Re write Wome In The Work Place

This week you are asked to also apply Kohlber's and Maslow's models to your analysis. Some of you may be wondering why and how? Hopefully, the following notes will help in this regard.

Remember my question in the CH.9  notes as to why we can hold companies to the same basic ethical and legal standards as we do human air-breathers (my descriptive term)?

After all, as I pointed out before, these are fictional legal entities, not sentient beings capable of thoughts, feelings, or actions independent of their participants. PAUSE---- Okay, here is the reason: Because they are human constructs and therefore often take on human quakities (oops! a Freudian slip?) or qualities. 

Although the moral reasoning of these entities, just like the moral reasoning of any society, is a  collective endeavor based on a mixture of the reasoning abilities of its various participants' moral reasoning development, Kohlberg's model is still useful by analogy to determine the likelihood of U.S. society's, and especially the business community's, current level of moral reasoning about the issue of retaining legal protections for women under the sex classification. Before some of you object that this protected class includes males as well, and you are correct, the issue at hand only addresses how this protected classification pertains to women. Has U.S. society sufficiently developed in its moral reasoning that these legal protections are no longer needed? Why are we analyzing this issue from a societal standpoint since sexual discrimination issues usually arise at the personal or organizational levels?  Which level, discussed in your text, is capable of resolving the issue? Can any individual or business rescind these legal protections? If the major legal protections under U.S. Title VII, etc. are rescinded, how likely is it that women would continue to be afforded equal employment opportunities?  Has the idea of equal rights for women become so ingrained in the culture that without legal mandates society will not devolve to lower levels of moral reasoning and act on that less developed reasoning to deny women equal rights?

As to the applicability of Maslow's model, it is first necessary to discuss the value of work and the differences between a job, a career, and a calling.  How much effort does someone invest in a job such that she would not leave it easily if a better employment opportunity presented itself? With a job which of Maslow's levels of needs is she trying to satisfy? Would anyone typically leave a career and take a job in a different field even if the compensation was greater? How much more effort and training goes into a career? Do persons in careers, especially as opposed to jobs, gain particular status within the community? Which of Maslow's levels of needs is she more likely to satisfy with a career? What distinguishes a  calling? Is it something that a person does even if she does not receive monetary compensation for it? Is it an irresistible urge to achieve her fullest potential? Which of Maslow's levels of needs is she more likely to satisfy?  If women are no longer legally protected concerning equal employment opportunities, what hope do they have of realistically being able to independently satisfy any of Maslow's levels of needs? What could that do to the self-esteem of many women?  Will they feel that they have intrinsic value? 

This question is better addressed from a societal level. Imagine if, we rescinded these legal protections and the country suffered a crisis of catastrophic proportion (such as the collapse of our economy due to massive infections and deaths). After the crisis, there are limited employment opportunities because so many businesses did not survive. Would potential employers do as their counterparts did after World War II and ask women employees to step down in favor of their male counterparts even though some of those women were now the family's only breadwinner? Are the old animalistic prejudices likely to arise? These attitudes still prevail in some quarters. Do the research and find out about the struggles for women's equal rights. You may be surprised to discover that sexual discrimination in the U.S. is still alive and well, even if more covert.  Rather than giving you personal examples or other anecdotal evidence of sexual discrimination here, if you are interested in holding a more in-depth discussion on this topic, please call me at 619-347-0009.

RIGHTS THEORIES

MORAL RIGHTS

Moral rights, as opposed to legal rights, are not dependant on a political system for their legitimacy.  This is the category of rights that all human air--breathers, as opposed to non-human air-breathers--- should be afforded to them by virtue of their having intrinsic value and not only instrumental value. These rights, or entitlements, are supported by various ethical theories when for instance the Universalism thesis under Utilitarianism requires that all persons' (women's and men's) interests be considered in the calculations of Hedonistic options available.  Kantianism insists that all Universalizable maxims be respectful of the rights of all persons to be treated with dignity and respect--which includes freedom of choice. Virtue ethics, more modernly, does not distinguish basic "good " character traits of excellence such as integrity, good judgment, role identity--not as a woman or a man in any given role but, the ability to fulfill the duties of that role within a community by a member of either sex---, holism--the ability to habitually practice the other virtues in an integrative manner while recognizing the importance of other persons to the community and vise versa. The various Justice theories do not relegate justice based on sex, just on relevant differences based on ability, endeavor, contribution, etc.

LEGAL RIGHTS

Legal rights are those set of rights that require recognition and enforceability by a given political system e.g. the U.S. and each state government.  For instance, U.S. citizens cannot expect to have their civil rights recognized, except under limited circumstances e.g. by treaties, when traveling to or residing in other countries. Legal rights are usually territorially bound. One must be able to cite a legally recognized right to enforce that right against others in a court of law. So, as you compose your analysis, be sure to name the specific law upon which the legal right under analysis depends. Also, you want to consider that if we declassify sex as a protected class would it also rescind other legal protections designed primarily for women such as protections regarding pregnancy and equal pay, etc.?

Are women entitled to be given priority over men just by virtue of their sex, or must they be "otherwise qualified"? What does that mean? What is a BFOQ defense to sexual discrimination?

If, we declassified sex as a protected class would women still be able to demand that they be given equal employment opportunities or would they be forced to depend upon the goodwill of their male counterparts in the government and business communities

JUSTICE THEORIES

Rawls' theory of justice has two main principles and two minor principles, that condition the second main principle. Like all of the other theories and legal concepts, these come as a set and must be all examined for compliance. Lacking one of the elements, results in either a mitigating factor or an excusing factor, independent of affirmative defenses such as a BFOQ defense in employment law.

Would any rational self-interested person wish to live in a society that does not legally protect its members against sexual discrimination, if he might be a victim of that lack of legal protection, even if that lack of protection was offset by a greater good for the rest of society? Would rescinding these legal protections make the least advantaged --for argument's sake, women--better off than they would be with the protections in place? Would this guaranty women an equal opportunity to compete for access to all offices and positions in society? Does this theory advocate absolute equality or equality of opportunity, and what one makes of that equal opportunity is up to each individual, which might result in natural inequalities due to skills, effort or luck, but would still be fair?

ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF JUSTICE

Aristotle posited that persons should be treated alike (equal) unless there is a relevant difference, in which case it is just to treat them differently in proportion to that relevant difference.  So, would this support the  BFOQ legal defense in employment law? Is this theory unsupportive of legal protections for women? Do the current legal protections allow for differences in treatment, even on the basis of sex, if there is a relevant difference in education, skills, experience or ability, so long as anyone is treated differently only in proportion to the relevant difference in the aforementioned differences (qualifications)?

NOZICK'S  ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF JUSTICE

Nozick's theory also has a set of elements that must all be discussed in your analysis, as one builds upon,  and informs the others.

I list them here differently than the authors of your text because they might make more sense in this way. 

 There must first be a just--free of force or fraud--acquisition of the property right. This does not mean just land or physical personal property but, includes entitlements, such as equal opportunities to fulfill any of Maslow's levels of needs. If you gained your employment through your superior efforts, experience or even good luck, as long as you did not use the force of wrongfully attained unequal power or fraud - -misrepresentation of facts about genetic abilities--then the acquisition is just.

Second, if the first element is met then any subsequent transfer of that acquisition is just, even if it results in an inequality within society. 

This third element is especially useful in this case analysis because it obligates one to rectify the situation where the two elements above were not met.  What were the legal protections for members of protected classes intended to accomplish?