There are several areas in this case study that illustrate relativism. Relativism has been defined as the belief that human beings have their own unique versions of the truth. This simply means that different people have different thoughts about the truth.
We will write a custom Essay on Case of Relativism in Company specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Willard and Henk interpreted differently what transpired on that day where a supervisor by the name Victor attacked a subordinate. In the end, Willard and Henk came up with different recommendations based on their own thoughts and their own interpretations of the situation.
Willard suggests that the company should cover Tommy’s medical bill. According to him, the situation needs to be monitored closely to ensure such an incident never occurs again. On the other hand, Henk believes that Victor’s contract should have been terminated. According to him, both Victor and Tommy were guilty of violating the rules and regulations of the company.
However, Victor did not have any right to physically abuse a subordinate. Tommy, on the other hand, should have been wearing the necessary protective gear while working. Willard also recommends that the company should cover Tommy’s medical bill.
Relativism is also evident when Willard conducts investigations in close association with Tommy’s team mates. They all seem to conclude that Victor learned his lesson. They believe that he would never repeat such an action in the future since he had personally apologized to Tommy. They also believe that Victor would be in a position to handle such a situation in the future without letting his anger control his feelings.
Relativism is also evident when the law department of the company and the external consulting attorney concur that it would have been unlawful to terminate the contracts of both Tommy and Victor.
Moral reasoning framework allows managers in businesses, companies, organizations, and other institutions to make sound decisions based on what is right or wrong. The managers or individuals applying this theory must use logic to make their decisions.
In this case, Victor should have followed the procedure to make sure that Tommy wore his protective gear while working. Victor acted out of anger and ended up attacking Tommy. It is unethical for a manager or a supervisor to attack a subordinate employee. Victor, in this case, should have acted in a mature manner by reporting Tommy to the company’s administration since he had warned him severally.
Tommy did not deserve to be attacked by Victor even though he was on the wrong. Victor had consistently been warning him on the importance of wearing his protective gear while working.
If the managers of the company had applied the moral reasoning framework, Victor would have been found guilty of assaulting a subordinate employee. Such behavior is intolerable and Victor should have been automatically relieved of all his duties as the company conducted further investigations. Tommy should have been fully compensated by the company. He also should have been punished for not following the company’s safety policy.
This would encourage other employees to follow the company’s rules and regulations in the future. Employees who do not follow the company’s rules and regulations should face disciplinary action. The company should also come up with procedures to be followed to ensure managers are able to solve such issues with their subordinates amicably. Managers should also be forced to take anger management classes to ensure that in the future, they are able to control their emotions.