Explain How Rawls Might Suggest How To Respond To The Scene

Explain how Rawls might suggest that you respond to the scenario of Jim and Mary if he was the supervisor and confronted...

As team supervisor for this company, what would you do? After you have thought through your position on this scenario, apply your thinking to this week’s philosophers and complete Step 3 - the writing part of this assignment.

In 1-2 pages, explain how Rawls might suggest that you respond to the scenario of Jim and Mary if he was the supervisor and confronted with this situation. How might he apply consensus and public reason to illustrate his philosophy? Support your analysis with quotes or paraphrases from the philosophers.

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex scenario involving Jim and Mary, as a supervisor, applying John Rawls’s principles of justice offers a guiding framework for equitable and fair decision-making. Rawls’s theory primarily emphasizes fairness, the importance of the original position, and the veil of ignorance to ensure unbiased and just action (Rawls, 1971). When confronting issues like employee misconduct, his philosophy encourages creating policies and responses without biased knowledge of one's position, ensuring decisions are just and impartial.

From Rawls’s perspective, the first step would involve establishing a fair process to address the misconduct. Since Rawls advocates for justice as fairness, the supervisor should implement a transparent approach that considers the interests of all employees, not just the more powerful or vocal ones. This means objectively assessing Jim’s behavior of clocking in late and covering for his tardiness while respecting Mary’s sense of fairness and her dedication to following company policies (Rawls, 1971, p. 11). The supervisor would need to focus on restoring fairness by addressing Jim’s misconduct and ensuring consistent enforcement of company policies.

Furthermore, Rawls’s concept of the ‘original position’ and the ‘veil of ignorance’ can be instrumental here. In this hypothetical scenario, the supervisor might imagine making decisions without knowledge of their own future position within the company—to avoid bias. Under this veil, policies would be constructed in a way that prevents favoritism or unfair treatment. For instance, the supervisor might revise the clock-in policy to include regular monitoring or consequences for dishonest clocking-in behaviors, making sure these rules are applied equally regardless of individual seniority or personal relationships. According to Rawls (1971), justice is best served when principles are established as if we did not know our own position, thereby ensuring fairness for all stakeholders.

Applying the principle of public reason, the supervisor should communicate decisions and policies transparently to employees. Public reason involves justifying policies based on reasons all reasonable citizens can accept, regardless of their personal preferences or beliefs (Rawls, 1993). This approach ensures that disciplinary actions and policy changes are not arbitrary but are rational, equitable, and publicly justifiable, fostering trust and social cohesion within the workplace. For example, the supervisor might hold a team meeting explaining the importance of adhering to policies, the need for fairness, and the repercussions of misconduct, thus aligning with Rawls’s emphasis on reasons accessible to all (Rawls, 1993).

In addressing Jim’s misconduct, Rawls’s theory would advocate for a balanced response focusing on fairness and justice. Jim’s habit of clocking in late and Covering for him creates unfair advantages and disrupts equity among team members. The supervisor must enforce disciplinary measures consistently, perhaps warning Jim and establishing clear consequences for continued violations. Simultaneously, they should ensure that Mary’s efforts are recognized and that her concerns are addressed to restore her sense of fairness and morale (Rawls, 1971).

In conclusion, Rawls’s principles serve as an ethical guide for equitable treatment and transparent decision-making in the workplace. By establishing fair policies through the original position and promoting public reason, the supervisor can address misconduct effectively while maintaining trust and fairness among employees. Such an approach aligns with Rawls’s vision of justice, ensuring that workplace policies serve the interests of fairness and equality for all members of the organization.

References

• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (2010). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success. Yale University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Thomson, J. J. (2008). The Realm of Rights. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Greg.
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
• Schneider, M. J. (2011). Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Cengage Learning.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.