Research Paper on:
Limited Liability and Justifying It Philosophically

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Yet, the idea is not without controversy. The political and economic landscape has changed in recent years and one has to wonder how this has altered the way in which  limited liability has been construed. Questions loom large. In what way was the creation of limited liability an act of utilitarianism or Rawlsian justice, or both? Can limited liability  still be defended on these grounds despite changes in the political and economic landscape in recent years? First, what is limited liability and why is it so controversial? A limited  liability company is one where the structure is such that it is a hybrid of a partnership and a corporation ("limited," 2002) . Its owners have been shielded from personal  liability and all profits as well as losses pass directly to owners without taxation of the entity (2002). In other words, business owners get the best of both worlds as  they have tax benefits of a corporation as well as protection from lawsuits, but they do not have to abide by all corporate rules nor endure the stringent requirements mandated  by corporate law. First, in what way was the creation of limited liability an act of utilitarianism or Rawlsian justice, or both? Rawlsian justice is concerned with the  idea of justice being fair and good, and it has a hope that social institutions do not give advantages to some for the benefit of others (Honderich, 1995). It condemns  any unjust action, inclusive of those that go to economic inequality (1995). The limited liability corporation provides a decided advantage for participants. Rawls would probably prefer that no one has  an advantage over another. At the same time, owning a limited liability company is legal, and it is not inherently unfair. In other words, it does not necessarily have to