The Mommy Track Case
CooperD CSP2
The case that will be examined is case 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 resolve this case by putting Schwartz; company CEO’s, husbands and every woman within the “mommy track” in the original position to develop the principles of justice. In the view of the libertarian, they would solve this case by women and men with families would work freely as they needed and they would earn the same amount as their counterparts within the same position. I personally would agree with Rawls theory and argument because to be able to have a chance to develop the principles of justice that will positively affect majority of the least advantageous people in our society makes the most sense and it would be the moral thing to do.
In case 7.4 titled “The …show more content…
Mommy Track,” the case goes on to describe the cost of employing women in management verses the cost of employing men. There was an article written by Felice N, Schwartz who contended that the rate of turnover in management positions is two-and-a-half times higher among top-performing women that it is among men. Schwartz drew between two types of women: the career-primary women and the career-and-family women. She explained that the women in the first category put their careers first. They remain single of childless, or if they do have children, they are satisfied to have others raise them. Most women fall into the second category. They want to pursue genuine careers while participating actively in the rearing of their children. Schwartz contends that most of them are willing to trade some career growth and compensation for freedom from the constant pressure to work long hours and weekends. Many see Schwartz as distinguishing between the strivers and the breeders, between women who should be treated as honorary males and those who should be shunted onto a special lower-paid, low-pressure career track-the now-notorious “mommy track.” Schwartz is also accused of assuming that mothers don’t need top-flight careers and of taking for granted the existing values, structures, and biases of a corporate world that is still male-dominated. A fast-track woman who wants children, however, gets caught in a time and energy squeeze, even if her husband is an equal partner at home. Two recent studies have shown that male managers whose wives stay home to care for their children earn more than their counterparts with working wives. Men who are the sole breadwinners for their families enjoy incomes at least 20 percent higher than those of married men with children whose wives have careers (Shaw, p.273-275).
John Rawls’s theory of justice lies within the social-contract tradition. Two important features of Rawls’s theory are: his hypothetical contract approach and the principles of justice that he derives with it. Rawls’s strategy is to ask what principles people would choose to govern their society if they were in the “original position.” Rawls thinks if people in the original position can agree on some governing principles on the basis of mutual self-interest, then these principles will be the principles of justice. Basically, if we make up a game and all agree ahead of time, freely and equally, on how the game is to be played, nobody can later complain that the rules are unfair. Although in this original position people choose on the basis of self interest, we are to imagine that they are behind a veil of ignorance. Under the veil of ignorance, the people in Rawls’s original position have no knowledge about themselves or their situation that would lead them to argue from a partial or biased point of view. Once the veil of ignorance is lifted, people will have more specific ideas about what is good for them. Rawls contends that any principles agreed to under these circumstances have a strong claim to be considered the principles of justice. Rawls argues that people in the original position would follow the maximum rule for making decisions. They would choose principles guaranteeing that the worst that could happen to them is better than the worst that could happen to them under any rival principles. Rawls argues that they would agree on two principles. The first states that each person has a right to the most extensive scheme of liberties compatible with others having the same amount of liberty. The second principle states that to be justified, any inequalities must be to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Rawls continues to argue that the primary focus of justice should be the basic social structure, not transactions between individuals. He contends that society is a cooperative project for mutual benefit and that justice requires us to reduce the social and economic consequences arbitrary natural differences among people (Shaw, p.102-111).
The libertarian theory identifies justice with liberty, and liberty takes priority over other moral concerns. Liberty is the prime value, and justice consists in permitting each person to live as he or she pleases, free from the interference of others. Personal liberty is the liberty of each person to live according to his own choices, provided he does not attempt to coerce others and thus prevent them from living according to their choices. The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick begins from the premise that people have certain basic moral rights, which he calls Lockean rights. These individual rights impose firm, virtually absolute restrictions on how we may act. We cannot morally infringe on someone’s rights for any purpose. Not only are we forbidden to interfere with a person’s liberty in order to promote the general good, we are prohibited from doing so even if violating that individual’s rights would somehow prevent other individuals’ rights from being violated. A belief in these shapes Nozick’s theory of economic justice, which he calls the entitlement theory. Stating, if you have obtained your possessions without violating other people’s Lockean rights, then you are entitled to them and may dispose of them as you choose (Shaw, p.95-96).
