Moral obligations and ethical frameworks in Carla Lombard's AIDS discrimination case

¶ … 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.

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?

Legally speaking, the law will vary from state to state as to the extent of one's right to carry a weapon onto what is someone else's private property. But it could be argued that even if someone has a moral and legal right to own a gun, the property owner should still have the right to set the terms of how his or her property can be used. For example, although I have a right to walk around without shoes or a shirt in the summer if I am a male, at many private establishments I may be barred from getting service.

Additionally, the private property owner in this case has an obligation to keep the parking lot safe, and may feel that it is more difficult to do so with cars that contain concealed weapons. Thus, no one has a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun on whatever property he or she desires, in flagrant defiance of the owner's wishes.