Cindy's essay

Tattoos becoming more and more popular form of body arts among human beings, including office worker. But today, there still have many companies prohibit their employee to have a tattoo or do not allow their employee to have a visible tattoos during their work. Such as, Walt Disney World, require its employee use opaque makeup or ware work-appropriate clothing to cover their tattoos. Wal-Mart specifies the tattoos are offensive or distractive, have to be covered by clothing. Some law agencies are more prevents about tattoos, like New York State Police, the rules states that if a anyone want to become a police officer, he or she can not have any tattoos or body art to display on their skin. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department claims that the officers with tattoo need to cover them up when they're on duty. Because of the officer’s tattoo, the rule came about a complaint from a woman who thought a parolee was disguised as a police officer. (All business, 2009). The tattoo was evaluated differently from workplace to workplace on a case-by-case basis. But here, the ethical question is whether the tattoo or body art should be prohibited in the workplace? In my essay, I will use two theories from ethics to answer this question.
The first approach to answer this question is act utilitarianism theory. It was found in the 19th century by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham as determine which laws were morally best. The principle of act utilitarianism is the act that it is morally right if, and only if doing things is likely to produce the greatest balance of substantive sustained benefits over substantive sustained harms to all affected by action than any alternative available. (Richardson, J. E. 2007). To analyze the moral action of whether tattoo or body art in the workplace is right or wrong, we look at 3 propositions. First, the things are to be judged wrong or right only by virtue of its consequences, nothing else matter. (Rachels, J. 2003). Act utilitarianism can be netter understood in a form of consequentialist moral philosophy. (Richardson, J. E. 2007). In this point of view, the consequence of actions normally evaluated in terms of the preferences of individuals, in some companies, the rule said that its employee can not have tattoos on their body if they are on duty or need to cover it up for the purpose of company’s image. Because if the customer saw their staff have tattoo, they might think that the company is not good, or they may think this staff is not a good guy, even they think that this staff is one of the reactionary gang. The tattoo probably damages the image of the company. The consequence is not as good as we expected. Therefore, in company’s preference, they have to force its employee to cover tattoos up during work time. Second, in order to assess the predict consequence, the right conduct we consider is solely on the greatest amount of benefits over harms. No tattoos or body art in the workplace or the tattoos is invisible, the company and its many other employee may feel happy and get benefits on their reputation. In our case, one alternative could produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. Thus, act utilitarianism chooses to have no tattoos or invisible tattoos appear on the workplace. According to act utilitarianism’s doctrine, the only thing we desire is happiness as an end. Invisible tattoo or without tattoo, company will happiness, manager will happiness, almost employee will happiness, the greatest people will happiness, thus, happiness is what we desire. No tattoo in the workplace yields the greatest number of benefits over harms. The last proposition we look at is that each person’s happiness count the same. Form act utilitarianism’s perspective, individuals’ benefits or happiness are to be accumulated as evaluate in terms of their preference. (Baron, D. P. 2005). Hence, each individual utility is given equal weight. Accumulation is wanted because any actions the company taken would make some people better off and others worse off. However, since act utilitarianism is only concerned with greatest benefits or happiness, it does not matter how the individuals’ utility is distributed across every person. Taken our case into account, although the gain for the whole company and many other employees is greater than lose of minority employee, the act utilitarianism gives all people affected a same answer—no tattoos or invisible tattoos in the workplace. The utility is equally distributed across the individual. That is, each employee’s happiness or benefits counts the same. In total, the company and most employees have the best overall consequence in that rule, and unhappiness involved in this rule is merely or solely. In this particular case, the act utilitarianism conclusion, apparently, would be that without tattoo or invisible tattoos in the workplace is morally right.
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 our 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 our 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.
Act utilitarianism does not give adequate attention to employee’s right and freedom, which are considered to be our human fundamental needs or desire and is incompatible with the law of justice. The company does not accommodate and acknowledge their employees’ different cultures, backgrounds and needs. Nevertheless, another concern associated with act utilitarianism is that we judge the action to be right or wrong only depend on consequences, all the relevant action or consideration as regard to their effect on consequences. (Rachels, J. (2003). In deciding what right rule of the company, we must weighting up all the pros and cons of best promote the overall benefits over harms. In our case, we can not exclude minority employee’s wants, aspirations and opportunities, and we can not distribute overall benefits to each employee as well. For this reason, in my opinion, no tattoos in the workplace can not consider to be the morally wrong rule. Fortunately, some countries have been establish laws against the workplace discrimination, such as U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1970, claimed that the firm can not make unlawful discrimination in the workplace, otherwise, the firm commit to the Civil Rights Act or Fair Employment Practices Acts. (Beauchamp, T. L. 2004). As for Kant ethics, the criticism of his approach in our example is that it is not indicate specifically and sufficiently if it would be acceptable to violate the fairness or rights of employee in some special situation. In my opinion, some rule can not be universalized according to some particular situation. In our case, if the rule says that employee can have tattoos in the workplace, then, this rule would, in some circumstance, increase the burden of company and perhaps, damage the image of whole company. In spite of above two theories, the company must address a variety of complex issue. Rules based on dress code should take ethnic characteristics or different racial into account, and try to avoid setting standard that would deny an employees’ job performance.












Reference
All Business. (2009).Understanding workplace discrimination. Retrieved November 15, 2009. from:
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workplace-health-safety-employment/1317-1.html

Pressel, D. (2009).Discrimination in the workplace: Ignorance is not bliss- know what awaits you in the work force. Retrieved November 20, 2009. from:
http://www.sfsu.edu/~career/Handouts_Forms/DiscriminationAtWork.pdf

Purcell, B. (2009). Workplace harassment and employment discrimination. Retrieved November 27, 2009. from:
http://www.braytonlaw.com/practiceareas/harass.htm

Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. (4th Edition). New York. McGraw-Hill companies.

Baron, D. P. (2005). Business and its environment. (5th Edition). New Jersey. Pearson Education, Inc.

Beauchamp, T. L. (2004). Case studies in business, society, and ethics. (5th Edition). New Jersey. Pearson Education, Inc.

Richardson, J. E. (2007). Business ethics. (9th Edition). Dubuque. McGraw-Hill Companies.