A634.9.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

A Reflection of Our Learning

          During the past nine weeks, I can conclude I have taken something away from every lesson. In identifying just three, I will select the lessons that were most thought-provoking and cause for self-reflection more so than others. Overall, the course has helped me better understand alternative considerations as it pertains to ethical decisions as well as to the extent these ethical decisions and behaviors affect others. Through self-reflection, I have been able to re-evaluate how I have not always made decisions to act or behave in accordance with my morals. Becoming aware of these hypocrisies caused me to look more closely at my decisions so I may better align them with my values and beliefs.
          Looking back at the lesson on whether or not management is a true profession was a valuable look into what makes a profession a profession in fact. The traditional 'professions' that are based on a specific skillset that society relies heavily upon by their citizens for accounting, law and order, for healthcare, for infrastructure and religion and governed by its own professional body with an adherence to a particular code of conduct is the standard by which we determine what is, or is to become a profession. Barker (2010) shares "True professions have codes of conduct, and the meaning and consequences of those codes are taught as part of the formal education of their members...unlike doctors and lawyers, managers don't adhere to a universal and enforceable code of conduct"
          Management takes a variety of skills and capabilities to plan, organize, coordinate, synchronize and help execute the efforts of their subordinates utilizing any and all related resources in the accomplishment of given objectives. While management has numerous honorable aspects in the way of contributing to society, it lacks the focused skillset, a governing body, a code of conduct and a controlling professional school of education. "...neither the boundaries of the discipline of management or consensus on the requisite body of knowledge exists. No professional body is granted control, no formal entry or certification is required, no ethical standards are enforced, and no mechanism can exclude someone from practice...moreover, management can never be a profession, and policies predicated on the assumption that it can are inherently flawed" (Barker, 2010).
          Another wonderful lesson I enjoyed learning more about was the ethics of punishment. While our society is imbued with judgment and condemnation, we rarely question the presumed justifications and if they balance with our morals and growth as a society. In my experience, misery loves company! In other words, when a person or persons feel hurt or wronged by another, despite what the facts may show, the hurt or wronged party nearly always requests retribution. In doing so, what do these retributive acts, or sentences offer us besides perhaps a sense of fairness? It is difficult to measure pain, determine proportional but effective punishments and understand what it takes to heal mental and emotional injury. Digenarro Reed & Lovett (2008) states, "Some scholars (LaVigna & Donnellan, 1986) have argued that punishment is unnecessary, claiming that reinforcement-based strategies provide the efficacy of punishment without harmful side-effects, thereby making punishment unethical."
          While it appears that little research studies relating to why we should not negatively punish the accused compared as to why we should, it is difficult to empirically show and thus justify other non-harmful strategies. Until this data becomes substantial, it may be some time before our justice system changes for the better. As credible philosophers such as Immanuel Kant continue to offer dispositions in support of 'an eye for an eye' rule of law, we will continue to be challenged in showing the efficacy of new ways to express retributivism through our justice system. "- Kant, qualifying the right to impose criminal punishment as "the right of the sovereign as the supreme power to inflict pain upon a subject on account of a crime committed by him," lays down the philosophical foundations of retributivism asserting that punishment 'must in all occasions be imposed only because the individual on whom it is inflicted has committed a crime" (Materni, 2013).
          Although it may be simplistic by way of an example, I believe 'The Train Dilemma' offers a great deal in terms of considering not only what we think is right, moral and ethical, but the rights of those affected by our decisions where we would not typically look to in consideration. Understanding now that choosing a greater number of lives over a lesser amount may be seen as the more ethical choice on the surface, however, in doing so, we must look at all the facts, consider what we do not know, what assumptions we are making and what options do we have from which to choose (if time allows). In the version of the Train Dilemma where we have five children on the tracks that a train is headed towards while we are in control of a switch that, if thrown, would redirect the train to another track where there was one child. Immediately we all think to save the greater amount of lives, but in doing so, we take away the right of the one child that is not in harm's way and place them there. If we thought to redirect the train was the best choice, would it still be if the single child was one of our own?

