Tourism and Hospitality Business Ethics - Essay Example

Tourism And Hospitality Business Ethics: A Critique and Evaluation of James Spigelman’s Speech Student Name University Name Introduction James Spigelman’s speech discoursed upon the progress being made and the legal implications of laws against gender-based violence. He felt that while violence against both sexes should be discouraged by legal means, there is an imbalance between the experiences of men and women, and the potential for the experience of domestic violence between the two groups. Thus there is an emphasis that women undergo far greater possibility of domestic violence and a higher degree of fear of the same. This problem is further aggravated in minority cultures by the norms and traditions under which they live. He further goes on to state that according to statistics available from the ABS Personal Safety Survey of 2005, a third of women have undergone at least one episode of physical violence in their lifetime, and a fifth, sexual violence. Aboriginal women, according to the same survey, are ten times more likely to die from an assault and thirty five more times likely to be admitted to hospital with violence-related injury. Systems have been put in place to combat these ills but they come up against the spectre of cultural relativism which does not hold with the same views as the mainstream. The dilemma comes in when there is a conflict between two universally accepted human rights, and what possible solutions could be found, without compromising the victim. Ethical Concepts The Golden Rule, also known as the ethic of reciprocity, states that one should behave towards others in the same way one hopes to be treated oneself (Christensen, 2003). However, this is not as simple as it sounds because different cultures have heterogeneous moral practises that may vary considerably in even the most basic of values. An illustration of this is found in Ruth Benedict’s “Patterns of Culture” in which homicide is taken as an example. The assumption would be that taking a life would be universally condemned. Yet in some cultures, it is customary for a man to kill his two children; a husband to hold the life or death of his wife in his hands; or a child having the duty of murdering his parents before they get too old. In some cultures, the penalty is death for stealing fowl, or for red-haired twins, etc. In some, it is a matter of honour to ‘fall on one’s sword’ if one has committed some faux pas, in others, suicide is a crime, or a sin. (pp. 45-46). Other anthropologists have reported a plethora of cultural mores considered to be ethically sound in certain communities, yet vilified in others. These include the murder of infants, genocide, polygamy, bigotry, prejudice and persecution. Such diversity of outlook may lead to questions as to whether there are really basic values that are universal or if cultural preference takes precedence. Hence the issue of ‘ethical relativism’ which states that the morality of an action is qualified according to the practices of one’s culture. The crux of the ethical relativists’ belief is that there are no absolutes. This implies that a universal structure to resolve ethical dilemmas across cultures is impossible (Velasquez et.al. 1992). Essentially, in his speech, while he acknowledges the diversity of cultures and the differing beliefs that they hold, Spigelman asserts that this does not mean that there can be compromise in the curbing of gender violence. In essence, he states that there must be a common ground on which to meet. Ethical relativism focuses on cultures and communities and it is from these that it gets its frame of reference. This contrasts sharply with libertarianism which sees the individual as the standard unit of society. It holds that only the individual has the right to make choices and be accountable for their own deeds. Emphasis is on the dignity of person with its attendant rights and responsibilities. This dignity has been extended to many cultures and is one of the libertarian victories of Western culture. According to the libertarian creed, the right to security, liberty and property is inherent and not subject to governmental or societal approval; (Boaz, 1998). This view gels well with James Spigelman’s view as outlined in his speech, however, since it is not shared by some of the people whose inherent rights he seeks to protect, who hold family or culture as more important than the individual; then the golden rule again applies here. As Spigelman would prefer that his views be respected there is need to respect the views of others. A compromise position between these two ethical views is utilitarianism. This is a consequentialist theory which holds that deeds done are correct to the extent that they serve the greatest good for the largest number. The point of this theory is teleological and was first advanced in modern times by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The dilemma comes in when defining the ‘greatest good’. Mill’s definition was in terms of a well-being (Aristotle’s eudaimonia) that was differentiated both quantitatively and qualitatively between assorted types of pleasure. The point is to reduce the ethical question to one of cost to benefit examination and thus reduce the impasse between experiential evidence and normative conclusion(Kay, 1997). To extrapolate this in the Spigelman situation, if utilitarianism was used, it would behove the law to act in a way that resulted in the greatest good being done to the greatest number of people. This could justify the implementation of universal human rights and ban of certain evils, gender violence, for instance. This however, assumes that this is to the benefit of the greater number as stated. The application of the Golden Rule with regard to all three theories is a very subjective matter; as all three theories can seem to agree on just one thing; the wants and needs of a single person varies tremendously and it is difficult to superimpose the priorities of one on the other and expect an exact match. The best one can hope for is an impasto. How these Ethical Concepts fit in Multi-Cultural Settings Different forms of political conflicts rage over multiculturism. The primary issue is usually the obtaining of social justice by different groups within the society. In many political situations, the standards of justice within different communities are in flux. These conflicts of justice are often associated with different cultures. Within these cultures, there may be a set of dominating social norms and cultural relativism can seek to link societal justice with these norms. However, she states, most social understandings may not be shared by all members and these dominating mores do not recognise any ethical divergence within it, and therefore cannot be expected to resolve moral conflicts. (Gutmann, 1993). The execution of justice is hampered by restrictions placed by existing institutions and practices. The set of precepts, regulations and policies that bring about the ultimate meaning