Numerous studies have been conducted regarding porn addiction at workplace This research essay includes the case study of Craig Lindley a director of human resources who was porn addict and use to spend one-hour watching porn at the workplace. This research focuses on some arguments regarding terminating him from the company is a good or bad decision based on different ethical theories. American psychiatric association has rejected the hypersexual disorder as a new diagnosis in the most recent 5th edition of the diagnostic and statical manual of mental disorder due to lack of evidence and researches (as cited in Montgomery- Graham, 2017). On the other hand, the world health organization (WHO) include it in diagnosis as sexual compulsive behaviour disorder in the ICD -11 ( ley , J.D , 2018). Based on this evidence, Craig Lindley’s must be suffering from a sexual compulsive disorder . AI Smetana was Craig’s old friend so he should help him in seeking counselling to overcome his porn addiction as Craig was crying in front of him explaining his condition. By treating Craig differently AI is not doing any discrimination because Craig was suffering from a particular type of disorder, which is opposite to the case of a fired employee who was violating the privacy of the people in the company. Privacy is the major concern among businesses, and the ex-employee was playing with the personal information of others which is wrong according to the privacy act and virtue of ethics (Boatright, 2012). Applying care ethics AI should help his friend, by doing this he can save his friends family from the financial crisis. Because Craig’s wife is not aware of Craig’s condition, if he loses his job due to porn addiction he is going to face major trauma in his personal and professional life. He is not going to get any good job in future as he was terminated from a company. AI can save his director and his friend by helping Craig in getting rid of hypersexuality rather than firing him. Because if he fires Craig he is going to face a case in court, as sex addict can give arguments in the case for termination from a job due to sex addiction based on sexual compulsive disorder. ( Ley, J .D, 2018 ). However, after the case, he may have to rehire the Craig as he can win the case based on sexual addiction, as in one case in brazil for diagnosis of hypersexual disorder an accountant lady was legally allowed to watch porn at work (Douglas, 2018). Viewing porn at the workplace is not considered illegal only if the person who has hypersexuality disorder tells his employer about his addiction (David, 2018). While according to me it is not good to hire employees with porn addiction disorder as it will not be safe for the work environment. It brings bad vibes to the workplace. Watching porn is corrupting human relationships as it produces detrimental effects on the mind by influencing urges for sex. This makes to view women as sex objects which can be seen as sexual harassment at the workplace. Applying virtue of ethics it is wrong by wondering women at the workplace to be nude rather than considering their intelligence, respect, sense of drollness they bring to the company. Moreover, it is also promoting prostitution and pornography worldwide.AI should have developed policies regarding the usage of a company computer. Craig has violated the privacy policy of the company if he was aware of this policy. After all, it is wrong to misuse the workplace computer for his personal stuff even if he has arguments regarding the compulsive sexual disorder because it was his duty to tell his employer about his sexual behaviour rather than violating the workplace atmosphere.
My judgement for the case will be changed if he has violated the company’s policy so he should be terminated. For having workplaces free from sexual harassments and safe for customers, companies must implement the policies strongly and talk about them with the employees in the orientation. Based on these policies, AI has not violated the privacy of Craig because it was not Craig’s personal computer. ( Boat right, 2012). Craig was misusing the company’s resource so AI was right on his side to ask about computer usage. AI was right to confront him because a person has putt some allegations on the director, and if the director is not doing things well then it is going to leave a bad impact on the other employees. Similarly, AI Smetana and Rayburn unlimited are committed to honesty and integrity. so, by not firing Craig they are doing wrong based on Kantianism because they should follow the rules even if they are going to lose the person who was serving the company from a long time. Because he was in a good position, so if any female employee came to know about Craig’s sexual behaviour she will be not comfortable while working under the boss who is a porn addict. I as AI would not fire him as discussed above based on care ethics I should help him in seeking professional help.In conclusion, Craig should not be terminated concerning his friendship and service towards the company about care ethics.
References
- Study: Porn Addiction in the Workplace
- Treatment for Sexual Compulsive Disorder
- Fair Work Ombudsman: Unpaid Work and Internships in Australia
- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: Privacy Rights
- Harvard Business Review: Data Privacy
127 our experts are availableright now
