Egalitarianism And Loyalty Case Study

704 Words 3 Pages
In the debate between Sam and Diane about egalitarianism and loyalty, I am going to argue for Sam’s view that loyalty is more important than egalitarianism. Sam has been working in that bar for ten years, and has developed a relationship with his regular customers. He sometimes gives them free drinks as a reward for their stewardship, and they tip him well. Over those ten years, he has learned about their lives; he knows about their families and careers and they know about his. Now Diane, the new manager, has told him he can no longer give out free drinks to his customers, but that everyone will be treated equally. Sam showing favoritism towards his regulars is not hurting anybody, but rather it benefits the business as well as rewards the …show more content…
When Diane said, ‘Everybody should be treated equally’, she is not wrong however, that’s not looking at the bigger picture. Sam has a duty to treat everyone politely and it is his job to give them good service. There is a standard that he should meet. Beyond that, he treats his regular customers special, because of their dedicated patronage. What Diane is not understanding is that just because Sam is treating his regulars very well does not mean he is being unfair to other customers, and it does not mean he is treating them poorly. Diane would have had a great argument if Sam’s loyalty was affecting somebody or was hurting someone, but that is not the case. Sam’s view is ethical because he is not doing something morally wrong. If he is treating somebody more specially, that doesn’t mean he is not taking care of other people at …show more content…
There is a baseline for everything, one must make sure they are not going too far off that line. Everything is not just black and white, there are shades of gray too. Extreme of egalitarianism and loyalty, both are wrong. Say, for instance, two people are applying for the same job. One of the applicants is highly experienced, competent, and is personable. The other applicant has no experience in the field and does not work well on teams. However, the second applicant is good friend of the interviewer and even though he does not deserve the job, he is awarded it due to his relationship with the interviewer. This is an instance where it is unethical to show favoritism. One should have at least the basic moral knowledge of when it is appropriate to show favoritism and when it is not. Similarly, it is unethical to show favoritism on the basis or race, color or ethnicity. And these kind of behavior are not even favoritism, they are considered under the term, ‘discrimination’. So, as long as we are not mixing the term favoritism with discrimination, it is okay to show more compassion, care, loyalty towards people who are our friends and are loyal to us. It is like a knife, which can be used to cut an apple or can be used to murder

Related Documents

Related Topics