Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
There are many courses of action available to them such as they can force Darlene to work in the main file room, they can force Frank and Alice to quit smoking complete or they can develop a new policy whereby the entire workplace would stay smoke-free and there would be no designated smoking areas. The choice of the course of action is up to the employers who wouldn't want to hurt the rights of anyone but at the same time, would want a conflict with the law.
In my opinion, the best course of action is to make the entire workplace completely smoke-free so that there will be no conflicts based on old or lingering smell of smoke in any area. I would definitely want it to become a universal law under similar circumstances because while second-hand smoke is injurious to health, lingering smell can be terribly unpleasant too. By disallowing smoking completely, the employers would only be protecting the health...
This way employer will only be following a law that's already in place i.e. The right of employees to have smoke-free workplace. There is no question of violating anyone's rights in this scenario because smoke-free workplace is a law which is accepted by most states and smokers. This is because while smokers have a right to enjoy a cigarette outside of workplace, they have no right to spread second-hand smoke in a way that it would have direct impact on someone's health. While employers cannot force their employees to quit, they can certainly make them stay away from cigarettes within workplace premises. This is how I would like to resolve the conflict in Kantian ethical framework.
Reference
Immanuel Kant. Mary J. Gregor (Editor), Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press; 2nd edition (1996)
Reference
Immanuel Kant. Mary J. Gregor (Editor), Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press; 2nd edition (1996)
The concept of duty implies the need to overcome some obstacle in order to act, and it is foolish to speak of God as having to overcome any obstacles whatever. To explain further the notion of duty, Kant uses as an example a merchant who does not overcharge an inexperienced customer. This decision is completely in accord with duty. Assume, though that the merchant avoids overcharging so that he
human life be more valuable than another? William Godwin's thought experiment concerning Fenelon and his valet is intended to argue precisely this point. Godwin proposed a burning building with two people in it, Fenelon and his servant. Godwin argues "that life ought to be preferred which will be most conducive to the general good" and concludes that the moralist who would write the "immortal Telemachus" is therefore more valuable
Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives A Comparison of the Theories of Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives The principles of Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives contradict each other on many fronts. Both provide a rational for making moral decisions, both have benefits and flaws. A compelling argument can be made for each. From my perspective the principal's of Kant exemplify a more ethical way to conduct life. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism as a specific school of thought is generally credited
There is a need to clearly point out that the two elements are never synonymous. The process of perfecting our own natural state in the Kantian view implies that we are actually in the process of attempting to cultivate "the crude dispositions of [our] nature, by which the animal is first raised into the human being" (Kant 1996b).In order to achieve this, Kant suggests that one is required to effectively cultivate
The Bible also calls for the application of human free will to morality, as does Kant. Stories in the Bible reveal how human actors either obey or disobey the moral codes prescribed to them by the Biblical authorities, namely God. When God issues a "thou shalt," that moral law is ensconced. The person has free will, and therefore can be tricked by a malicious force symbolized by Satan. It is
Kant's universal principle of right and categorical imperative has yielded a heated debate on whether there is relationship between the two (UPR and CI). The debate arises on the question, "Can Kant's "universal principle of right" be derived from his "categorical imperative?" Many authors have presented their view, against and supporting. This debate is significant since it helps in realizing the impact of the juridical law on the individuals in