          In the train version where we are asked to choose between throwing ourselves, or another onto the track to save the group of which we are part of, most people would choose to throw another in order to save themselves and the group. Sachdeva et al. (2015) shares "...people would approve the killing to save oneself more than killing to save others...when the decision-maker was part of the group at risk, he or she was more likely to approve of sacrificing of another person to save the group and the self, relative to the condition where the decision-makers life was not at stake." I find it interesting to think while most people act on behalf of self-preservation, society still believes that self-sacrifice for the greater is the more ethical decision.
          Throughout this course, I have enjoyed watching my curiosities and perspectives on how I would apply what I have learned and become aware of as it relates to myself, my work-life and the community in which I live. I can say to each extent that it will be my constant self-monitoring of the application of ethics to become the person I want to be as well as the example for others within my organization and society at large for which to follow.
          Life continues to show me there are numerous factors that people leverage to rationalize their immoral behavior and decisions. I find typically their decisions are solely fear-based; afraid of not getting, having or doing what they value most at the moment. The problem? Indifference. The solution? Education. If society 'does not know what they do not know,' then how can we expect society to make better ethical decisions?

Reference:

Barker, R. (2010, August.). The big idea: No, management is not a profession [Harvard Business Review]. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/07/the-big-idea-no-management-is-not-a-profession

DiGenarro Reed, F. D. & Lovett, B. J. (2008). Views on the efficacy and ethics of punishment: Results from a national survey. International Journey of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4(1), 61-67. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2009-04078-006.pdf

Materni, M. C. (2013). Criminal punishment and the pursuit of justice. Retrieved from https://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2011/09/michele-materni-criminal-punishment.pdf

Sachdeva, S, Iliev, R., Ekhtiari, H. & Dehghani, M. (2015, June 15.). The role of self-sacrifice in moral dilemmas. PLOS ONE. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127409

A634.8.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

          There is and has been much controversy over gun ownership and the regulation of ownership for many years. I think the debate on whether or not U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms will continue on for some time, but not because of rights afforded us, but because many believe we have a moral right to bear arms. Rights must refer to a right provided by the local, state or federal government, or as an inherent right, such as the right to defend ourselves. If we thought it enough to defend ourselves with a stick, then so be it, however, our society has provided experiences telling us that a stick will not be enough. "Now a reasonable means of self-defense is one that is able to reliably, effectively and practically deliver a proportionate amount of force in response to a threat of harm. Guns seem to clearly satisfy this description...This isn't just armchair theorizing either: there is overwhelming agreement within the empirical literature that guns are extremely effective in self-defense and are used frequently for this purpose" (Hsiao, 2018).

          So if we may have a moral right to bear arms, why the need for a constitutional amendment? As we understand our New England history, families always bore arms in support of defending one's self, family and personal property. Based on this I would speculate that our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that this moral right was afforded to future generations that may not come from the same democratic beliefs of the day. In line with this, I do believe a citizen's moral right to own firearms ought to be recognized and honored at the local, state and federal government levels. "If guns didn't protect anyone from assault and didn't work for hunting, they wouldn't have their present value. This suggests that gun rights must be (1) derivative from more general rights and (2) contingent upon them serving certain purposes. In societies in which guns do not serve such purposes related to any basic rights, there is no moral right to gun ownership. But, once again, we have assumed there is such a right in the US today" (DeGrazia, 2014). However, exercising this right comes with great responsibility, and with such responsibility must come oversight as it pertains to thorough background investigations. 

          Society has changed so much since the late 18th century, we implement processes in support of protecting other citizens against those applying for certain types of firearms. In addition, policies regulating such ownership of these firearms ought to do so in accordance with local ordinances. Barry et al. (2018) states, "Policies with high public support and minimal support gaps by gun ownership status included universal background checks, greater accountability for gun dealers unable to account for their inventory, higher safety training standards for concealed carry permit holders, improved reporting of records related to mental illness for background checks, gun prohibitions for persons subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders, and gun violence restraining orders."

