Religion in the Workplace Essay

battalion around the world birth a set of opinions whether they guide to trust in Jesus Christ or non to agnostic and gnostic, every unity and and(a) has a set of beliefs which they d are on to. However the question arises on how can we drill it forth spot our homes specifically at exertion with prohibited imposing different pluralitys rights who may not present to the homogeneous sop ups as virtuoso does. How does the find out of a utilitarianism, deontology, and relativism tie into this matter, and could we reclaim a balance on both(prenominal) stances to neck to a logical remnant on how things could be run at a effectplace.People seem to shy(p) away when it comes to talk virtually pietism and politics for good enough reason. singleness cannot come out of the conversation agreeing with the new(prenominal) side so they revert back to relativism which is a go to for few seek to block confrontations, only when what about our rights to religious traffic pattern at work? Where does one function the line? We were born with the emancipation of choice, this includes choosing to intend in what others tell you, to listen to things and so on One can easily choose to leave the room or place, but where it gets troubling is if it takes place during a showdown and the other somebodys morals are founded powerfully on their religious beliefs and they besides talent either train or scat a company based on their decision or performance.Why though do we feel as if we remove to have the right to express ourselves? wellspring as Mosser., K explains because devotion is such a basic part of a persons self-conception, individual may feel his or her right to the free expression of religious beliefs is restricted by not being allowed to state them when and where he or she wishes. A company may reap the blessings of a group or an individual true Christian and nonoperational not be biased to thatperson only because of the good tha t is coming out of it. This would result in good for the superior number of batch according to a utilitarianism view.However in that respect is another side to the coin even in the very(prenominal) ethical theory. Rule utilitarianism states that allowing the majoritys religious views to be imposed on a minority does not build the great good for the greatest number. (Mosser K.,) This as well brings into light that people cannot be force into something that they do not want to accept. Christianity was neer meant to be forced upon people, but over the years it has been twisted to mean something other then what is true though at that place are those who still hold reliably to what is right.Even at mandatory work functions one cannot force suppliant or religious service on one without possibly violating state laws. Sam Grover explains most(prenominal) resemblingly any prayer or religious service that accompanies a mandatory work event or clashing would violate Title VII disagreement laws under the same reason utilise in Townley. (Grover, S. 2010) The next question one could ask themselves how much is too much, when someone continuously asks to attend church or has their bible out on their sanction desk?Harassment has taken place in the workplace when an employee is required or coerced to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of meshing (Grover, S 2010) A person by no gist base their decisions on whether a person is of the same beliefs and or style of worship to give them the greatest good even if that particular pietism is the biggest in the workplace, and leave the others hanging dry.In an article written by ACLJ it speaks about prayer in the workplace as being legal, stating In sum prayer is not illegal, unauthorized, inappropriate, nor improper and as great as employees pray before or after working hours, or during prescribed breaks, there should be no task at all. (ACLJ 2012) So the person cannot make it mandat ory for anyone to participate in a religious gathering nor can they hold it against them in terms of gaining a stance at a job, and make it into a utilitarian view on them.So what are the outcomes of the utilitarianism over an issue like prayer in the workplace? One can practice their religion on their own ad hominem time as long as it does not impinge with work and can perform their duties travel on the job. The greatest good that comes from this view is that all people are defend in some way or form, but we result al slipway have those who have ethical egoism and that is what the greatest number of people are protected from in the laws that are set forth. employ the view of deontology (Golden Rule) it serves as a good foundation and rule of them to grapple others. This view however when looked at and studied, that part of password is telling the reader not as a reactive approach, but for them to go and do unto others regardless of how they may treat them. Also, the way th is view could be use and twisted is if another person from a different very radical belief thinks it is right for them to force it upon other people talking to them about it at work.No one needs to feel the stresses of a job and then put down on top of that, dealing with religious views that one apposes. These laws that were put up were not only to protect the people, but also in a way for the religion. This does not in fact mean to keep sack up to someone and throwing scripture at them, unless one wants to have a typeface against them and the company, but to be able to regard the other person half-way and realize that I might not like them move their beliefs down my throat either.Deontology ethics is grounded in the insipid Imperative by Immanuel Kent states The Categorical Imperative plainly declares act as if thy action were to become by thy will a universal law by nature. We should cognize our lives to help all globe and that by this we write our own morals. Would we be okay with others adopting our actions and be able to live with what they do to us since we did it first unto them?If we are at a workplace and there are no regulations established on prayers in the workplace and no guidelines whatever set in place. Would one put their beliefs out there and start the religious movement at work by theiractions, but be able to grip and live passively when another religion that strongly apposes theirs comes into the picture? Is it better to just leave it at home quite an than starting something that perhaps one may not be able to finagle very well?Relativism works spend in hand with this issue simply because it is used as a means to get out of a word and end it at a peaceful ending instead of coming out of it with a reasonable answer. This only adds to the ongoing issue and cannot solve a problem in the workplace, there are those who by their faith need to pray a certain amount of numbers a day which can in turn affect their work and if given supererogatory treatment for this may cause some division amongst co-workers.With utilitarianism, deontology and relativism we see different ways on how all this could play out in the end and while trying to figure out the right decision for everyone. The laws are there to protect people from having to conform to something that they do not believe in but at the same time must meet the freedom of choice in the other persons personal views as long as it does not hinder the good standing work order.ReferencesMosser K., Bridgeport Education Inc, 2013 Ethics and Social accountability Grover S., FFRF Summer 2010 http//ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14007-religion-in-the-workplace ACLJ 2012 http//aclj.org/workplace-rights/religious-expression-workplace http//www.allaboutphilosophy.org/deontological-ethics.htm