Essay Sample on Equality: A Controversial Moral Principle in Society

Introduction

Morality and ethics are essential aspects of any well-ordered society. They prescribe what is right and wrong. With explicit moral principles, people are more constrained in what they can do, which means that they become more considerate of everyone's general well-being as opposed to pursuing selfish ends. Equality is one element of morality whose application in real life arouse controversies. People often argue that all human beings have a natural right to be treated equally, without any forms of discrimination, prejudice, or exposure to bigotry. The arguments presented by both proponents of equality and its critics have some validity, which often makes the entire discourse confusing. If equality is to be strictly and bluntly applied, everybody irrespective of their statuses in the society, political power, level of education, seniority in the community, gender, or religious affiliation should be subject to the same treatment (Tsesis, 2011). This strict application of equality in real life comes from a proposition that as long as someone is a human being, that alone should make them eligible for equal treatment in all its forms. An outstanding argumentation for and against equality is its application in the workplace. I have experienced people arguing about non-equal treatment in the workplace and attribute it to the fact that they are of a particular gender, belong to a lower cadre at work, have lower qualifications, or are designated in a different department.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Workplace Equality

Workplace equality is a moral issue since it cannot be adequately resolved by simply institutionalizing general policies and guidelines. It requires deliberately influencing behavior change, changing perceptions, ideas, beliefs, and conceptions of all parties involved. For instance, anyone employed by an organization is generally considered an employee. While having guidelines applicable to all employees may be okay, it may be inefficient. This inefficiency is because a universal approach to a corporate workforce ignores the existing diversities such as gender, qualification, or religious beliefs (Njiru, 2016). Appreciating the low level, yet significant variations in the workplace composition effectively improve the welfare of a section that would be otherwise disadvantaged by applying a universal corporate policy. Formal equality does not establish anything substantial for promoting employee welfare. If anyone accepts equality in its ambiguity, there is a likelihood of falsely thinking it means sameness. Ideally, no two people can be identical, even in a natural sense, there is always some extent of variation even in the workforce (Njiru, 2016). However, these variations must be adequately and carefully handled to confer improved work conditions and well as employee performance. Formal and naturalist equality only serves well or argument's sake, but it requires a pragmatic, rational, and definitive approach to apply equality.

Favoritism

Proponents of equal workplace treatment argue that every worker is a human being who has a natural right to be treated without perceived favoritism or victimization. In this sense, all workplace operations should be done so that every worker, irrespective of their status within the organization, feel satisfied (Tsesis, 2011). Critical areas where equality needs to be seen to be applied are in the recruitment process, workforce composition, promotions, in-job training, salary, and reward systems. According to this school of thought, the process of establishing a business should be based on a corporate culture that dynamically recognizes that no employee is lesser hence should not be subject to any form of discrimination (International Labour Conference, 2007). There is an uncompromising point of view about the equality of all human beings. This ideology posits that other equality levels, such as equality before the law, gender equality, and equal employment opportunity, are corporate creations whose intention is to nuance the underlying fact that all humans are equal and should be treated with the utmost respect.

Interestingly, the proponents argue for an abstract application of quality without necessarily recognizing some equally natural truths that some people are created men. In contrast, others are women, and people have different IQs. A corporate has various departments that must all be filled and that a corporate command structure must be created, which in itself comes with an inherent inequality.

The proponents of strict equality in the workplace also argue that corporates exist as a single system. This argument means that anybody working at whatever level or hold which qualifications equally contributes to the organization as a whole. Key in this argument is a convenient assumption that organizations consist of a clear structure with well-defined sub-systems such as departments, portfolios, and chain of command. Therefore, proponents believe that such structures must be ignored when equality in the workplace is to be fully achieved. Therefore, a worker in the production department should be considered equal to human resource personnel and the executive manager.

Universality of Equality

Skeptics of critics of the universality of equality in the workplace argue that it is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end. It is mistaken to argue that the fact that workers are all human beings; hence they should at all times be treated equally. In making such an argument, one risks making an erroneous proposition that equality means sameness. Equality is only applicable to the workplace if it is considered contextually (Cornelius, 2002). In essence, equality should be used in a rational sense instead of dogmatically. A sensible application of equality disaggregates it into individual components such as gender equality, opportunities, equality before the law, promotion equality, and salary equality (International Labour Conference, 2007). Even at this disaggregated level, there is always a lower level of equality, which must be considered rationally. At the workplace, employees may belong to the same department but still have different responsibilities. This means that their salaries may not necessarily be the same. Critics, therefore, posit that even in the natural sense, equality is not cast on stone. It must be applied judiciously, contextually, and rationally to confer benefits not only to the employees but also the corporate and society at large.

Another point of view advanced by the critical of universal equality at the workplace is that nature had not conspired that people be equal; if the position that people have an inherent right to equality because they are humans then it means everyone should have been created the same (Tsesis, 2011). They argue that strict equality misses the point for which it should be used for improving workplace performance, sustainable corporate culture, and enhancing employee motivation. Appreciating that homogeneity in workplace equality is unattainable allows the executives to design specific targeted approaches that respond to unique situations. For instance, when everyone acknowledges that there is no natural gender equality, the executives can institutionalize particular interventions such as affirmative action to rationalize equality.

Conclusion

There needs to be a significant concession between the proponents and the opponents of equality in the workplace. The proponents must concede that arguing for universal equality diminishes its applicability. At the same time, the opponents must accept the need for voluntary measures in the workplace to mainstream the different aspects of equality (International Labour Conference, 2007). Such a concession will culminate in the establishment of equality with flexibility, creating systems for openness and accountability, and concerted efforts towards making the operations of the corporate and the treatment of all employees equal but not the same. The key to addressing the problem of equality in the workplace is that it is never self-executing. Still, it requires that business owners and executives take deliberate, voluntary steps for mainstreaming it (Cornelius, 2002). Such careful measures can be wide-ranging such as a close review of the existing discrepancies in employee salaries, promotion structure, and rewards systems.

References

Cornelius, N. (2002). Building workplace equality: Ethics, diversity, and inclusion. London, Thomson.

International Labour Conference. (2007). Equality at work: Tackling the challenges; global report under the follow-up to the ILO declaration of fundamental principles and rights at work. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Njiru, M. (2016). Diversity and Equality at Work. Opportunities and Challenges. GRIN Verlag.

Tsesis, A. (2011). For Liberty and Equality: The Life and Times of the Declaration of Independence. Oxford University Press.