Utilitarianism and Human Rights Violations in the Workplace
This paper examines a workplace human rights violation through the lens of utilitarian theory. Using the case of Kelly Romenesko, a Catholic school teacher fired for undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, the paper analyzes three articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Articles 2, 16, and 18 — and ranks them according to their relevance under utilitarian principles. The analysis explores the tension between institutional religious authority and individual rights, and considers how defining "the majority" shapes utilitarian judgments about the case. The paper concludes that allowing religious institutions to penalize employees for private, non-job-related conduct sets a dangerous precedent for worker rights broadly.
- Introduction: Utilitarianism and Human Rights: Defines utilitarianism and its link to rights
- The Case: A Teacher Fired for IVF Treatment: Romenesko fired for IVF at Catholic school
- Applicable Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: UDHR Articles 2, 16, and 18 examined
- Ranking the Violations Under Utilitarian Theory: Articles ranked by utilitarian weight
- Competing Utilitarian Perspectives: Majority defined differently changes the verdict
- Conclusion: Precedent and the Limits of Institutional Authority: Firing sets dangerous precedent for worker rights
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in specific, named articles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, giving the analysis concrete textual authority rather than relying on vague appeals to fairness.
- It explicitly ranks the three relevant articles under utilitarian criteria, demonstrating structured reasoning rather than simply listing violations.
- The paper acknowledges competing utilitarian interpretations — individual vs. societal majority — showing awareness of theoretical complexity without abandoning a clear position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models applied ethical analysis: it takes a real-world case, identifies the governing ethical framework (utilitarianism), selects relevant legal-moral instruments (the UDHR), and evaluates the case systematically against those instruments. This move — from framework to instrument to case — is a reliable structure for applied ethics writing at any level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by defining utilitarian theory and its relationship to human rights, then introduces the specific case. It quotes directly from the UDHR to establish the rights at stake, analyzes the employer's and employee's competing claims, ranks the articles by utilitarian weight, and finally considers how defining "the majority" changes the utilitarian verdict. A brief reference list closes the paper.
Introduction: Utilitarianism and Human Rights
The basic tenet of utilitarian theory is that policies should attempt to maximize "the good" for the greatest number of people. It is a theory based on the principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for the majority. Upholding human rights includes minority as well as majority rights. Sometimes individual rights and utilitarian theory can be in conflict; however, at other times the philosophy can support human rights.
The Case: A Teacher Fired for IVF Treatment
One of the most fundamental human rights is the right to religious liberty. According to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." Article 16 states: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Article 18 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." All three of these rights were violated when a Catholic school teacher named Kelly Romenesko was fired because she decided to undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) fertility treatments.
Applicable Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
This situation violated the teacher's right to practice her religion according to her own conscience. According to the diocese, the teacher "agreed to follow church teachings when she was hired" (Catholic school teacher fired for having in vitro, 2006, ABC News). However, the teacher stated that her contract was vague and did not specify a ban on IVF treatment. According to the Catholic Church, "the in vitro technique was morally wrong because it replaced natural conception" (Catholic school teacher fired for having in vitro, 2006, ABC News).
Romenesko, under Article 2, has a right to practice her religion even if she interprets Catholicism differently than the institutional church. Article 16 supports her right to found a family, and Article 18 further reinforces her freedom of religion as an individual person. These three articles together form the foundation of her rights claim against the diocese's decision.
Conclusion: Precedent and the Limits of Institutional Authority
The decision to fire the teacher punishes her for a violation of doctrine by effectively depriving her of her income, or forcing her to make a choice between having a family and her livelihood. Failing to hold the Church accountable for this action could set a negative example regarding the government's ability to regulate religious institutions in terms of how they treat workers for private conduct. The case ultimately illustrates how the utilitarian framework, when applied carefully, supports the protection of individual freedom of religion and reproductive choice against institutional overreach.
References
Catholic school teacher fired for having in vitro. (2006). ABC News.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.