A634.9.5.RB- A Reflection of Our Learning

I am a bit amazed that until this class I have never taken an ethics class. I was not really sure what to expect. I was excited because I heard rave reviews about this class. I was also nervous because I thought that even though I try to be on the up and up that maybe I should be worried that I am going to find out how tragically immoral I am. Luckily, it turns out I am doing alright! While there were aspects I found challenging I feel like there was a great value in checking in with these ethical concepts to reinforce doing the right thing even when it is tempting not to or when you just aren’t sure it matters. It does matter. Without further ado, these are a few of my favorite things:

One of the first things I realized when I started examining ethical theories is that I am largely not a consistent person. Consistency was one of the most interesting themes to me throughout the course. I have the Piccadilly of ethical beliefs. I pick and choose, just like at the restaurant, what I believe. I have mentioned before in my blog that if Jack Bauer breaks a bunch of laws and acts unethically but at the end of the day saves the world then the ends justify the means. I do not usually tend to allow consequentialist ideas to be my guiding light. The saving the world analogy is an above and beyond circumstance. If it is a regular Tuesday and you are trying to make it to the bus on time and you push people down and shove past them just to make it that is quite a stretch. That would be an example of hiding behind ethical theories. Just when you think I am going to bob I weave and my opinions are not necessarily predictable based on one theory. However, a classmate of mine and a dear friend told me that no ethicist worth their moral salt sticks to one ethical theory for everything. I learned that it is okay to examine things as if they are relevantly different, which is what universalizability asks of us. I fail to be consistent in the concrete, but I would like to believe it is because I am keeping a watchful eye for relevant differences.

This brings me to one of the biggest eye openers for me and perhaps my favorite lesson, moral relativism. I read the LaFollette text and was still at a loss. A couple articles later and Pecorino dropped some knowledge on me. Another source to feeling that I am inconsistent lies in the fact that we have relativistic ideas operating in my system. I concur that unless you walk in another’s shoes it is hard to say what is right for someone else. What is right for me might not be for someone else. I am not one to push my beliefs off on another person, especially if I only assume I understand what someone else has gone through. On the other hand, there are Middle Eastern countries sometimes believe in honor killings. If a woman is raped the family kills them. That seems pretty harsh when in our society we tell victims it is not their fault, because it isn’t and we try to help them piece together their lives. To me honor killings are insane. But here I am with my relativistic ideas in conflict with each other. I am holding two opposing ideas at the same time. It blows my mind how I thought I was so open-minded, but within mere sentences I am contradicting myself. The LaFollette text points out that not all moral beliefs are equally as good.  

Lastly, when critical thinking meets logical fallacy and ethics we meet the slippery slope argument. There are two types plausible and implausible. Slippery slope arguments are a form of logical fallacy that is based upon a chain of reasoning that follows a format such A leads to B, and if B is not morally permissible, therefore A is unacceptable and we should stop A. “The key claim in the fallacy is that taking the first step will lead to the final, unacceptable step. Arguments of this form may or may not be fallacious depending on the probabilities involved in each step” (Dowden, n.d., para. 2). This reminds me that just because something is said at work, by a friend, in the media etc. that is might not be a valid claim. This reminds me of mudslinging in political campaigns. “This candidate was seen watching Fifty Shades of Grey in theatres; therefore they are too immoral to be our leader!” Okay, that is a total parody and was never said… but if you think about it that is kind of how slippery slope arguments work. It also reminds me how those with certain moral beliefs can let fear become fuel for anger and how there can be an outcry to stop social progress. I am thinking about Equal Marriage Rights here. When these arguments are used it can impede our ethical thinking about what we ought to do with often unfounded and incomplete thoughts that are not based upon fact or critical thinking.