          On the other hand, if the state and federal governments made owning a firearm illegal, save those jobs entailing security and law enforcement, perhaps crimes conducted with firearms would no longer be an issue. However, I cannot see how the government can regulate the black market, ensuring firearms never fall into the 'wrong' hands. With the onset of 3D printing, it goes to show that innovation too can create supply and demand markets. Society has shown us all that in the absence of laws and regulation, such activities will occur. Nonetheless, if firearms were removed from society and banned from manufacturing for consumers, I think there would be much less firearm-related crimes. Jehan et al., (2018) share, " The United States ranks number one in the list of countries with most privately owned guns with 101 guns for every 100 individuals. This has resulted in the loss of 32 lives and the treatment for 140 people every single day for gun-related violence. The overall economic burden associated with gun violence actually exceeds more than $100 billion dollars every year."

          Perhaps what we think is moral, based on our basic rights to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is not in fact basic. LaFollete (2007) states, "A fundamental right is a non-derivative right protecting a fundamental interest...I see no compelling reason to think owning a gun is a fundamental interest." However, he also goes on to share, "Wheeler disagrees. He argues that the right to bear arms is fundamental since guns are the best way to protect our fundamental interest in self-defense (1997)."

References:

Barry, C. L., D., Webster, D. W., Stone, E, Crifasi, C. K., Vernick, J. S., & McGinty, E. E. (2018, July.). Public support for gun violence protection policies among gun owners and non-gun owners in 2017. American Journal of Public Health. Retrieved from https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304432

DeGrazia, D. (2014, March.). The case for moderate gun control. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 24(1), 1-25. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1523893593?pq-origsite=summon

Hsiao, T. (2018, October 31.). Natural rights, self-defense, and the right to own firearms. The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute. Retrieved from https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

LaFollete, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

A634.7.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Egoism: Psychological and Moral

          Psychological and ethical egoism, according to LaFollette (2007) are theories about one's motivation for acting in one's own self-interests. If one is solely interested in seeing another appearing appreciative for they do for them, they would satisfy the theory of ethical egoism. If one is solely interested in getting something out of doing something for another, they would be satisfying the theory behind psychological egoism. Psychological egoism purports that selfishness is inherent in the act, therefore, the motivation is substantiated by the desire to, and ought to please oneself. If this was still the case, yet one also believed that they ought to also be motivated by the desire to please another to some degree, despite what is received in return, then a more ethical choice has been made.
          Egoism, in my view, is generally an idea of one exercising their right and desires for self, based on self-interests, albeit they may be interested in someone else's welfare and not just their own. Harrison (1986) states, " the 'proof ' of egoism is not the content of one's choice but the fact of choice making. If it is my choice, then by definition it is the choice that is most satisfying or comforting to me. Consequently, I have acted in my self-interest." In practice and in general perception, I follow Harrison's view and ultimately see egoism as a way of exercising all decisions no matter the desire, or content, for the ultimate reason I am in fact making any choice is because it is the best choice of all alternative decisions at that time that is most satisfying.
          In any given organization or workplace, leading with ego when ethical decision ought to be made presents the psychological egoism thesis preventing consideration for anyone else's welfare save the one leading with ego. The implications of this scenario are the sacrificing of community and isolation of self. If we all remain so focused on decisions that were only self-servicing without ever considering others that may be affected by such decisions, we will lose the single most valuable asset we can have for one another - service.
          Leaders should get benefits commensurate with the level of leadership they exercise as well as the quality of leadership, and time they have put in. I feel this should be the standard across all levels of leadership displayed from non-management to the executive. While it is important to reward leadership for the level of responsibility, it is just as important to offer these same types of benefits to those who perform throughout the enterprise.
          In terms of rewards for promoting ethical behavior, leaders ought to be recognized at the enterprise level offering visibility and credentials. Perhaps an 'Ethical Leader of the Quarter' may be provided privileged parking, additional corporate stocks and five days paid leave during that quarter. Surely a show of appreciation is a great incentive to also promote ethical behavior.

