4 ms·

Thanks for the substantive discussion! > May I have a specific example? I can't without giving out too much detail. I shouldn't have stated that without being

Thanks for the substantive discussion! > May I have a specific example? I can't without giving out too much detail. I shouldn't have stated that without being able to provide substance, sorry. > It is not disrespectful for the employer to celebrate other employees who are homosexual. Am I misunderstanding? I think we're getting close to the fundamental issue here. Let me unpack my logic a bit: 1) Celebrating behavior X implies that X is in some way virtuous. 2) To claim that X is virtuous, is to claim that any belief system S which states X is not virtuous is in error. So I see the current discussion as having the structure shown above, with: X = partaking in a homosexual relationship, and S = the theologies of various Christian, Muslim, and Jewish sects. So in short, it seems to me that employers are logically implying that certain employees have false religious beliefs, but the employers are hiding behind the fact that the their implication isn't clearly stated. I think that's inconsistent with the employers' claims to respect employees' religious views.

helen___keller 7y ago
I can agree with your logic, in particular with one additional axiom: 3) an employer can respect employees religious views only if they will not imply the religious view is in error It's clearly (from your logic) the case that employers description of "respects" violates axiom (3). If you belong to one of the sects in question I can understand being upset, but I would argue that (given the breadth of beliefs in the world) it is impossible to not imply some employees "respected" belief is wrong. So perhaps this is the point, that employers should not claim to respect beliefs because they necessarily must act inconsistently while doing so. Thus, one might conclude, a workplace should stand for nothing in particular and thus allow employees to believe anything without celebrating or respecting it. However, I wouldn't agree with this conclusion. I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect. In fact, I'd claim this the common sense approach. This is how I resolve having friends with non-identical belief sets, for example. (An example: one coworker made a joke to the expense of astrology. A different coworker chimed in that she and others adhered to astrology and found this joke offensive. The original coworker offered an apology and all was well.)
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Thanks for the excellent response. Good job spotting my (unintentionally) suppressed premise, (3). > I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect. I think we agree that employers ought to take positions somewhere on the Pereto curve [0] of that tradeoff-space. At one level, it seems to be a question of how happy various employee groups would feel for the different policy options. I don't have a principled reason for my own preference in that trade-space, so I try to not put my own views on a pedestal for this topic. If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
  - helen___keller 7y ago
    Thanks for the discussion > If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved. I would suspect that it is, so I guess we've gone a bit meta because the "accepted" way for large organizations of humans to make these trade-offs is politics So then is it right to say the solution to "too much politics at work" is office politics to decide the right amount of politics at work?
    - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
      > So then is it right to say the solution to "too much politics at work" is office politics to decide the right amount of politics at work? I have the feeling I'm a few philosophy-degrees short of being confident in any particular answer to that question :( I hate it when discussions about potentially important topics end with a muddle of uncertainty about metaphysical matters. It seems to end this way just about every time.

helen___keller 7y ago

I can agree with your logic, in particular with one additional axiom: 3) an employer can respect employees religious views only if they will not imply the religious view is in error It's clearly (from your logic) the case that employers description of "respects" violates axiom (3). If you belong to one of the sects in question I can understand being upset, but I would argue that (given the breadth of beliefs in the world) it is impossible to not imply some employees "respected" belief is wrong. So perhaps this is the point, that employers should not claim to respect beliefs because they necessarily must act inconsistently while doing so. Thus, one might conclude, a workplace should stand for nothing in particular and thus allow employees to believe anything without celebrating or respecting it. However, I wouldn't agree with this conclusion. I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect. In fact, I'd claim this the common sense approach. This is how I resolve having friends with non-identical belief sets, for example. (An example: one coworker made a joke to the expense of astrology. A different coworker chimed in that she and others adhered to astrology and found this joke offensive. The original coworker offered an apology and all was well.)

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Thanks for the excellent response. Good job spotting my (unintentionally) suppressed premise, (3). > I would rather that my employers tries the best possible at the (futile) task of being respectful and celebratory to all, and if problems are raised they try to be concluded with minimal conflict and maximum respect. I think we agree that employers ought to take positions somewhere on the Pereto curve [0] of that tradeoff-space. At one level, it seems to be a question of how happy various employee groups would feel for the different policy options. I don't have a principled reason for my own preference in that trade-space, so I try to not put my own views on a pedestal for this topic. If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
- helen___keller 7y ago
  Thanks for the discussion > If nobody has a convincing argument for the proper balance in that tradeoff-space, though, it makes me wonder if it's simply a matter of personal preference / opinion for everyone involved. I would suspect that it is, so I guess we've gone a bit meta because the "accepted" way for large organizations of humans to make these trade-offs is politics So then is it right to say the solution to "too much politics at work" is office politics to decide the right amount of politics at work?
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    > So then is it right to say the solution to "too much politics at work" is office politics to decide the right amount of politics at work? I have the feeling I'm a few philosophy-degrees short of being confident in any particular answer to that question :( I hate it when discussions about potentially important topics end with a muddle of uncertainty about metaphysical matters. It seems to end this way just about every time.