References:

Dowden, B. (n.d.). Fallacies. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SlipperySlope

LaFollette, H. (2007) The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA; Blackwell Publishing

Pecorino, P.A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved from: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm

A634.8.3.RB- Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Gun control or the right to bear arms… this ethical issue is something in which I feel surprisingly complacently neutral. My understanding is also fairly rudimentary and I feel that there is so much mudslinging on both sides that the waters are not clear enough to discern fact or fiction when listening to televised debates and conversations, after all just because it is said does not make it correct. So this is how I initially started thinking about this issue: Some people have guns and others do not. Some people like guns and others do not. Sometimes people fear what they do not know or understand and this could be true for both sides of the argument. Guns can be used to hurt people and hurting people is something I am passionately against. Though anything can be used to hurt people, which is why the definition of what constitutes a weapon has been expanded for when people get creative. In fact, airplanes were involved in terrorism and glue and spray paint are used as drugs, sadly even the most innocent seeming items can be turned into something dangerous.

My experience with guns began when I was ten and my dad bought me a Daisy Red Ryder BB gun. Funny enough I had not seen A Christmas Story until last year despite the fact it airs for twenty-four hours on Christmas Eve almost every year without fail.  I had very clear instructions that I was never to touch this outside of my dad’s supervision and this is something I honored. I loved going in the woods and shooting soda cans that we found off of logs. A couple years ago a bunch of my friend’s and I got together and did some target practice. I have several friends’ that have extensive training with guns so they were teaching me and some of the other novices the proper handling and use. I am virtually at sniper status with a .22 rifle (soda cans beware!), but I have no business with a handgun. I do not feel capable that I would not shoot my own miniature fingers off. This became one of my many concerns of why I did not want a gun in my own home. I felt that an accident was more likely to occur, with my luck, than the need to use it to protect myself. Eventually we settled on a shotgun and it took a long time for me not to be paranoid that my cat was not going to make it shoot the house, us, itself, the other cats, the dog etc. somehow magically, you know because magic makes guns discharge…

One of my main qualms for forms of gun control is that I am not a proponent of challenging the Constitution, if our founding fathers felt it important enough to want to include this then there has to be something with historical context that they felt we would be disadvantaged not being able to bear arms. I have never lived in a time in which this was not a freedom we had; I cannot imagine what it was like during the creation of this law. My other issue is that when has banning anything ever caused stopped anything. LaFollette and I were on the same page in terms of the example of prohibition. Outlawing alcohol made it that much more of a commodity with back channels, bootlegging, the rise of the speak easy, gangsters, and crime. Anyone with alcohol was automatically a criminal. Illegal drugs are also not sold on the open market, yet they exist. At this point trying to enforce severe control or banishment would not mean the disappearance or use of guns, though that is not a terrible idea at its core.

Ethically I feel like LaFollette makes another good point that there is not really a need for bullets to be able to pierce bulletproof vests. My frequent ethics argument is just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should. So certain gun control actions could have its benefits. Conversely, if someone other than the police are wearing Kevlar that would make stopping the situation perhaps more difficult. So to get a little more perspective I wanted to get both sides of the story from both gun proponents and those that support gun control. Pratt makes a strong case in his blog that schools like Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi were able to stop a situation with the proper use of a gun before the situation escalated in 1997. Some store owners during the LA riots kept their businesses standing while others burned to the ground. This was attributed to the fact that they loaded down their store with large capacity gun magazines for assault weapons (Pratt, 2012). Pratt goes on to make note that in 2012 “all of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country, with the exception of one, have taken place in gun-free zones” (Pratt, 2012, para. 3). On the other hand, the Brady Campaign is working diligently to ensure that guns are sold with a background check so that they are not sold to fugitives, felons, of domestic abusers. While some, like Pratt, are not so keen on the work of the Brady campaign as their vision is to change gun laws, gun culture, and the gun industry.

Is it possible to meet in the middle between making sure citizens are safe and can protect themselves when chaos ensues simultaneously while controlling who can get a gun? That is a large goal with a lot of conflict toward the other’s point of view. Ethically it is hard to say that either is completely wrong or completely right. For now I am still sticking with the opinion that taking something away doesn’t mean it will go away or the problem will be solved. While there are differently places on the scale that those who support gun control sit the answer is not to completely take guns away. There is no indication in history that such a thing has been successful.

