For most of us the principles of good or bad ethics may seem like a pretty easy concept to understand. Right is right and wrong is wrong. But who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Whose ethical standards should we accept? Once you think about it, ethics seems much more complicated than your mother's warnings about what "good little boys and girls do." At work we need to come to a common understanding of what "big boys and girls do" so we can work in harmony and be productive workers. With the question of right and wrong unsettled, coming to a common understanding on ethical issues can be confusing.
Philosophers have debated right and wrong for centuries. Those who promote a pragmatic view of ethics, say it is what 's practical and works right now in this situation. The utilitarians say that the best kind of ethics is the kind that provides the most good for the most people. The hedonists believe that ethics should be what makes you happy. A theistic view points to God or a religious standard as the basis for ethical behavior. Of course there is a host of other ethical belief systems that include (but are not limited to) cognitivism, naturalism, conventionalism, mysticism, intuitionism, and on, and on.
It complicates things when you think about people with all those ethical philosophies coming together for eight hours a day trying to accomplish something at work. This leads to the big question: How can people with such diverse backgrounds, experiences, cultures, moral philosophies, religions, and education agree on what's right and wrong (especially since those really smart philosophers have been arguing about it for thousands of years)?
The average workplace is a pretty diverse place. You'll find people from every kind of background working together. A culturally diverse workforce is viewed as a good thing. Talking about the best that people have to offer from different cultural backgrounds and experiences sounds good but can you have ethical diversity?
As far as most companies go, ethical diversity is not the kind of diversity they have in mind. The workplace has all sorts of rules, standards, policies, procedures, and codes of conduct that spell-out plainly and simply what is good or bad ethics. "It's my way or the highway." Of course, this lack of appreciation for diverse ethical points of view solves the philosophical debate about right and wrong. As far as ethics in the workplace goes, the more homogeneous the better.
Within this common-sense kind of ethics, those from various ethical points of view can be relatively contented. Even those from different cultures and backgrounds can live with it. There is a certain sense of balance and security that comes with showing-up for work and knowing where the ethical boundaries are. It creates a win-win situation for everyone.
In the world of opposing ethical theories, the workplace is the great equalizer rather than a melting pot. A diverse society with individuals from all over the philosophical spectrum, can find continuity in positive moral principles and common sense ethics. Although the workplace may offer a lack of ethical choices and philosophical theories and debate, it really works out for our benefit. As for the pseudoegoistic deontological hedonist philosophe he's on his own.
Post a Comment