Compare and Contrast Utilitarianism and Deontology

Utilitarianism is the principle that the correct form of action be taken to benefit the greatest number of people. Deontology is defined as the area of ethics involving the responsibility, moral duty and commitment. Both utilitarianism and deontology deal with the ethics and consequences of one’s actions and behavior despite the outcome.

To contrast utilitarianism and deontology, utilitarianism summarized is making the right decision followed by the right actions that has the best outcome for the largest number of individuals. Deontology is the understanding and practice that there is a respect for life, fairness, and honesty despite the consequences and no matter the affect on the minority or majority of people affected.

Explain whether you agree or disagree that there should be a difference between the treatment of prospective as opposed to current employees where drug testing is concerned.

I agree that there should be a difference between the treatment of prospective as opposed to current employees where drug testing is concerned. I do that if an individual whether they are a prospective or current employee and are abusing drugs than they should not be employed especially if there impairment could be a hazard. However, I do feel that current employees should be offered some type of drug treatment to help them with any drug issue that they might have. I don’t feel as if this should be offered to prospective employees because they are not yet a part of that employer’s workforce and haven’t contributed to the company. I do believe that all individuals should be given some type of help regarding treatment just not that it will always come from the same source.

Describe the four elements that a plaintiff must show in order to establish a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment. (Feel free to refer back to our Week 4 Supplemental Materials and your textbook pp. 124-130).

A plaintiff must establish the following four elements in order to establish a prima facie case: (1) part of a protected group, (2) subject of unwelcomed sexual harassment, (3) the harassment happened because of their gender, (4) the harassment was severe and pervasive and changed the terms and conditions of their employment. Being a member of a protected group was established by Title VII by the Supreme Court including the protection for both male and females. All individuals regardless of gender are protected by Title VII. An individual must prove that they did not welcome the behavior or gestures which were displayed in a sexual nature. The plaintiff would need to prove that any harassment they endured was initiated because of the individuals gender whether it be male or female. An individual does not have to endure situations which cause their work environment to become hostile because of sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior by another individual.

Explain who might be hurt by English only rules and who might benefit.

All individuals that are from other culture and proficient and predominately speak a language other than English would be hurt by English only rules. English only speaking rules create barriers in the workplace and can also encourage a hostile working environment. These policies also encourage a working environment of lowliness, segregation, and fear. English only rules prohibit employees whose primary language is anything other than English from effectively communicating with peers. The only one that would benefit from an English only rule is the employer. The employer will have a large amount of control over these employees. The employer can also initiate such a form of intimidation of the employee that will create an unpleasant work environment.

Reference

Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law & ethics in the business environment: 2010 custom edition (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.