpan Bassey. "A critique of the social constructionist and relativistic cultural conception of child abuse." International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI) 3.1 (2020): 11-16.
Maurya, Sooraj Kumar. "A Reply to Louis P. Pojman’s Article" The Case Against Affirmative Action." Conatus-Journal of Philosophy 5.2 (2020): 87-113.
Vaught, Seneca. "Education Abroad as Affirmative Action." Historically Underrepresented Faculty and Students in Education Abroad: Wandering Where We Belong. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. 31-52.
Wreen, Michael. "Moral relativism and majority rule." Metaphilosophy 50.3 (2019): 361-
376.
Page 8 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515
Page 8 of 8 - AI Writing Submission
Submission ID trn:oid:::1:2748268515