Moral issues and approaches in workplace AIDS cases

¶ … AIDS in the Workplace," discuss the following:

What are the moral issues in this case?

The first moral obligation Carla has is to the law: it is illegal to discriminate against someone because they have an illness, if that illness does not substantially affect the employee's job performance. In this case, there is no concrete evidence that Tom's rumored illness has affected his abilities as a worker. The second moral obligation Carla has is to the truth. The evidence of Tom having AIDS is based upon second-hand testimony from his ex-wife, and Carla only convinced herself that Tom may have seemed thinner after hearing Frances' comments. Tom's illness does not seem as bad, objectively, as Carla's fears suggest. Carla also has a moral obligation to honor Tom's loyal service and evident qualifications for a promotion.

What ideals, obligations, and consequences must Carla Lombard consider?

Carla Lombard must consider the ideal that all individuals should be treated fairly, regardless of whether they are sick are well. So long as someone's illness is not a danger to others, they should not be discriminated against and turned into a social pariah. Carla has an obligation to Tom as her employee. She must also be aware of the consequences that her business could suffer if she was found to have engaged in illegal, discriminatory practices.

However, some might say that Carla has an obligation to ensure that the business functions as smoothly as possible. This might be said to include only employing people who can perform to a high standard. If Tom is given a position of leadership and fails, this does not only hurt Carla. It hurts the entire business, and all of the employees whose livelihoods depend on that business.

Finally, some might state that Carla as an obligation to the truth to talk to Tom, because Tom has a right to discuss his illness with Carla. But conversely, Carla also has an obligation of confidentiality to Frances.

What rights, if any, are at stake?

Tom has a right to be treated fairly and not condemned, based upon a rumor. Even if he does have AIDS, he also has a right to be employed in a position, so long as he has shown that he can fulfill his duties.

Will it make a difference whether Carla adopts a Kantian approach or a utilitarian approach to this situation?

It will make a great deal of difference. A Kantian approach suggests that Carla must follow her duties and moral obligations, and act as if she is setting a moral precedent for all time with her actions. The precedent Carla must set is clearly one of non-discrimination against a good employee. She must anti-discrimination law. A utilitarian approach would suggest that paying Tom but not requiring him to come to work would sweep the matter under the table, and avoid any possible controversy that would arise, if Tom's illness was exposed. In this approach, although the principle of nondiscrimination was violated, everyone would be 'happy' because Tom would have an income and the business could avoid negative publicity of the kind experienced by other restaurants at a low cost. If Carla cannot afford to do this, another utilitarian approach would be to find pretence to fire Tom and to hire an equally competent employee who had additional qualifications to justify the firing and protect the company against future lawsuits.

After reading Case 8.5, "Have Gun, Will Travel . . . To Work," discuss the following:

Assume that either the Second Amendment or state law gives you a legal right to keep a gun in your car.

Do you also have a moral right to do this?

No. There is a high likelihood that a gun in someone's car could be used as a deadly weapon without the owner's intention or knowledge, if someone broke into the car and used the gun. Having a gun on hand raises the likelihood that firearms will be used rashly in a conflict, such as a 'road rage' argument. The owner of a gun has a moral obligation to ensure that the gun is not used to create a more violent society, and to protect the safety of his or her fellow citizens.

Do you have a moral, not only a legal, right to own a gun?

No. There are many actions which are legal, but immoral. It is legal to smoke in one's house and to raise the likelihood of one's nonsmoking spouse getting cancer from secondhand smoke. It is also legal to disseminate racist speech. Morality requires the doer to consider the consequences of his or her actions.

Do you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a public parking lot regardless of what the lot's owner wants?