DIMENSIONS
The multicultural dimension influences our daily career activities. Thus, for progressive individuals, a workplace that is supportive of multicultural ideals is preferable. In the context of Canada, multiculturalism entails the notion of racial assimilation. In the recent past, events in the neighboring U.S have brought to fore debate on racial integration in the Canadian workplace, especially as it concerns the blending of indigenous people and other racial minorities into the workforce. Many businesses have addressed this issue using affirmative active policies, such as those provided in the country’s employment equity act. This outcome has created a debate regarding the issue of moral correctness versus the objective truth. As a matter of fact, affirmative action policies are unfair. Yet, based on equity and social justice as societal values, it is morally correct. Thus, in this paper, an evaluation of these two conceptual points of view will occur. The underlying thesis is that moral correctness is more beneficial to society compared to a focus on objective truths. Moral correctness implies that morality is a relative concept; hence, it is better placed to respond to varying circumstances in society, such as the discrimination of ethnic minorities in Canada’s workplace.
It is necessary to provide a background of recent events that have created the need for this debate. On May 25, 2020, police in the U.S state of Minnesota killed an unarmed black man, George Floyd. The victim was killed by a police officer through strangulation by placing a knee against his neck for a considerable period. The aftermath of his death was widespread protests in the U.S calling for police reforms and enhanced measures to eliminate racial discrimination in the country. Nonetheless, the protests extended to other parts of the globe, including Canada. In this country, they echoed more about anti-indigenous and anti-black racism under the clarion call of #BlackLivesMatter. The events have raised major debates in the workplace. In a bid to ensure that employment equity, most of the businesses in the country have affirmative action policies to ensure the employment of ethnic minorities to avoid some of the criticisms that are more common in the U.S. While such initiatives ensure multiculturalism in the workplace, they have also raised concerns regarding their fairness, an issue raised by proponents of #AllLivesMatter. These two conceptual perspectives will form the basis of this paper’s objective truth versus moral correctness debate.
The integration of multicultural influences in the Canadian workplace has elicited a philosophical debate. The debate arises because of the need for affirmative action as envisaged in policies like the employment equity act. Opponents of such initiatives contend that they are unfair. This assertion is made because it disadvantages whites that may have qualified for certain positions; yet, they cannot be picked because of the need to ensure equity in a business environment. On the other hand, proponents argue that such steps are consistent with societal values like social justice and equity. The former position is in line with the objective truth while the latter is in line with moral correctness. In this paper, an argument in favor of moral correctness over the truth and fact will occur.
Moral correctness presents the society with more benefits compared to reliance on objective truths and facts. It is more responsive to the needs and circumstances of individuals in society. The belief in objective truths implies the existence of universal truths. This factor implies that all individuals share the same moral values. Wood (2) evaluates this concept further by claiming that the moral realm entails a series of objective truths; thus, an action is considered moral if based on the intrinsic truth of a statement regardless of any underlying variables. Therefore, in the context of integrating multiculturalism in the Canadian workplace, affirmative action policies are unfair. Accordingly, because they are unfair, they are morally wrong and should not be adopted. The #AllLivesMatter campaign that seeks to counter affirmative approaches toward multiculturalism also highlights a similar sentiment. Their rallying call implies that all lives are equally important; hence, such a claim is an objective truth in itself.
Nevertheless, an in-depth evaluation of the moral domain indicates that such assertions are not true. First, as highlighted by Wood (1), they rely on the assumption that universal moral values exist. Yet, such an assertion is not true. When faced with a moral situation, numerous factors must be taken into consideration. These factors include the intention of the party, their emotions, and the consequences of the action. Given that such variables are versatile, it is plausible to argue that no universal truths exist. This claim would invalidate the position held by proponents of objective truths over moral correctness. Accordingly, the notion of moral correctness addresses this issue by incorporating the aspect of subjectivism.
Moral subjectivism implies that all moral positions are defensible. Nevertheless, it is crucial for a proponent of a certain moral proposition to provide the underlying criteria for their reasoning. For instance, under moral subjectivism, the act of affirmative action in the employment of ethnic minorities in Canada could be right or wrong. In this paper, the argument is that it is the right action to take. The underlying reason for this view is that applying a similar threshold for all individuals to gain employment, while fair may not be just because of historical injustices that have affected the socio-economic wellbeing of the minorities. For instance, according to Nelson (1), members of indigenous communities in Canada have had poor access to educational services; thus, their participation in formal economic activities has been minimal. Consequently, failure to adopt affirmative action policies in creating a multicultural workplace would lay the ground for continued racial segregation of such individuals.
Therefore, moral correctness would imply undertaking an action that is consistent with the country’s societal values of social justice. Additionally, this aspect also aligns with the utilitarian approach to moral actions. The approach provides that an action is morally right if it leads to the greatest benefits for the largest number of people. This outcome is achieved when multicultural dimensions, including equitable employment, are incorporated into the recruitment policies of businesses in Canada. Accepting fairness as an objective truth would imply that ethnic minorities in the country lose opportunities to participate in dignified income-earning activities. Accordingly, in this context moral correctness would override the focus on facts.