References:

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2015, from http://www.bradycampaign.org/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Pratt, E. (2012, December 19). Stricter Gun Control Laws Will Only Make Citizens Less Safe. Retrieved May 17, 2015, from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-sandy-hook-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-control/stricter-gun-control-laws-will-only-make-citizens-less-safe

A634.7.4.RB- Ethics and Behaviors

Ethics and portraying our values is not only important in our personal lives but also our professional lives, because like any open system, one feeds back into the other. Two interesting, but brief videos outline the ideas of ethical behavior and the costs in which it can have when we make a departure from our best behaviors. At first it can seem rather innocent, but isn’t one action a possible gateway into another?

Dr. Bruce Weinstein, “The Ethics Guy”, discusses ethical intelligence saying that ethically intelligent people know how to use this awareness the right way. Being ethically intelligent doesn't just mean knowing what is right, but also having the courage to do what is right. Weinstein's work simplifies five principles: do no harm, make things better, respect others, be fair, and be compassionate. Dr. Weinstein believes that making ethics our main concern is the best way to lead a richer, more fulfilled life and by taking ethics seriously, we serve as role models to our children and increase the chances that they will go into the world and make us proud (Weinstein, 2007, n.p.).

Chuck Gallagher’s concepts appear to expand on why behaving ethically is paramount. He explains that the choices you make will have a lasting effect on the life that you lead. Our choices and decisions do not go away after they have been made. Gallagher uses a slippery slope argument regarding professional ethics and generally accepted behavior to illustrate how easy moving from unethical to illegal may be:

Not good for the customer: Selling a customer something they do not need

Not good for company: Using company resources for personal use

Policy violation: Misrepresenting expense account charges

Unethical behavior: Harassment, information sharing

Illegal: Actions that result in jail time

I have been with ERAU for a year and a half and have never seen my superiors behave unethically, and I do feel that they really are models of ethical leaders for our company. When I think about Gallagher’s slippery slope argument of ethical behavior I realize that the area I am most guilty of is doing something not good for the company. I have printed tickets to a concert before I dashed out the door on personal leave (vacation time) or have printed an assigned reading article for school. This is bad and I should definitely not do this ever again! The paper, the printer, the ink… they are not mine for my personal needs. These supplies are purchased from the money we have in our budget. Ultimately it is a form of stealing and that is not okay. I know I am not the only one at fault from this type of petty theft, but that does make it right for me when now I see the error of my ways. 

There have been times when it is questionable whether I was being ethical toward the company. ERAU allows employees a couple hours a week to pursue their own educational endeavors as part of our culture and policy. While there are plenty of my colleagues pursuing degrees I do not believe anyone is utilizing this time allowance because we are in the Department of Online Learning and are interested in doing Online programs due to the flexibility and also to understand the student life cycle better. Others who have used the time usually went to class on campus. I know some like to do assignments on their lunch breaks using their work computers. I have done this from time to time, too. I am not sure if using the company’s computer to do our academic work is bad for the company or not. After all we are using the company’s resource, the computer, but the company’s culture is to pursue education and wants to give that to the employees. I think this would be a good policy to clarify. If we start to believe that this action is okay, what else becomes okay…? I circle back to printing articles and then possibly other stuff like concert tickets. It really is a slippery slope.

That lapse of judgement aside, I have seen a lot of unethical behavior, especially when I worked as a paralegal. I have worked in several firms, but one stood out as more corrupt than the others. To be fair, I worked in a mid to large sized firm when I got start in the business that could wipe the floor with some of these other places in terms of standards and ethics, so there are good places out there. I won’t go into details because when you are defending people who have done bad things you feel you become part of their wrongdoing by being part of the defense team. I didn’t stay long in that position, but it is one of a few very defining moments in my life that shaped me and what I believe about the world.

Seeing the things I saw is why I am passionate for wanting to do better for myself and also wanting everyone to do better in general. Dr. Weinstein’s advice is that ethical intelligence and behavior can make us feel good. If egoism alone is not a reason then knowing that acting with ethical intelligence is beneficial for everyone should be a good enough reason. Let’s do better for ourselves and others without distorting what that means.

