Blasphemy

Chico State's award winning ethics department taught our national and regional teams a certain way of competing at the national and regional level. This way involves focus on the question asked, the ethical principles involved, and relevant arguments for or against our conclusion. Today, at the regional competition, one of Chico States teams was upset by USC. Both Dr. Marcel Daquerre (regional coach) and I (competed in last years national event) were aghast by the decision. The opposing team made no mention of ethical principles at all in each time they had to speak. One exceptions though, was the use of duties; however they clearly misapplied the concept- making only sense of it from a non-moral standpoint.

USC suggested that it is a companies or corporations (or any business for that matter) duty to the safety of its employees. I cannot make sense of this claim. USC made the argument that companies have the right to make policy concerning any rules the company has (e.g. a company has the right to deny its employees the right to have guns in the cars on the companies owned private parking lot). This is because an employee has the authority to terminate his job at any time if he or she doesn't agree with said policy.

Therefore, how can it follow that a company has the duty to the safety of that companies employees? If said employer has the right to set policy however he or she chooses, said employer has no duty to uphold the safest working conditions. Furthermore, if hypothetically there was a duty (morally) for companies to uphold the safety of its employees we would think many companies to be immoral when common sense would disagree. Like high-rise construction workers, or high-risk fishing. Such workers work in highly unsafe conditions, and if there is such a duty, such employers could not even run un-safe jobs. But, there are unsafe jobs employed by companies that have the ability to promote the best possible conditions therein. This would include a company that wants to ban guns from its parking lot. It is in the interest of the company to promote the safest possible conditions and it is in the ability of the company to carry out this policy; therefore, the company ought to have this policy.

However, the fact that the company ought to have this policy has nothing to do with duty. The best way to justify why the company should promote safety is a public utility argument. Studies show that companies that implement this policy have workplaces averaging 71% fewer homicides. The company has the interest of the employees in mind when they made this policy. (Note, you could also make a Rights argument for having the policy).

Realize that a law maybe a good law, but it needs to be justified morally if it is to be used as the justification of ones claim in a moral debate.. Morality superceeds law since morality can be used to justify law but not vice'aversa.

Anyway, my team crushed them with all the moral arguments, but lost. I still can't believe it, everything else they said relied on some law. My coach is thinking about quiting, and now I can't compete at nationals.