Objective truths are rigid. One of the primary arguments in favor of moral correctness is that facts tend to be rigid. They do not take into account the unique challenges and factors that a situation may entail. For instance, if one is confronted by a kidnapper asking for directions to their potential victim’s house, a proponent of the objective truth would be mandated to provide factual information. Yet, the consequence of such an act may be disastrous for the victim. Similarly, denying an indigenous or black person an opportunity to work may represent an objective truth, especially if there are more qualified candidates that belong to the majority community, is objectively right. However, the outcome for that one person from the minority would be catastrophic. Nonetheless, proponents of truth and fact contend that other subjective criteria should not apply. This aspect is illustrative of rigidity. In the case of Canada, such rigidity would only lead to monoculturalism in business. This result would have several implications. First, it would lead to the disenfranchisement of minorities in the country. Secondly, it would deny the business community and wider society the benefits of cultural integration and assimilation. They include an increase in productivity because of the incorporation of broader perspectives in decision-making processes.
Nevertheless, refutations to the claim that moral correctness should prevail exist. The main refutation is that rational human beings must always speak facts and truths because they are morally bound by duty to do so. Thus, to such individuals, an objective truth creates moral correctness. This school of thought relies on Kant’s theory. The theory contends that an action is morally right if it fulfills a certain duty. On the other hand, an action is wrong if it does not fulfill its duty. Essentially, this approach implies that the consequences of an action are immaterial in the decision-making process (Mertens 27). Instead, an individual is duty-bound to always speak statements of fact because human beings are morally obligated to tell the truth always (Mertens 28). Further, Sanches Madrid (128) contends that believers of the objective truth perceive it to be a superior system in evaluating moral imperatives because it provides for a system of rules. Rules are objective, reliable, and they are also known beforehand. Therefore, this aspect creates predictability in the moral decision-making process.
Accordingly, based on the refutation, the morally acceptable position, in this case, would be that affirmative action by businesses that seek to encourage multiculturalism is unacceptable. The objective fact is that such an action is unfair; thus, individuals are duty-bound to reject such outcomes because they are obligated to stand for fairness always. While this position has merit from a Kantian ethics perspective, it ignores several realities.
First, it ignores the fact that indigenous communities and other minorities in Canada face structural barriers that make it difficult to reap from the benefits of fairness as a virtue. Therefore, accepting this moral outcome implies that the Canadian business community should ignore the underlying problem of racial discrimination in employment practices. According to Roth (2), this aspect is one of the weaknesses of Kant’s ethical imperatives because they assume that all individuals start from an ideal state; yet, such is not the case. Social, economic, and political inequalities exist to the disadvantage of minorities and indigenous people. Thus, adopting this approach would only lead to a continuation of the status quo where gaining employment opportunities in Canadian businesses is difficult for such persons.
Secondly, the view that humans are duty-bound to do the right thing implies the existence of universal values. In this case, a proponent of objective truth would argue that fairness is a universal rule. Yet, another person may also argue that social justice is a universal rule. Therefore, in the scenario provided, enforcing fairness leads to the denial of social justice. Roth (6) contends that this aspect is one of the core challenges of objective truth and facts. In a single scenario, the applicable truths may be numerous; thus, the conceptual challenge becomes how to rank one objective truth over another. This circumstance poses a dilemma. If one accepts that objective truths should be ranked, then it implies subjective criteria should be used, a situation that is reflective of moral correctness. In this case, society would have to decide which between the two values is more valuable. Consequently, such an action would mean that objective truths do not exist. Instead, acceptable truths are a creation of society, a factor that supports the notion of moral correctness.
In conclusion, multicultural aspects influence our daily career activities. The killing of George Floyd in the U.S illustrated the centrality of race relations in multiculturalism. In Canada, similar issues are common, especially concerning blacks and indigenous people. They face structural challenges in accessing employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the federal government and the business community have taken steps to remedy the situation through affirmative action policies. For the former, it is through the passage of the employment equity act. However, such interventions have raised a debate on their morality. Those in support of objective truths and facts consider affirmative action wrong because it is unfair to whites that may miss work opportunities. However, others contend subjective factors like the structural challenges that the minorities and members of the First Nations should also be taken into consideration; hence, they support moral correctness over objective truths and facts. Based on the arguments made above, moral correctness is more beneficial if multiculturalism is to become a part of the workplace in the country.
Works Cited
Mertens, Thomas. “On Kant’s Duty to Speak the Truth.” Kantian Review, vol. 21, no. 1, 2016, pp. 27–51. doi:10.1017/s1369415415000291
Nelson, Rodney. “Beyond Dependency: Economic Development, Capacity Building, and Generational Sustainability for Indigenous People in Canada.” SAGE Open, vol. 9, no. 3, 2019, pp. 1-9. doi:10.1177/2158244019879137
Roth, Klas. “Kant on the endless struggle against evil in the pursuit of moral perfection and the promotion of the happiness of others—Challenges for education.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 2, no. 13, 2018, pp. 1–9. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1516136
Sánches Madrid, Nuria. “Has Social Justice Any Legitimacy in Kant’s Theory of Right? The Empirical Conditions of the Legal State as a Civil Union.” Trans/Form/Ação, vol. 37, no. 2, 2014, pp. 127–146. Doi:10.1590/s0101-31732014000200007.
Wilson, Catherine. “The Scientific Perspective on Moral Objectivity.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 20, no. 4, 2017, pp. 723–736. doi:10.1007/s10677-017-9798-x
Wood, Graham. “On the Perceived Objectivity of Some Moral Beliefs.” Philosophical Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, 2019, pp. 23–41. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2019.1696454