Morality is a conceptual system used to determine what is right and what is wrong. However, what is right and wrong is not a black and white dichotomy. Rather, virtues and vices rest upon an opposing spectrum that consists of many shades of grey in between. Escaping abstract theories of meta-ethics, however, morality encompass nearly every aspect of our lives, including whether I should get up in the morning, to whether I ought to run the red light in order to make a professional business meeting. In order to narrow our moral focus, the following will illustrate a moral dilemma I faced while waiting tables and highlight the moral postulates used to resolve those that dilemma.
The moral system I use to determine what is right and wrong in the workplace is a philosophy known as preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism judges what is right and wrong by the consequences of an action. Accordingly, the best mode of action to take is the one that satisfies the needs and interests of the most people involved. In essence, I ought to care about the interests of other people because, from a third-person point of view, I recognize that my interests are no greater than or less than anyone else. Thus, I determine what is right or wrong in the workplace by foreseeing the likely consequences of my actions, and how those consequences effect other people.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ethical Dilemmas in the Workplace".
One of the chief ethical problems that I face in the workplace as a restaurant server is determining when I ought to cut someone off who has had too much to drink. This occurs repeatedly every weekend and even some weekdays. A bar tender can be held legally accountable for a customer who has too much to drink and dies of alcohol poisoning. However, at the restaurant I serve, the servers receive the drinks from the bar tender and serve them at the customer’s table. The bar tender is oblivious to the intoxication of the customers. Therefore, it is my responsibility to determine when I ought to cut someone off.
There are many conflicting interests in regards to this situation. On my side of the table, drunk people are statistically prone to tip more than sober people. Since my income is primarily based upon tips rather than hourly wages, it serves the financial interest of both the restaurant and myself to serve the customer another drink, maximize the tab and receive a fat tip. On the other side of the table, the customer’s health is at risk and I am manipulating the person’s state of mind to receive a high tip. In addition, I have no knowledge as to whether the person is driving home or not. I also have to consider the interests of people on the road. By allowing the customer to drink to their liver’s desire, I run the risk of letting them drive home intoxicated, potentially harming the lives of other people on the road. All of these are potential consequences. Since allowing the person to drink can harm the customer and society, I ought to cut the customer’s tab. I do this because the cons that stem from allowing the customer to over drink outweigh the pros.
In order to minimize the risk of a customer over drinking, I ensure that the customer has a glass of water that is consistently more than half full. Since the effects of alcohol are based upon body size and tolerance, I have to judge the body language of the person to determine whether they have had one to many drinks. These signs include the slurring of words, a glaze look in the eyes and fumbling over one’s feet. Whenever one of these signs are present, I cut the customer off in a polite manner. I then recommend that the customer has some coffee and suggest calling a cab if they do not have a ride home. On the rare occasion that the customer becomes hostile, I am required to report the customer’s behavior to higher management.
Instances of customer alcohol intoxication are bound to occur to anyone who has ever served as a waiter/waitress in a restaurant that serves alcohol. When a customer’s judgment is impaired, the responsibility of the customer’s intoxication lies in part on the shoulder of the server who helped fuel that impairment. Although a customer’s drunken stupor may serve my financial interests, when viewed from a third-person point of view, it is best that I cut the person off when he or she exhibits signs of alcohol intoxication. Thus, by reflecting upon the consequences of certain actions, a resolution to moral dilemmas in the workplace can be found.