References:

Gallagher, C. (2013, January 7). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares Straight Talk about Ethics! - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

Weinstein, B. (2012, August 24). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy - YouTube. YouTube. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

Weinstein, B. (2007, January 10). Five Easy Principles? - Businessweek. Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-01-10/five-easy-principles-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

A634.6.3.RB- What Are Virtues?

When I hear the word virtue admittedly I think to what I learned in movies about protecting a woman’s virtue and that centers mostly around chastity, which is in fact a virtue according to Ben Franklin’s 13 virtues. Ben Franklin created a program that has been used as a guide for living through principles in order to be a person of good character. So what are virtues? Aristotle holds that a virtuous person must do the appropriate action, do so habitually, enjoy acting virtuously, know that it is virtuous, and know why it is virtuous (LaFollette, 2007). Ben Franklin lists them as: temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. Of the thirteen three stand out to me, I would like to debate one, industry, whereas two of the virtues an immediate need in society, sincerity and justice.

Industry is defined by Franklin as “Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions” (n.d.). I could end the argument by citing moderation and attributing needing to observe industry in moderation and just be done with it. That would be a disservice to the point this virtue instills, which is to live with purpose. Anytime the word all, always, never are used it tends to paint you into a corner. This virtue would be better served by removing all, though regardless of that edit I suppose one could argue between what is necessary and unnecessary, which is why I wish to debate this virtue. I work very hard to have a full-time job as an academic advisor. I have 475 students and a very active student population. I find purpose in helping others. During my free time I am pursuing a Master’s degree. I am having a very hard time squeezing in regular exercise and have been cutting corners to fit everything into a day. There are times when industry is just something I am maxed out with and fully at capacity. For me not to get sloppy with my work or miss a detail sometimes I need mindless activities in order to feel renewed. If the renewal benefits becoming productive and pursuing industry is it necessary? Personally the answer is one hundred percent yes. All work, no play makes Jack a dull boy. If the Shining has taught us nothing else it shows us that industry is an important virtue, to a point.

Two virtues that would serve us well right now are sincerity and justice. These virtues are needed in the micro, meaning that we need this on an individual level so that it can impact us on a macro level by permeating into our society. Sincerity is defined as, “Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly” (n.d.). As a millennial I grew up watching Clueless and other wonderfully delicious 90’s movies and 90’s things such as girl power and empowerment in general. I believe in standing up for yourself and others. However, just because it is on your mind does not mean it needs to be shared. Facebook, I am looking at you. Furthermore, just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should, this includes what we say. Tact is a graceful skill that never goes out of style. There is a common perception about rabbit breeding and how quickly rabbits can populate. If you consider it thoughtfully, a lack of sincerity would be the virtue equivalent to that, it spreads and repeats quickly.  When we speak ill of or to others or our actions are ill to others it can have emotional implications on that person that shapes them which is shown through actions and choices. If we stir emotions with a negative spoon we perpetuate that same action in others. Innocents become tainted and a cycle begins. This cannot become our norm. We have to take care of ourselves and others by treating people better than with insincerity, falseness, hollowness, distrust, or trickery.

Justice is another ticking time bomb that we must do better at understanding and executing. “Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty” (n.d.). If this idea is abused it becomes a slippery slope. It depends on what another person’s definition is of what is considered wrong. Some would say that anything they disliked is doing wrong. That is not really what this means. The six pillars of character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship and the golden rule can be pulled into this definition by making a generalization of treating others how you want to be treated. We are all in this world trying to make the best of it and do what we can. Inside each of us is a fragile being, a soul. Nothing in this world entitles us to turn away from our duty of caring for each of us as a human being. Some of us do a better job of this than others it doesn’t mean we should give up on needing justice as a virtue. It just means we have to keep going.

Maybe industry and justice would be a good pairing. Lose no time and employ yourself fervently in justice, in not wronging others, in not hurting another, in being steadfast in our duties to others as we are all human beings and when you do these things do them with sincerity. It  may not be a flawless recipe but it is a good start to working toward harmony.

References:

Ben's 13 Virtues. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA; Blackwell Publishing