Rawls would solve this case by putting Schwartz; company CEO’s, husbands and every woman within the “mommy track” in the original position to develop the principles of justice.
I would assume that these principles will produce a reasonable solution that will cover every issue that can become developed through time and may affect every contributor of the principles. There will be no need to categorize women into two different types, nor will there be women having to choose between family and career. Of course, once the veil of ignorance is lifted people should be able to know more specific ideas about what is good for them and the function of their family. Another solution that might be considered is paying women with families 20 percent more than those women without a family, and men with a working wife 10 percent more than those men with a stay at home wife. Rawls would consider this solution because this will fall under not having equality at all costs, and this will permit inequality to improve the lot of the least advantaged (the women on the “mommy
track”).
In the view of the libertarian, they would solve this case by women and men with families would work freely as they needed and they would earn the same amount as their counterparts within the same position. Assuming they could earn a specific amount according to the hour that they work without interfering into anyone other person’s life style or arrangements. The women on the “mommy track,” would not worry about the results of working part-time or taking maternity leave. They would simply be able to choose whatever is best for them and not get penalized for it. A second solution could be to allow them to work from home, or maybe bring their children to work with them, because this would fall into libertarian’s view of a person’s entitlement. I believe that Nozick would give every family the basics that they would need. For instance when two people become a family they are entitled to a home, if a couple has a child or children they are entitled to have money and free time in order to take care of them.
I personally would agree with Rawls theory and argument because at there will be a reaction to every action that one commits and having the possibility of negative results and not caring nor having a plan to correct them would make society even more unstable. It makes sense to me to be able to have a chance to develop the principles of justice that will positively affect majority of the least advantageous people in our society. To know that the veil of ignorance will assist in fair and equal rights for everyone and that all of the wrongful rules, regulations and roadblocks that prevent people from reaching their true happiness will be diminished is an awesome thing. I do not agree with the libertarian view because it seems that there is no clear and precise resolution. We all would love to be able to live and work freely without interruption from others, but life comes with good and bad and if we do not have an option to help one another even when it is needed, then a lot of people would fall into the cracks of society. At the end of the day we would want to see 90 percent of society prospering and the other 10 percent on their way to prospering in life.
The case that will be examined is case 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 resolve this case by putting Schwartz; company CEO’s, husbands and every woman within the “mommy track” in the original position to develop the principles of justice. In the view of the libertarian, they would solve this case by women and men with families would work freely as they needed and they would earn the same amount as their counterparts within the same position. I personally would agree with Rawls theory and argument because to be able to have a chance to develop the principles of justice that will positively affect majority of the least advantageous people in our society makes the most sense and it would be the moral thing to do.
In case 7.4 titled “The …show more content…
Mommy Track,” the case goes on to describe the cost of employing women in management verses the cost of employing men. There was an article written by Felice N, Schwartz who contended that the rate of turnover in management positions is two-and-a-half times higher among top-performing women that it is among men. Schwartz drew between two types of women: the career-primary women and the career-and-family women. She explained that the women in the first category put their careers first. They remain single of childless, or if they do have children, they are satisfied to have others raise them. Most women fall into the second category. They want to pursue genuine careers while participating actively in the rearing of their children. Schwartz contends that most of them are willing to trade some career growth and compensation for freedom from the constant pressure to work long hours and weekends. Many see Schwartz as distinguishing between the strivers and the breeders, between women who should be treated as honorary males and those who should be shunted onto a special lower-paid, low-pressure career track-the now-notorious “mommy track.” Schwartz is also accused of assuming that mothers don’t need top-flight careers and of taking for granted the existing values, structures, and biases of a corporate world that is still male-dominated. A fast-track woman who wants children, however, gets caught in a time and energy squeeze, even if her husband is an equal partner at home. Two recent studies have shown that male managers whose wives stay home to care for their children earn more than their counterparts with working wives. Men who are the sole breadwinners for their families enjoy incomes at least 20 percent higher than those of married men with children whose wives have careers (Shaw, p.273-275).
