Beverley Shaw; Procrustes and Private Schooling, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 17, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 131–135, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1.

Donald Mackinnon; Is Equality Necessarily Incompatible with Quality?, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 21, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 267–270, https.

Donald Mackinnon; Is Equality Necessarily Incompatible with Quality?, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 21, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 267–270, https.

Donald Mackinnon; Equality of Opportunity as Fair and Open Competition, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 20, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 69–71, https.

Donald Mackinnon; Equality of Opportunity as Fair and Open Competition, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 20, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 69–71, https.

Rawls’ theory is about prudence rather than justice. It is about the kind of political structure on which rational people would agree if they were preparing for the worst. Other strategies, such as confining redistribution to upholding a safety net, might also be plausible. Rawls’ theory is Georgism in persons: the income from individual abilities is regarded as if it is at the disposal of the collective and could be taxed as rent. This goes against the strong moral intuition of (...) self-ownership. However, Rawls’ question, where the worst off are as well off as they can be, is interesting. According to the Index of Economic Freedom, it actually may be under relatively unfettered capitalism. Unlike Rawls, Piketty is chiefly worried about the rich, seeking to impose confiscatory taxes on them. But the rich are not a fixed, unchangeable group of people who can effortlessly watch their capital accumulate. Capital is precarious, as is vividly illustrated in Balzac’s novel Père Goriot which Piketty quotes. Different as the approaches of Rawls and Piketty are, both of them agree that their ideal society has to be closed: It must become ‘socialism in one country.’. (shrink)

Gender greatly impacts access to opportunities, potential, and success in corporate leadership roles. We begin with a general presentation of why such discussion is necessary for basic considerations of justice and fairness in gender equality and how the issues we raise must impact any ethical perspective on gender in the corporate workplace. We continue with a breakdown of the central categories affecting the success of women in corporate leadership roles. The first of these includes gender-influenced behavioral factors, such as the (...) requirements and expectations of gendered verbal and nonverbal communication styles as well as appearance. We move on to address the impact of family on corporate leadership opportunities and success, discussing the asymmetrical evaluation of an individual’s potential, authority, and competence based on gender stereotypes of familial obligations and expectations. Finally, we address how gender impacts access to networking and sponsorship opportunities and the long-term effects of systematic limitations on women’s inclusion in the upper echelons of corporate leadership. We conclude with a summary of the questions and issues raised by our discussion and direct individuals to consider how different ethical systems and moral requirements might influence their interpretations of gender and leadership in the corporate workplace. (shrink)