of justice (whatever one thinks they are) in Australia is different from those required in Bangladesh or the Middle East. Adequate institutional and political information is necessary to come to a tangible judgement on what route to follow (Sangiovanni, 2007). A theory proposed by Sangiovanni named the Practise-Dependence thesis proposes that the substance, range and validation of an idea of justice depends on the constitution and type of the practises that the idea is anticipated to oversee. Thus it is necessary to enter into a dialogue with the different cultures to be governed in order to come to a consensus on the way forward. According to Aristotle, the study of ethics is aimed at improving our lives and so it is principally concerned with a person’s well-being. Every ethical virtue is taken as a median between two states; surfeit, and lack and thus no different from any other practical ability. A skilled employee would know how to avoid both excess and lack and creates a healthy balance between the two in order to be useful and productive. The same applies to matters of ethics. The median position takes into account the individual circumstances one finds oneself in. It requires deep thought and full understanding of the individual circumstances (Kraut, 2010). Thus in the case of violence against women, the law cannot take just one aspect of the situation into account but needs an in-depth review of the wants and needs of the general population as well as pockets of it, in order to come to a final resolution. Conversely, the norms and practises of mainstream society may form a bottleneck to the attainment of gender parity in minority populations. This is because the legal framework, under which the society operates, in this case, ‘Western culture’, is also influenced by certain patriarchal ideas that in turn, prop up inequalities found in the alternate cultures. (p. 474). There is a need to deconstruct these norms to the root because the cultural identity is a dynamic creature that emerges, shifts and is enabled through group interface and political upheaval. Therefore attention needs to be paid to chronological foundations of any culture or peoples in order to understand it better. Libertarianism in a multi-cultural society This theory equates social interaction to economics and therefore can be described as a mirror image of Marxism; replacing humanity and communism with selfishness and egoism. This simplified attitude is not practical since, as Aristotle says, a more median way of approaching things is better able to serve societal needs (Bastien, 2009). Ethical Relativism in a multi-cultural society Although most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism, there are some crucial issues raised by this theory. One of which is an acknowledgement that different peoples have different cultures which need to be respected. These cultures have underlying moral beliefs which it would behoove us to explore more deeply in order to gain better understanding of it, and enable a more peaceful co-habitation (Velasquez et.al., 1992). Utilitarianism in a multi-cultural society It has been proposed by some that although utilitarianism rightly outlines the definitive endorsement of moral doctrine, it is not for mass consumption but should be limited to those who have the capability to apply it. That is, the majority should be ruled by a minority that decides what the greater good would be. This tends to give the impression that marginalized populations becoming vulnerable to abuse and unequal allocation is condoned thus earning the label of ‘elitist’. Legal Systems in Multicultural Society It has been argued that multi-culturism is the political result of power struggles in progress and joint consultation on cultural, tribal and ethnic differences. Law is crucial to the process, which in turn makes politics and law, a factor of religion in a novel manner. It is a fundamental element in any joint socio/religious rapport in such a society. However, because of the nineteenth century relegation of religion to the periphery, few are willing to address these issues as they stand today. Yet many minority cultures base their beliefs on just such a premise. Conclusion Nigel Meek (2001)observes that there are four distinct forces that drive multiculturism in selected countries. The first is very general and holds that one’s character should be the main criteria by which one is judged as opposed to race, gender or sexual orientation. The second is exploitative politics that seeks to divide and conquer by erroneous attainment of resources, career advancement and other benefits for individuals or communities. The third force is the push to replace western ideology with leftist or green ideology. The fourth is reverse racism against the majority. Will Kymlicka is an important figure when it comes to multiculturism, and his book, Multicultural Citizenship (Kymlicka 1995) is required reading for the theory of multiculturism. He outlines in it, the authenticity of group civil liberties leading to differential handling by authorities(pg. 7), while making a distinction between transitory and permanent measures that are formulated to aid minorities from disadvantaged backgrounds to integrate in mainstream society (pg. 31 and 141). He makes the argument for retention of indigenous culture by immigrants in order to help them re-settle with a minimum of stressors (pg. 95-103). Thus they can assimilate with local language and culture at their own pace and motivated by a desire to fit into their hospitable host country. In a nutshell, it is evident that there is still a long way to go before we can come to a resolution of this problem. The bottom-line is that dialogue needs to continue between different cultures in order to come to a greater understanding and rapport on the way forward. References Bastien, R. (2009). What’s wrong with Libertarianism? Égards Journal. Boaz, D. (1998). The Coming Libertarian Age," Libertarianism: A Primer. New York: The Free Press. Gutmann, A. (1993). The Challenge of Multiculturalism in Political Ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22 (3), 171-206 Blackwell Publishing. Kay, C.D. (1997). Notes on Utilitarianism. Retrieved 23rd February, 2011 from http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm Kraut, R. (2010). Aristotle's Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition. Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon Press Meek, N. (2001). Modern Left Multiculturalism: A Libertarian Conservative Analysis. Libertarian Alliance; 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London Sangiovanni, A. (2007). Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality. The Journal of Political Philosophy. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Song, S. (2005). Majority Norms, Multiculturism and Gender Equality. American Political Science Review, 99 (4), 473-489. Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T, S.J., Meyer, M.J. (1992). Ethical Relativism. Markula Centre for Applied Ethics. Read More

