check for plagarism. In the following scenario, I will examine the ethical implication using utilitarianism as a consequential theory and the non$-$consequential theories of Emmanuel Kant and W$.$D$.$ Ross.

$$At a local restaurant a prominent politician has arrived and has been seated for dinner. Several of the serving staff are upset because they disagree with the politician$$s political views. Some are requesting the manager on duty speak to the politician and ask him$/$or her to leave. Explain what the manager should do in this situation and how they could resolve the conflict between the servers and the politician in the most ethical manner.$($HU$2452024)$

We notice that the restaurant manager is faced with addressing an issue posed to him by the staff. There are three things that the manager must first think about when decided the choice he will make. First, he is representing a restaurant that he does not own and therefore must decide based on factors like how the owner would want his business to be viewed. Secondly, the manager must think of his staff and how they will react to his decision. Third, he must think about the current patrons of the restaurant and how his decision will impact them.

It is important to note that in the United States there are no laws that explicitly prevent discrimination based on political views either from the employer or the employee. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of $1964$ speaks of race, color, religion, and Notional origin $($Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, $1964).$ Not political affiliation. In this particular scenario we do not know what the restaurant policies are regarding political affiliation but since the patron was seated, we will assume that the owning parties of the restaurant want to provide an establishment for dining that is free from discrimination of any kind in relation to service and also strives to provide a conflict free work environment for its employees. If these principles are not representing of the restaurants policies, then the managers actions could significantly change but for the sake of this critique I will assume that they are.

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, evaluates actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize overall happiness or well$-$being. In the scenario, the manager must assess potential outcomes of asking the politician to leave. Opting not to do so would likely prevent negative consequences such as public backlash, harm to the restaurant$$s reputations, and potential legal issues. Moreover, it preserves the politician$$s dignity and prevents further conflict escalation. Thus, the utilitarian course of action would be for the manager to allow the politician to stay, ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number.

Note: if the politicians views have resulted in law breaking acts and is virtually universally condemned by society then the act of removing him or her from the establishment may in fact be the best course of action to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

Contrastingly, Kantian ethics, a non$-$consequentialist theory, prioritizes duties and principles independent of consequences. Here, the rights of all parties involved must be considered. The politician possesses the right to dine at the restaurant without discrimination based on political views. Simultaneously, the serving staff have the right to their personal beliefs and a duty to provide unbiased service. Therefore, the managers ethical duty lies in respecting the politicians right while ensuring the staff$$s comfort. This could involve reassigning servers or mediating respectful conversations to uphold individual rights. Regardless of how the manager achieves his goal he must abide by certain acts being right or wrong in themselves.

W$.$D$.$ Ross$$ pluralistic deontology introduces prima facie duties, suggesting that multiple moral principles must be balanced. In this scenario, the manager must weigh the politician$$s prima facie right to dine undisturbed against the staff$$s prima facie duty of fidelity to their employer and the right to work in a conflict$-$free environment. Achieving this balance requires addressing staff concerns while maintaining a professional atmosphere. Open communication, mutual respect and adherence to impartial service principles are crucial in fulfilling these duties.

In conclusions, managing conflicts ethically involves a nuanced understanding of ethical principles. In the scenario presented, the managers decision should prioritize minimizing harm, promoting fairness, and upholding the right of all parties involved. By considering utilitarian, Kantian, and Rossian perspectives, the manager can navigate the situation in a manner that preserves professional relationships, fosters inclusivity, and maintains the restaurant$$s reputation as a welcoming establishment for all patrons.