Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace is an issue that demands immediate attention due to assault’s violation of moral principles. Sexual assault particularly impacts women, both in the United States and around the world, so this paper will use the female pronoun, although male and gender non-binary persons can also be victims of sexual harassment and assault. Ninety percent of all rape victims are female, and 80 percent of victims of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace are women. Similarly, one in six women have experienced or will experience attempted or completed rape during their lifetime, while one in 33 men have or will experience attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace pose ethical dilemmas because assault violates legal and moral principles of a right to personal autonomy, imposes crippling harm on victims, and reinforces social inequalities. Sexual assault in the workplace exposes America’s patriarchal workplace culture and the nation’s tolerance of misogyny, posing deeper ethical concerns. This blog post uses consequentialist and universalist ethical reasoning paired with Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative to argue sexual assault in the workplace is unethical because of the assailant’s intentions in attacking another individual and the negative outcomes for victims of sexual assault.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Sexual harassment and assault in the workplace is unethical because the rejection of all rights to personal autonomy and consent creates an anarchical world that fails to uphold moral principles of integrity and self-ownership. Assault disrespects victims because it deliberately dismisses global protection mechanisms established to maintain the individual’s right to consent and herself. No individual would favor being assaulted by another, a person committing sexual assault favors perpetrators and creates inequality between victims and attackers. Kant upholds that individual rights must be protected in order to shield potential victims from attackers and ensure their rights are maintained because no one would agree with a universal right to violate the rights of others because sexual assault breaks international protection doctrines and human rights declarations.
Normative Consequentialist Theory: deems sexual harassment and assault in the workplace immoral considering the grave outcomes for victims of sexual assault. If the outcomes of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace are negative, then sexual assault is bad. Sexual assault in the workplace debilitates victims and robs individuals of their rights to internal peace and stability. Assault is a consequentialist bad because the victim will likely develop post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, or other mental and psychological damage as a result of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace. Similarly, if a woman developed an unwanted pregnancy, contracted a sexually transmitted infection, or became dependent on substances as a result of her assault, consequentialists would argue strongly against sexual assault because of the instance’s negative ramifications. The fact victims of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace endure excruciating psychological and physical pain and harm – both negative outcomes – demonstrates the issue of assault in the workplace is a consequentialist bad.
Relative Universalist Theory: views sexual harassment and assault in the workplace as problematic because of assault’s devaluation of women’s rights. Universalists take issue with the fact women do not speak out against sexual assault in the workplace — not because they blame women, but because a woman’s fear of retaliation and the general public’s unlikelihood of believing her testimony show women are treated with less moral worth than men. The fact women have less fewer rights and less social protection than men when opening up about instances sexual harassment and assault an inequality gap between men and women that universalists argue should be closed. Universalists object to this issue of sexual assault in the workplace because assault subjugates women and values a criminal above an innocent individual. Some normative universalists would then take their belief to say assailants and victims are equal and deserve equal protection; relative universalists would consider equal protection to mean assailants have equal rights to personal autonomy — and would be equally subject to social punishment as a result of violating another’s autonomy. Relative universalists would recognize the injustice committed by attackers and fight to defend the equal moral worth of women because the situation of sexual assault in the workplace demands the protection and advocacy of women’s rights.