References:

Harrison, L. (1986, June.). Egoism, altruism and market illusions: The limits of law and economics. Retrieved from Careerbuilder.com/advice/is-it-ok-to-lie-on-a-resume

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Westacott, E. (2017, March 6.). What is psychological egoism? Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-psychological-egoism-3573379

          

          

A634.6.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

What Are Virtues?

          "Virtues are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential" (Valasquez et al., 1988) In the Virtue Quiz, it showed I should pay particular attention to 'Order - a place for everything and everything in its place', but the funny thing is, I tend to live by that. I suppose the quiz was for general purposes only and not speaking to any specific circumstances taking into account typical behavioral patterns. However, the quiz did make me think about a few of the virtues of Ben Franklin that I consider once in a while I ought to improve on these three virtues are Temperance, Tranquility, and Moderation.

          In an effort to improve my life as it relates to the effective use of temperance, where Ben Franklin (n.d.), explained it as 'Eat not to dullness. Drink not to elevation' is to be more mindful in what I take into my life as well as what I give of myself - not to overindulge. When I eat, I tend to eat all that is on my plate simply because it was given to me; even if I find myself in discomfort afterward, regrettably. My intention is to stop when I am content with my meals. 

          In another virtue of Ben Franklin's, I plan to incorporate tranquility into my life where I often find myself engaged in principles. This may also fall into the virtue of moderation, however, the resultant is was I am after here. When there are times of trifling errors, I often can foresee the potential consequences based on experience. In an effort to keep from a great expense and loss of time, I tend to trifle over these things. Though I am not exactly sure how I will accomplish this as I have a strong feeling in terms of principles, and my intention to keep things from getting worse, perhaps my reaction would be better if I focused on an acceptance that these things will happen, and I can only offer support in the way of just being aware for my own purpose.

          Moderation would be the third virtue I would borrow from Ben Franklin. Moderation in Ben Franklin's terms was, 'Avoid extremes. Forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.' Exercising moderation in every area of one's life is a great virtue to be applied. In America, we tend to want more, bigger and greater value. I see areas in my life that may reflect some account of this and intend to be less extreme in my desires and resentments. While I know better than to beat myself up for such things, there is a difference between knowing and doing. I plan on engaging the 'doing' aspect where it would apply. "It is as individuals...that we encounter the problems inherent in different spheres of our activity in our lives: work, relationships, families, self-development, etc., and it is in our own lives, negotiating these problems, where we rise or fail to rise, to virtue in our excellence in negotiating them" (Brady, 2018).

References:

Brady, C. (2018, September 1.). A problem-based reading of nussbaum's virtue ethics. Retrieved from https://epochemagazine.org/a-problem-based-reading-of-nussbaums-virtue-ethics-4cacfa3e74d6

Pbs.org (n.d.). Ben's 13 virtues. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

Valasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S.J., & Meyer, M. J. (1988, January 1). Ethics and virtue. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/

A634.5.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Marketing With Integrity

          Society relies on businesses to provide a service or services to consumers, as well as other stakeholders, under the assumptions that business practices are ethical. Unfortunately, I think most consumers choose to turn a blind eye if they are getting a 'good deal,' or if their other stakeholders are making a significant amount of money enough to disregard the 'minor infraction.' Nowadays, companies are learning the value behind integrity. Companies no longer can rest on maintaining ethical standards in order to comply with legal statutes. "An integrity-based approach to ethics management combines concern for the law with an emphasis on managerial responsibility for ethical behavior" (Paine, 1994).

          One of the companies I have admired for their integrity is the Consumer Value Store (CVS). It may appear that the reason alone why CVS stopped selling cigarettes in September of 2014 was to align with lower insurance expenses and appeal to health-conscious consumers. However, CVS has done more than lose $2 Billion in revenue, it has included the Affordable Care Act (ACA) specialists such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants within their pharmacies aligning the company with a real health care model while lowering consumer health insurance costs (Friedman, 2014).

