Cindy's homework

Opposite opinion:

The second important approach to answer above question has its roots in 18th century, from the German philosophy thinker Immanuel Kant. It is a very different approach compared to the first one. From Kant’s viewpoint, the only truly moral action is generated by a pure motive—the moral agent will do what ought to be done. Kant’ motive in this approach is based on what we called “categorical imperative”. The “categorical imperative” falls into 2 principles: the universalisability principle and the respect for people’s principle. (Rachels, J. 2003). For the first principle, Kant says that act only on the maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law. (Baron, D. P. 2005). In my case, the maxim is the rule or requirement that it says no one in the workplace can have tattoo or if he/she has, it must be invisible. To universalize the maxim, everyone must and will to follow that maxim, which means, once the rule becomes a universal law, everyone must believe it and willing to follow it. However, the “categorical imperative” rest on the belief in which human beings are entitled to equal consideration. (Rachels, J. 2003). In my case, the company’s rule is, obviously, not fair to every employee and dose not give an equal consideration to each of their employee. Moreover, the rule is not justice, because the rule is not the one that requires us to treat people fairly according to employee’s needs and merits. Tattoos is sometimes a needs of employee solely based on their culture belief, or other reasons. The rule set up by company is essentially the impartial in our case. Therefore, it can not be a universal law. The second principle holds that the morally right rule is always treat other human beings as “ends in themselves” and never merely as means to treat people. (Rachels, J. 2003). “As an end” means to recognize that the person has their own rights, just as you have. We must respect other person, treat other person appropriately, allow them to have a freedom of choice, and to behave in their own lives. But, in our case, the rule was violated some employee’s right, breached their liberty and destroyed their equal opportunity. The employee was forced to accept the rule against their will. The company’s rule does not premise employee to have their own rights and do not respect their own interest. The rule is inconsistent with the second principle in Kant’s approach to moral decision. Also, the rule dose not passes the first principle as well. Therefore, we can conclude that invisible tattoo or no tattoo in the workplace is morally wrong.