Advertisements, the Johnson Bank Says, "We'll Treat

¶ … advertisements, the Johnson Bank says, "We'll treat you like family." As an employee, a company that makes this type of promise would seem to be an ideal work environment. It connotes the idea of a very warm environment, where customers, employees, and business owners are all involved in a very functional work environment which is backed by good will and good intentions towards one another.

Certainly, working for a company that wants employees to treat its customers like family seems better than working for a company that wants it employees to treat its customers like wheels in a cog. Treating someone like family certainly implies that they will be treated better at that bank than they would by other people. In addition, one expects that treatment to extend to employees.

The idea that a bank will treat people like family suggests that if an employee has an illness or other family emergency, the employer would be accommodating and helpful. It would suggest that people are going to be expected to relate to their coworkers with some degree of warmth and honesty. Finally, it suggests that the employer will treat the employee with some degree of fairness, with concern for the employee's mental and physical welfare, and with the desire to help the employee. However, that promise is essentially dishonest.

A bank is in the business of lending money to people. In family, when someone borrows money and circumstances change for them and they are unable to repay the money, many times that loan is forgiven. A family may seethe with silent resentment about a freeloading member, but will oftentimes continue to "lend" money to a deadbeat in order to avoid confrontation or to ensure that children receive support. Banking employees are not supposed to treat customers this same way, regardless of whatever promises seem implied in the bank's advertising.

Bank employees must look at risk when making lending decisions, and must be able to refuse requests. A customer who asks a teller for more money than is in his account must be told no, as must a deadbeat creditor. Therefore, it is somewhat ridiculous for a business to suggest that its customers will be treated like family, and giving customers that expectation could make it more difficult for its employees to do their jobs.

While this may seem like a laudable statement, the reality is that business is different from family, and there may even be situations in which treating someone like family actually means treating them in a way that is less desirable than one might treat someone in a business relationship. In a business relationship, there is recognition of mutual need. Employers need employees, just like employees need employers; and customers need businesses just like businesses need customers.

There is a mutuality of need that helps ensure some type of fairness in those relationships. However, family relationships are not always based on mutual need. In fact, family relationships can be extremely one-sided, and bringing that type of one-way relationship into a business environment is not positive. Business relationships are supposed to benefit everyone involved in the transaction.

In fact, when one thinks about being treated like family, the first question that should come to mind is "which family?" After all, in the United States, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men are victims of domestic violence during their lifetimes (Abuse in America 2011). Being treated like a family member could be very unfortunate for people who fail to specify which family. Moreover, it demonstrates that the promise is a hollow one, meant to evoke Norman Rockwell-type visions of the ideal family rather than reflect the reality of the average family.

It would go beyond awkward for an employee to be expected to interact in a familial manner with a customer who came in with that history or those expectations. The family-like treatment can be a negative even in non-violent scenarios. Family businesses can be rife with nepotism and favoritism. In fact, while it may seem like a business that treats customers like family is somehow superior to a business that treats customers like customers, that ideal is based on false ideas about family life and business life.

A good business relationship is the appropriate one for an ethical company to have with its customers. Task Two: If faced with the choice of selecting to fund only one of three programs: a massive public health program that would increase life expectancy by two years, an overhaul of our educational system to make our primary schools the best in the world, or a housing program that would give everyone an adequate place to live, I would choose to make our primary schools the best in the world.

Moreover, this decision is not a difficult one for me to make. The answer was clear to me as soon as I was presented with the problem, though I am not entirely certain which philosophical perspective I used to come up with the answer. It simply seemed clear that the only one of the three solutions that would help solve the other problems is the one to provide education to everyone.

In addition, I could not approach the issue from a deontological perspective because, even if rights can be given priority over the good, it seems like every one of the programs discussed involves basic human rights (Alexander & Moore 2007). Therefore, finding the solution to the dilemma had to go beyond looking at what was good and look at what was best. I found that the consequentialist perspective helped me understand why my decision was so visceral.

Consequentialism looks at the consequences of an act to determine whether it is morally right (Sinnott-Armstrong 2006). Each of these programs would be morally right, but the actual act in consideration refers to deciding between the acts. Of the three acts, the one with the greatest likelihood of positive benefits is the provision of education. Prolonging life could actually be a negative, given that merely living does nothing to improve quality of life.

Providing people with adequate housing is certainly a positive, and would probably have some impact on other areas of life, but Americans, on average, already have better housing than people in many countries, and this adequacy of housing has not helped elevate other.