The
Workplace: Ethics Melting Pot...or Equalizer
By Mark
S. Putnam |

|
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
right? 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. Sound confusing? Like most people, you would rather let the scholars
argue with each other and leave you alone, but you somehow have to make sense
of good and bad ethics in the workplace.
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. Rather than feeling restrained and
stifled, you should
understand how this works in everyone's favor.
The ethics of the work-world parallels our societal moral standards
of right and wrong. Lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong. Telling
the
truth, showing
respect, and working hard is good. This is a common-sense approach
to ethics. Despite what cynics say, honesty is still the best policy.
It's
a good
thing this has stood the test of time. It benefits you, your coworkers,
your friends,
family, and company. Our whole civilized society is based on these
fundamental, common sense principles of ethics.
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
philosopher
he's
on his own.
©2002 CTI/GEU All Rights Reserved
|