          While doing the right thing hurt CVS' profits in the near-term, the decision to promote themselves as part of the health care system has led them to a profitable market. In looking to do more than being perceived from their stakeholders as a health-oriented business, CVS has developed, implemented and publicly published a Code of Conduct that includes an entire section to integrity. In an introduction to the CVS Health Code of Conduct, Merlo (2019), President, and CEO of CVS Health, states, "Our reputation for superior customer service and excellence in execution, coupled with our high level of integrity and sound business practices, have helped us build a solid foundation of trust...that is why we all must commit to act with integrity while meeting our responsibilities." In addition to a very attractive Code of Conduct, CVS Health has recovered from fiscal losses in numerous beneficial ways such as earning trust, projecting a positive position on health, investing in their people and supporting their stakeholder's needs.

          Another company that has made market improvements through integrity is Google. This company is one of those companies that stand out and for good reason. It appears Google is involved in many projects that society at large could deem 'doing the right thing.' Some of these projects include creating efficient data centers, accelerating their transition to renewable energy, creating sustainable workplaces, and empowering users with new technologies to help ensure a cleaner and healthier future (Google.com, n.d.). Much like CVS Health, Google also has developed, implemented and publicly published a Code of Conduct. Within their code, Integrity is listed as #1 under their first topic, "Serve our Users." Under the Integrity header, Google speaks of trust and how it is their most valuable asset.

          Google's primary method of marketing is through testing and advertising the quality of their equipment and services. They offer a transparent communications model and a very diverse workforce. Their integrity is built into their systems and practices. If their integrity practices fail, Google would simply fail. Perhaps this is why integrity is at the top of the Code of Conduct.

          It's apparent the important role integrity plays in corporate ethics, and thus business. If companies continue to risk their livelihood, and that of their stakeholders, on questionable business practices by not investing in their employees with a living code of ethics, these companies may very well be without a competitive edge in the long-run. Operating on a marketing ploy that lacks integrity is bound to be discovered by the very stakeholders the company claims to support. In my future company, I will base integrity in the foundations of its purpose by developing my own Code of Conduct and ensuring the people are not only following it but enforcing it because the business is their own and the quality of business directly reflects on them.  Doing so, the marketing aspect would contrive an obligation through integrity to not only remain transparent of all activities but ensure its stakeholders are supportive in their applications."There is an evolving concern that organizations must also focus on the important communities and groups that hold the firm accountable for its actions" (Caner & Banu, 2014). This holistic approach to 'owning' the business you represent feeds back into the business; a company that is built on and promotes passion and integrity.

References:

Caner, D. and Banu, D. (2014, November). An overview and analysis of marketing ethics. International Journal of Academic Research and Social Sciences, (4)11, p. 151-158. doi:10.6007/UARBSS/v4-i11/1290

Google.com (n.d.). Alphabet investor relations: Google code of conduct. Retrieved from https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/

Friedman, L. F. (2014, September 4). Here's why cvs' decision to stop selling cigarettes makes perfect business sense. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/why-cvs-stopped-selling-cigarettes-2014-9

Merlo, L. (2019, March). Cvs health code of conduct. Retrieved from https://cvshealth.com/sites/default/files/cvs-health-code-of-conduct.pdf

Paine, L. s. (1994, April). Managing for organizational integrity {Harvard Business Review]. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1994/03/managing-for-organizational-integrity

          

A634.4.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Affirmative Action

          In the case of racism, how do people live, behave, react, look at the world, endure, work, and share in a world where their entire race has been discriminated against, emotionally abused, physically tortured and cast out of society? Why does the oppression of people continue in any fashion or form decades after laws have been put in place to forbid it? There is a deeply-rooted attitude that is transferred from generation to generation; individual to individual. People typically inherit the beliefs that there are folks of another race that are inferior and thus does not deserve the same opportunities, benefits, and rights as other races. In fact, they ought to be treated as less; and they have been for hundreds of years, and still are to varying degrees. "The purpose of Affirmative Action is to promote social equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people"(HG.org, n.d.).

