- please reply with good feebacks to the response below

https://www.justia.com/employment/employment-discrimination/title-vii/

Supreme Court's 'but-for' test

When deciding whether discrimination against a person's sexual orientation violates Title VII, the court uses a 'but-for-causation-standard'. The standard, or test, is simple. It directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. For example, would changing the employee's sexual orientation yield a different choice by the employer? (p. 9). If it does, we have found a 'but-for-cause-standard (if not for employee X being gay, the employer would not have fired employee X) (p 5). Applying the "but-for causation standard" in this case results in something like the following: Suppose two employees are each in a romantic relationship with men. Suppose the two individuals are identical in all respects, except one is a man (gay) and the other is a female. If the employer fires the male employee for no other reason than the fact that he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions tolerated in female colleagues.

Kant also uses a test to determine right action.

• Please explain how Kant's use of the categorical imperative test is similar to the Court's 'but-for' test. Do you think the two test are good approaches to moral reasoning? Why?

Answer:

Both the Court's but for causation test and Kant's categorical imperative have the end result of promoting fairness and consistency in decision making. The but for test engages in an inquiry amounting to whether an outcome would have been affected by changing a single factor, for example, an employee's sexual orientation. If the employee's sexual orientation was a factor that affected the Court's decision, it would hold the employer as having discriminated against the employee. The but for test isolates a single variable to determine whether a variable affected the decision in a biased way. The test purposefully ensures fairness and equal treatment under the law. Similarly, Kant's categorical imperative involves the same kind of reasoning, but more appropriately applies the reasoning to moral actions. The question pertained to whether the principle behind an action could serve as a universal law in other words, if an individual could want everyone to apply the same reasoning that they applied without contradiction. Consequently, both tests are intended to eliminate personal bias while evaluating moral and legal choices which was the reasoning at the court level elaborates the rationale for maintaining rational consideration, and of course both tests are intended to create and check for consistency. Kant's categorical imperative is framed around moral duty whereas the Court's test is focused on ensuring fair procedures, yet both address the need for impartial consideration and furthermore both will specifically help to identify actions or decisions that are potentially endemic to failing to treat people as equals.