RAWL'S PHILOSOPHY (Coursework Sample)

Rawls’ Philosophy Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Professor’s Name Due Date Rawls’ Philosophy Rawls’ Philosophy on Protecting Marginalized Groups Rawls’ work aims to offer policies that instigate the overall well-being of a collective group of people without paying attention to their diverse needs. The principle operates behind a ‘veil of ignorance,’ which suggests that the original position whereby the method of reasoning focuses on self-interest without relying too much on information or concentrating on the diverse needs of people. The principal justifies the original position, intending to help people view the original decision as appropriate for its intended achievement despite the outcome of a policy (Wenar, 2021). Importantly, the philosophy seeks to ensure that the least advantaged benefit from it. Therefore, it develops a situation where policies impact all individuals equally. Rawls’ philosophy promotes equality but fails to emphasize the promotion of equity in different setups. Irrespective of the notable efforts by Rawls’ philosophy to promote justice, the concept lacks compelling philosophical justification for the variety of legal safeguards that protect diverse people or other marginalized groups, mainly because it does not emphasize specific differences between people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits race and color discrimination, thereby concentrating on different ways to overcome subtle and implicit biases that exist in society (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 2023). It looks at all discrepancies and seeks to offer everyone equal chances to thrive. Title VII protects employees from discrimination in the community, focusing on sex, nationality, religion, and race (Title VII and Employees' Legal Rights, 2023). Rawls’ concept seeks to develop policies out of rationality of their outcome. However, these policies may ignore the specific discrepancies of people. For instance, when enacting a policy, it will apply to all people the same way. However, policymakers can determine how to best serve all individuals with an alternative philosophy—for instance, ensuring that companies offer marginalized groups employment opportunities. Rawls’ philosophy may stipulate a situation where marginalized groups find it hard to enter or succeed in the corporate world because they require status and qualifications similar to those of the dominant cultures. The Use of Rawlsian Philosophy to Help Legally Culpable Businesses Avoid Misconduct The Rawlsian philosophy underlines the development of principles without relying mainly on the individual details of the affected people. In the case of Porous Materials, the manager was accused of using racial slurs towards his employees. In this case, it means that the manager understood his employees' differences in race and color and bullied and attacked them based on their discrepancies (Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases (Covering Private and Federal Sectors, 2023). The manager could have benefitted from Rawls’ principle by outlining that he did not notice employee differences. Secondly, such a company could have developed policies based on the overall expectations of the situation. Therefore, even if he talked to the employees in a discriminatory manner, it may not have been regarded as misconduct because there were no rules governing how to treat a specific group of employees. Rawls’ principle works behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, which argues that parties lack knowledge of ethnicity, gender, race, nationality, sex, income, wealth, or status of any citizen or individual in the society (Wenar, 2021). Therefore, in the outlined cases, the culpable parties could have benefitted from the lack of knowledge of these details. They could have argued that they were unaware of these discrepancies, making their actions justifiable. For instance, in the case of Prewett Enterprises, Inc. and Desoto Marine, LLC, the managers and supervisors were accused of mistreating African American workers to humiliation and employment. However, if the company fails to accommodate details of race or ethnicity in its policies, the supervisors and managers cannot be guilty of any actions falling on these lines. Evaluating the Hobby Lobby Ruling The Hobby Lobby ruling outlines a case where the use of Rawls’ concept can benefit employers while limiting employees. The Green family sued Kathleen Sebelius over a contraception cover charge because it violated their beliefs. The Green family is Christian and was against offering contraception coverage to their employees, suggesting that the accused act violated the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 13-354, 2014 ). On their side, the Green family is protected by Rawls’ philosophy, whereby they outline expectations of policies while ignoring the specific details about their employees. Rawls’ philosophy suggests that parties are unaware of things such as race, religion, and sex. Therefore, the Greens family is justified in outlining the expectations of their policies without looking at the employees' religious affiliations. In contrast, employees may feel discriminated against due to their religious affiliations. Irrespective of the emphasis on abortion, the employee lacks justice in the outlined situation. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act protects employees who receive FDA-approved contraceptive methods. Therefore, from the employee’s side, she was acting legally and should not have been condemned or sued for her act. Her religious ideologies may have differed from those of the Greens family, but they did not violate the law. Therefore, for justice to be achieved, she should have been protected. Rawls’ Philosophy in Structuring HR The use of Rawls’ philosophy can help a company avoid legal and moral troubles, but it may instigate many acts of inequity. Hence, it may not be advisable to use it to structure HR. Rawls’ concept suggests that individuals should not consider the original contract as one that should enter a particular society. Instead, it is fundamental to view the original contract as the basis for justice (Rawls, 1971). Therefore, free and rational people can actualize the principles of the original contract since they aim to achieve overall justice. However, when a company opts to actualize this philosophy, it limits diverse people’s liberties and instigates many complaints in the wo...