          I believe Affirmative Action is ethically right. Affirmative Action is not intended to present a reverse discrimination program or law, but to provide opportunities that were at one time for hundreds of years not available. However, the fact that the black race has been beaten, lynched, burned, and tortured is not even the issue at hand. If all blacks were looked at and in fact treated as other races are, I do not feel there would be a desire for Affirmative Action laws. But how can that ever be the case when such things took place merely 50 years ago? The effects of an entire race over generations does not just 'go away' overnight. There are resentments, a sense of unfair treatment and downright anger that it ever happened in the first place, never mind the fact that it continues today. LaFollette (2007) states, " It (racism) does not wear a sheet or burn crosses. Now it lurks in the boardroom, the courtroom, and the classroom, embodied in our habits and enforced by our institutions. Since it is veiled, today's racist would never acknowledge that she is a racist." This is how racism endures.

          If children and students are not learning about discrimination in school from elementary through college, then the sins of the father may very well continue to promulgate through the generations. It is through Affirmative Action that we as a people can acknowledge our past and own it as a country. As citizens of a 'free' nation, we ought to be able to not only stand up for our own rights but for others as well. While Affirmative Action may not unroot racism or sexism, it can offer those whose race was grossly disadvantaged for so long, the opportunity to see the world in a new light, giving themselves a chance at a better life. "Blacks, it was felt, required - and were entitled to - special assistance until they can compete with whites on an equal basis" (Weiss, 1985).

          Although there are those who have an equal say against Affirmative Action, believing that their opportunities should not be shunted to no fault of their own. Working harder than everyone else to make the grade, the resume, the interview in order to give themselves the best shot against a level competitive playing field can foster a great sense of resentment against a disadvantaged that may have performed worse, or are less qualified yet was placed ahead. Similarly, "To be passed over because of membership one was born into, where this has nothing to do with one's individual qualifications for a position, can arouse strong feelings of resentment" (Nagel, 1981) However, had this hard worker understood what the disadvantaged's family, as well as the disadvantaged had endured and continue to endure, they may felt differently. In addition, if the hard worker knew that the school or company they were applying for had an Affirmative Action policy in place, well then they should not have much to complain about.

References:

HG.org (n.d.) What is affirmative action and why was it created? Retrieved fromhttps://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-affirmative-action-and-why-was-it-created-31524

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Nagel, T. (1981). A defense of affirmative action. Retrieved from http://ojs2.gmu.edu/PPPQ/article/viewFile/1258/1006

Weiss, R. J. (1985). We want jobs: The history of affirmative action (blacks, civil rights) [Dissertation]. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.plibproxy.pr.erau.edu/docview/303400788/7E0056B51F074A41PQ/29?accountid=10734

          

A634.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

The Bigger They Are

          Getting ahead in this world often depends on what you bring to the fight, the competition one must endure and the favorable perception of those that would be accepting you. The processes that force individuals to climb the ladders of success can be wrought with challenges from exams, degrees, and certifications to finances, applications, and interviews. If and when these individuals become the top of their game, they would have already experienced enough time proving themselves worthy of the advances and promotions attained in their field that many micro-sacrifices made have become the norm for them. Unfortunately, these norms or habits occur without any foresight or questions as to whether or not those decisions ought to have been made. Kramer (2003) shared, "They prove adept of overcoming whatever obstacles they encounter along the way...Yet just when they appear to have it all, these A-list performers demonstrate uncharacteristic lapse of professional judgment or personal conduct...Her (Peel) previously conservative tastes and modest habits went out the window; Ultimately, Peel's change in habits proved fatal."

          In society, this can be seen every day in the news. Watching and reading about President Clinton's escapades while in the Oval Office were confounding. Obviously, he had what it took to sell himself to the public with his education, accomplishments, and ability to persuade, however, to hear him confess indirectly about when he may have had sex "of any kind in any manner, shape or form." A mere case of "genius-to-folly syndrome" (Kramer, 2003). It was hard to believe, but if the President of the United States can succumb to the pressures, the glamour, the power, and opportunities to make poor judgments, who would be exempt? The truth is, no one is exempt from falling down the slippery slope of moral judgment and ethical decisions. The question is, can we protect ourselves from falling in the first place (Welch, 2016)?

