Moral relativism, simply put, refers to the view that positions of wrong or right, morality, and ethical standards are relatively false or true based on specific standpoint which could depend on factors such as historical period and cultural norms among others (Lukes, 2008) . In this regard, a specific judgment cannot be said to be more superior or correct than the other since there are no particular principles that should guide the process of determining if an idea, an action or a decision is either morally right or wrong. In reference to the case provided, it would be pivotal first to observe that moral relativism can be viewed in several ways. The first is based on the descriptive moral relativism which is also referred to as the cultural relativism. According to this form of moral relativism, certain standards of morality are defined culturally such as respect and honesty (Lukes, 2008) . Another form of moral relativism is the m eta-ethical moral relativism which states that there should not be and there are no any objective grounds on which moral values of a specific culture should be preferred over another. According to this premise of moral relativism, societies, in most cases, make their respective choices on morality based on their specific customs, beliefs, as well as practices. In this way, individuals are made to believe that that the right moral basis on an issue is dependent on their cultures or societies (Lukes, 2008). The final form of moral relativism is the normative moral relativism which refers to the idea that societies across the world should ensure that individual views of every member of the society on moral values are accepted since there are no universal principles on morality.
As a moral relativist, I subscribe to all the three forms of moral relativism highlighted above. On this ground, I will accept that the individual view of the supervisor on the aspect of taking what belongs to the employer is a personal opinion. The personal view that taking the supplies is morally right since the employer will not immediately miss them could be based on either normative, meta-ethics or descriptive moral relativism. Although I may not know which moral relativism that the supervisor employed, I hold that at a personal level, it was morally wrong for me to join him in stealing the supplies. In this case, I consider that the actions by the supervisor amounted to stealing since he did not have the permission from the employer. Therefore, based on my moral basis, any form of stealing is not acceptable and morally wrong. Consequently, by taking the supplies from the employer, I will be going against my moral standards.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, as an employer and in the application of Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics, I will understand the basis on which the thieving employees are behaving that way. Based on Aristotle’s argument, any rational person would act the same way the supervisors and other thieving employees are behaving. According to Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics (Curzer, 2012) , it is clear that there must be rational grounds or reasons that make the supervisor and other employees take the suppliers that belong to the employer. On this note, the primary concern as an employer would be to understand the reasons behind their actions. After knowing the reasons for their actions, I will initiate a process of training on ethics. In the training, the need to act on what is rationally right based on personal characteristics or virtues will be emphasized. The objective will be to ensure that the employees lead a virtuous life. On the same basis, as an employer, I will be seeking to reduce the “thieving” behaviors among other actions that might affect the performance of the company.
References
Curzer, H. J. (2012). Aristotle and the virtues . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lukes, S. (2008). Moral relativism . London: Profile Books.