John Rawls’s theory of justice lies within the social-contract tradition. Two important features of Rawls’s theory are: his hypothetical contract approach and the principles of justice that he derives with it. Rawls’s strategy is to ask what principles people would choose to govern their society if they were in the “original position.” Rawls thinks if people in the original position can agree on some governing principles on the basis of mutual self-interest, then these principles will be the principles of justice. Basically, if we make up a game and all agree ahead of time, freely and equally, on how the game is to be played, nobody can later complain that the rules are unfair. Although in this original position people choose on the basis of self interest, we are to imagine that they are behind a veil of ignorance. Under the veil of ignorance, the people in Rawls’s original position have no knowledge about themselves or their situation that would lead them to argue from a partial or biased point of view. Once the veil of ignorance is lifted, people will have more specific ideas about what is good for them. Rawls contends that any principles agreed to under these circumstances have a strong claim to be considered the principles of justice. Rawls argues that people in the original position would follow the maximum rule for making decisions. They would choose principles guaranteeing that the worst that could happen to them is better than the worst that could happen to them under any rival principles. Rawls argues that they would agree on two principles. The first states that each person has a right to the most extensive scheme of liberties compatible with others having the same amount of liberty. The second principle states that to be justified, any inequalities must be to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Rawls continues to argue that the primary focus of justice should be the basic social structure, not transactions between individuals. He contends that society is a cooperative project for mutual benefit and that justice requires us to reduce the social and economic consequences arbitrary natural differences among people (Shaw, p.102-111).
The libertarian theory identifies justice with liberty, and liberty takes priority over other moral concerns. Liberty is the prime value, and justice consists in permitting each person to live as he or she pleases, free from the interference of others. Personal liberty is the liberty of each person to live according to his own choices, provided he does not attempt to coerce others and thus prevent them from living according to their choices. The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick begins from the premise that people have certain basic moral rights, which he calls Lockean rights. These individual rights impose firm, virtually absolute restrictions on how we may act. We cannot morally infringe on someone’s rights for any purpose. Not only are we forbidden to interfere with a person’s liberty in order to promote the general good, we are prohibited from doing so even if violating that individual’s rights would somehow prevent other individuals’ rights from being violated. A belief in these shapes Nozick’s theory of economic justice, which he calls the entitlement theory. Stating, if you have obtained your possessions without violating other people’s Lockean rights, then you are entitled to them and may dispose of them as you choose (Shaw, p.95-96).
Rawls would solve this case by putting Schwartz; company CEO’s, husbands and every woman within the “mommy track” in the original position to develop the principles of justice.
I would assume that these principles will produce a reasonable solution that will cover every issue that can become developed through time and may affect every contributor of the principles. There will be no need to categorize women into two different types, nor will there be women having to choose between family and career. Of course, once the veil of ignorance is lifted people should be able to know more specific ideas about what is good for them and the function of their family. Another solution that might be considered is paying women with families 20 percent more than those women without a family, and men with a working wife 10 percent more than those men with a stay at home wife. Rawls would consider this solution because this will fall under not having equality at all costs, and this will permit inequality to improve the lot of the least advantaged (the women on the “mommy
track”).
In the view of the libertarian, they would solve this case by women and men with families would work freely as they needed and they would earn the same amount as their counterparts within the same position. Assuming they could earn a specific amount according to the hour that they work without interfering into anyone other person’s life style or arrangements. The women on the “mommy track,” would not worry about the results of working part-time or taking maternity leave. They would simply be able to choose whatever is best for them and not get penalized for it. A second solution could be to allow them to work from home, or maybe bring their children to work with them, because this would fall into libertarian’s view of a person’s entitlement. I believe that Nozick would give every family the basics that they would need. For instance when two people become a family they are entitled to a home, if a couple has a child or children they are entitled to have money and free time in order to take care of them.
I personally would agree with Rawls theory and argument because at there will be a reaction to every action that one commits and having the possibility of negative results and not caring nor having a plan to correct them would make society even more unstable. It makes sense to me to be able to have a chance to develop the principles of justice that will positively affect majority of the least advantageous people in our society. To know that the veil of ignorance will assist in fair and equal rights for everyone and that all of the wrongful rules, regulations and roadblocks that prevent people from reaching their true happiness will be diminished is an awesome thing. I do not agree with the libertarian view because it seems that there is no clear and precise resolution. We all would love to be able to live and work freely without interruption from others, but life comes with good and bad and if we do not have an option to help one another even when it is needed, then a lot of people would fall into the cracks of society. At the end of the day we would want to see 90 percent of society prospering and the other 10 percent on their way to prospering in life.