          Often I am witness to a variety of infractions in the military. To see the lapse in judgment tends to reveal that some operators feel the rules do not apply to them, or that breaking the rule(s) will get them what everyone else wants, thus justifying their decisions. In a reported case when a Special Operations Forces (SOF) operator conducted an interrogation without the proper credentials which led to the death of the detained individual, it was this that spawned an ethics inquiry into how SOF conducts operations. Here, in order for this operator to get ahead, he "believed that getting ahead means doing things differently than ordinary people," and determined he can circumvent the rules without paying the consequences because of his misperceived community support of the egregious act. (Kramer, 2003).

          As a member of the United States Navy, I have spent the past 19 years training, teaching, deploying, traveling, learning and having a family of my own far away from my biological family of whom I am very close with. Though I have personally never experienced reaping rewards by sacrificing ethical standards in my job, in 2009, I was called off of deployment to be with my father who was reportedly on his death bed. Once I had arrived by his bedside and learning of his poor health, my spouse and I decided to move him in with us so that he can be properly cared for. Six years later, his overall health had improved immensely, visiting his grandchildren and other extended family members along the way that was once estranged to him. In 2015, my family and I were offered the opportunity to move to Germany for a three-year tour. While my father was sad to hear that, he was also happy for us. I told him we would be right back living near him in three years. For a man of his age and a lack of will to live, it was extremely difficult to choose to leave him for Germany. Although we stayed in touch very often, his health appeared to decline. One year later, upon visiting family in the States, my brother brought our father to where we would be spending Thanksgiving. Upon his arrival, it was determined he should be hospitalized. Ten days later, my father had passed away. I often ask myself knowing my values towards family if it was worth moving to Germany.

References:  

Charan, R. & Colvin, G. (n.d.). Why ceos fail. [Fortune Archives]. Retrieved from http://www.pycco.com/why_ceos_fail.pdf

Kramer, R. M. (2003, October). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, (81)10. p. 58-66. Retrieved from https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2527021d-c8af-4af8-b33f-a674504aa3a6%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=10986098

Welch, J. N. (2016, October 13). What did bill clinton mean when he said, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-did-Bill-Clinton-mean-when-he-said-it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-is-is

                                                

A634.2.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Theories of Ethics

          I have never thought so much on something as I have on my reflections of ethics and where I stand in terms of them. In trying to process and decide what choice(s) I would make in the 'Train Dilemma,' I made considerations in terms of a consequentialist without actually have lived through the scenario, which might I add, is quite different. After reading about the considerations, or lack thereof, that consequentialists make, I would have to say that I would now change my decision on throwing the switch and redirecting the train from the track with 5 children to the one track with one child. Why? I suppose it has more to do with the fact that I directly did not decide the current course and implications of the track the train is currently on and choosing to take another's life in order to change the consequences of what may 'naturally' occur seems unfair, unjust, and downright immoral! "Consequences - and only consequences - can conceivably justify any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more beneficial to others" (Alexander & Moore, 2012). 

          Withstanding Consequentialists' total lack of "strict moral limits on what we can do to others" (LaFollette, 2007), I believe there is a place for consequentialism in ethics. It is necessary to take into consideration the effects that your decisions will have on others and the relative environment, as well as the impact it may have directly and indirectly upon yourself. LaFollette (2007) states, "...any consequentialist theory must specify (a) which consequences are morally relevant (i.e., which we should consider when morally deliberating); (b) how much weight we should give them; and (c) how, precisely, we should use them in moral reasoning." There is a place for consequentialist concerns when it comes to deliberating morals and their ethically relevant consequences, but as a whole, there is not enough balance in the use of one's morals ethically if "we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences" alone (Lafollette, 2007).

