The Mommy Track Essay Sample
The instance that will be examined is instance 7. 4. “The Mommy Track. ” found on page 273-275 of our text book by William H. Shaw. The moral theories that are chosen to be applied are Rawls’ theory and Libertarianism. Rawls would decide this instance by seting Schwartz ; company CEO’s. hubbies and every adult female within the “mommy track” in the original place to develop the rules of justness. In the position of the libertarian. they would work out this instance by adult females and work forces with households would work freely as they needed and they would gain the same sum as their opposite numbers within the same place. I personally would hold with Rawls theory and statement because to be able to hold a opportunity to develop the rules of justness that will positively impact bulk of the least advantageous people in our society makes the most sense and it would be the moral thing to make. In instance 7. 4 titled “The Mommy Track. ” the instance goes on to depict the cost of using adult females in direction verses the cost of using work forces.
There was an article written by Felice N. Schwartz who contended that the rate of turnover in direction places is two-and-a-half times higher among top-performing adult females that it is among work forces. Schwartz drew between two types of adult females: the career-primary adult females and the career-and-family adult females. She explained that the adult females in the first class put their callings foremost. They remain individual of childless. or if they do hold kids. they are satisfied to hold others raise them. Most adult females fall into the 2nd class. They want to prosecute echt callings while take parting actively in the raising of their kids. Schwartz contends that most of them are willing to merchandise some calling growing and compensation for freedom from the changeless force per unit area to work long hours and weekends. Many see Schwartz as separating between the slaves and the breeders. between adult females who should be treated as honorary males and those who should be shunted onto a particular lower-paid. low-pressure calling track-the now-notorious “mommy path. ” Schwartz is besides accused of presuming that female parents don’t need top-hole callings and of taking for granted the bing values. constructions. and prejudices of a corporate universe that is still male-dominated.
A fast-track adult female who wants kids. nevertheless. gets caught in a clip and energy squeezing. even if her hubby is an equal spouse at place. Two recent surveies have shown that male directors whose married womans stay place to care for their kids earn more than their opposite numbers with working married womans. Work force who are the exclusive breadwinners for their households enjoy incomes at least 20 per centum higher than those of married work forces with kids whose married womans have callings ( Shaw. p. 273-275 ) . John Rawls’s theory of justness prevarications within the social-contract tradition. Two of import characteristics of Rawls’s theory are: his conjectural contract attack and the rules of justness that he derives with it. Rawls’s scheme is to inquire what principles people would take to regulate their society if they were in the “original place. ” Rawls thinks if people in the original place can hold on some regulating rules on the footing of common opportunism. so these rules will be the rules of justness.
Basically. if we make up a game and all agree in front of clip. freely and every bit. on how the game is to be played. cipher can later kick that the regulations are unjust. Although in this original place people choose on the footing of self involvement. we are to conceive of that they are behind a head covering of ignorance. Under the head covering of ignorance. the people in Rawls’s original place have no cognition about themselves or their state of affairs that would take them to reason from a partial or colored point of position. Once the head covering of ignorance is lifted. people will hold more specific thoughts about what is good for them. Rawls contends that any rules agreed to under these fortunes have a strong claim to be considered the rules of justness. Rawls argues that people in the original place would follow the upper limit regulation for doing determinations. They would take rules vouching that the worst that could go on to them is better than the worst that could go on to them under any rival rules. Rawls argues that they would hold on two rules.
The first provinces that each individual has a right to the most extended strategy of autonomies compatible with others holding the same sum of autonomy. The 2nd rule provinces that to be justified. any inequalities must be to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and unfastened to all under conditions of just equality of chance. Rawls continues to reason that the primary focal point of justness should be the basic societal construction. non minutess between persons. He contends that society is a concerted undertaking for common benefit and that justness requires us to cut down the societal and economic effects arbitrary natural differences among people ( Shaw. p. 102-111 ) . The libertarian theory identifies justness with autonomy. and liberty takes precedence over other moral concerns. Liberty is the premier value. and justness consists in allowing each individual to populate as he or she pleases. free from the intervention of others. Personal autonomy is the autonomy of each individual to populate harmonizing to his ain picks. provided he does non try to hale others and therefore forestall them from populating harmonizing to their picks.
The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick begins from the premiss that people have certain basic moral rights. which he calls Lockean rights. These single rights impose house. virtually absolute limitations on how we may move. We can non morally conflict on someone’s rights for any intent. Not merely are we out to interfere with a person’s autonomy in order to advance the general good. we are prohibited from making so even if go againsting that individual’s rights would somehow forestall other individuals’ rights from being violated. A belief in these forms Nozick’s theory of economic justness. which he calls the entitlement theory. Stating. if you have obtained your ownerships without go againsting other people’s Lockean rights. so you are entitled to them and may dispose of them as you choose ( Shaw. p. 95-96 ) . Rawls would work out this instance by seting Schwartz ; company CEO’s. hubbies and every adult female within the “mommy track” in the original place to develop the rules of justness. I would presume that these rules will bring forth a sensible solution that will cover every issue that can go developed through clip and may impact every subscriber of the rules.
There will be no demand to categorise adult females into two different types. nor will at that place be adult females holding to take between household and calling. Of class. once the head covering of ignorance is lifted people should be able to cognize more specific thoughts about what is good for them and the map of their household. Another solution that might be considered is paying adult females with households 20 per centum more than those adult females without a household. and work forces with a working married woman 10 per centum more than those work forces with a stay at place married woman. Rawls would see this solution because this will fall under non holding equality at all costs. and this will allow inequality to better the batch of the least advantaged ( the adult females on the “mommy track” ) . In the position of the libertarian. they would work out this instance by adult females and work forces with households would work freely as they needed and they would gain the same sum as their opposite numbers within the same place. Assuming they could gain a particular sum harmonizing to the hr that they work without interfering into anyone other person’s life manner or agreements.
The adult females on the “mommy path. ” would non worry about the consequences of working part-time or taking pregnancy leave. They would merely be able to take whatever is best for them and non acquire penalized for it. A 2nd solution could be to let them to work from place. or possibly convey their kids to work with them. because this would fall into libertarian’s position of a person’s entitlement. I believe that Nozick would give every household the rudimentss that they would necessitate. For case when two people become a household they are entitled to a place. if a twosome has a kid or kids they are entitled to hold money and free clip in order to take attention of them. I personally would hold with Rawls theory and statement because at there will be a reaction to every action that one commits and holding the possibility of negative consequences and non caring nor holding a program to rectify them would do society even more unstable.
It makes sense to me to be able to hold a opportunity to develop the rules of justness that will positively impact bulk of the least advantageous people in our society. To cognize that the head covering of ignorance will help in just and equal rights for everyone and that all of the unlawful regulations. ordinances and barriers that prevent people from making their true felicity will be diminished is an amazing thing. I do non hold with the libertarian position because it seems that there is no clear and precise declaration. We all would love to be able to populate and work freely without break from others. but life comes with good and bad and if we do non hold an option to assist one another even when it is needed. so a batch of people would fall into the clefts of society. At the terminal of the twenty-four hours we would desire to see 90 per centum of society prospering and the other 10 per centum on their manner to prospering in life.