Hence the issue of ‘ethical relativism’ which states that the morality of an action is qualified according to the practices of one’s culture. The crux of the ethical relativists’ belief is that there are no absolutes. This implies that a universal structure to resolve ethical dilemmas across cultures is impossible (Velasquez et.al. 1992). Essentially, in his speech, while he acknowledges the diversity of cultures and the differing beliefs that they hold, Spigelman asserts that this does not mean that there can be compromise in the curbing of gender violence.

In essence, he states that there must be a common ground on which to meet. Ethical relativism focuses on cultures and communities and it is from these that it gets its frame of reference. This contrasts sharply with libertarianism which sees the individual as the standard unit of society. It holds that only the individual has the right to make choices and be accountable for their own deeds. Emphasis is on the dignity of person with its attendant rights and responsibilities. This dignity has been extended to many cultures and is one of the libertarian victories of Western culture.

According to the libertarian creed, the right to security, liberty and property is inherent and not subject to governmental or societal approval; (Boaz, 1998). This view gels well with James Spigelman’s view as outlined in his speech, however, since it is not shared by some of the people whose inherent rights he seeks to protect, who hold family or culture as more important than the individual; then the golden rule again applies here. As Spigelman would prefer that his views be respected there is need to respect the views of others.

A compromise position between these two ethical views is utilitarianism. This is a consequentialist theory which holds that deeds done are correct to the extent that they serve the greatest good for the largest number. The point of this theory is teleological and was first advanced in modern times by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The dilemma comes in when defining the ‘greatest good’. Mill’s definition was in terms of a well-being (Aristotle’s eudaimonia) that was differentiated both quantitatively and qualitatively between assorted types of pleasure.

The point is to reduce the ethical question to one of cost to benefit examination and thus reduce the impasse between experiential evidence and normative conclusion(Kay, 1997). To extrapolate this in the Spigelman situation, if utilitarianism was used, it would behove the law to act in a way that resulted in the greatest good being done to the greatest number of people. This could justify the implementation of universal human rights and ban of certain evils, gender violence, for instance. This however, assumes that this is to the benefit of the greater number as stated.

The application of the Golden Rule with regard to all three theories is a very subjective matter; as all three theories can seem to agree on just one thing; the wants and needs of a single person varies tremendously and it is difficult to superimpose the priorities of one on the other and expect an exact match. The best one can hope for is an impasto. How these Ethical Concepts fit in Multi-Cultural Settings Different forms of political conflicts rage over multiculturism. The primary issue is usually the obtaining of social justice by different groups within the society.

In many political situations, the standards of justice within different communities are in flux. These conflicts of justice are often associated with different cultures. Within these cultures, there may be a set of dominating social norms and cultural relativism can seek to link societal justice with these norms. However, she states, most social understandings may not be shared by all members and these dominating mores do not recognise any ethical divergence within it, and therefore cannot be expected to resolve moral conflicts.

(Gutmann, 1993). The execution of justice is hampered by restrictions placed by existing institutions and practices.

Read More