          Deontology is based on the moral code that we develop and use as the sole deciding factor in ethical decision-making despite the consequences. The only concern is determining which relative code(s) is morally weightier than others under the given circumstances. Lafollette (2007) also discusses that the morals, or rules also specify what to do when there is a conflict between them; that there is some meta-moral - one to rule them all - so to speak. For example, if I was to witness an infant about to fall off a chair, but in consideration to go help keep the child from falling, my act of trying to help may, in fact, cause the child to get hurt. If I chose to do nothing, the child may still get hurt, but not at the cause of my actions. My meta-rule would be to err on the side of helping because of my belief that my intervention would be of benefit to others.

          It would be wise if people considered multiple ethical philosophies in support of their ethical decision-making. I cannot see myself justifying making morally related decisions where the consequences are irrelevant, nor can I be so concerned with the moral consequences alone that the decision I make is directly, or indirectly contradicting the consequences. Ditto & Liu (2010) offer "Is it possible that people are able to enjoy the best of both worlds, touting their moral imperatives while at the same time believing that the cost-benefit analysis is on their side as well?" I think so.

References:

Alexander, L., and Moore, M. (2012, December 12). Deontological ethics. Retrieved from https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2015/entries/ethics-deontological/

Ditto, P. H. & Liu, H. (n.d.). Deontological dissonance and consequentialist crutch. Retrieved from http://portal.idc.ac.il/en/symposium/hspsp/2010/documents/03-ditto.pdf

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

A634.1.5.RB_SIegmundWayne

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

Scenario One

          In this case, where the decision between having five children potentially die, or one child dies, I would instinctively throw the switch towards a single child. While this scenario would still be a very serious dilemma, it would still be the choice I would make justifying it with the belief that saving five children is more valuable morally than just saving one. Rakowski (1993) shares, “Sometimes it is morally imperative, or at any rate morally permissible, to keep alive as many people as possible.” However, this decision is not made lightly, understanding that one life is no more valuable than another. Nonetheless, more lives would constitute a better decision, because there are a greater number of opportunities to enrichen the lives of others as well as the environment and community from which they live. 

          On the other hand, the only other way I would possibly make another choice and not throw the switch is if I was able to somehow determine the quality of life the children would grow up to lead. Case and point: If the one child alone on the other track were to grow up to become President of The United States and the other five children would end up dealing drugs and committing murders, I may not throw the switch. The only 'other' dilemma I would have to deal with is a moral principle that informs me that all lives are equally valuable no matter what, and I should not be the one to judge otherwise, for there is a purpose and reason behind everything. Yet, Philos (1995) states, “It is explained in the initial liability principle, that loss should lie where it falls unless there is sufficient reason to shift it.” I feel I have found sufficient reason. If I have the ability (choice/free will) to do something, then I have the responsibility to do something.

Scenario Two

          In this scenario, given the information presented and nothing more, I would not throw the elderly man in front of the train to stop it from hitting all five children. Instead, I would throw myself. If I were to look at both scenarios and ask myself what the difference is between throwing the switch and pushing an elderly gentleman to save five children's lives, I would say nothing. However, given the circumstances presented, I would obviously be close enough to the train to put myself in its path if I was able to push the elderly gentleman and do the same.

          Would there be a time I would choose differently? Would I not throw myself, or push the elderly man and not save the children? Perhaps if I knew that the elderly gentleman would eventually save at least the same amount of lives or more. Considering another set of circumstances; had I known the elderly gentleman had been diagnosed as terminally ill and only had a few days left to live. In this case, I would need to have his permission to push him in front of the train. In my mind, the elderly gentleman’s life is still valuable, and I would still choose to throw myself in front of the train instead of the elderly gentleman.

Scenario Three

          If the child on the side track was my child, my decision would remain the same for all the same reasons, and under all the same circumstances. This decision appears to be an example of Utilitarianism that claims, “Our duty is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Five lives saved is better than one life saved. Therefore, the right thing to do is pull the lever” (Westacott, 2018). I still argue that all considerations must be a part of that decision.

References:

Philos, J. A. (1995). Sacrificing one to save many. U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 12(2), 189-200. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474847

Rakowski, E. (1993). Taking and saving lives. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2710&context=facpubs

Westacott, E. (2018, February 19). Would you kill one person to save five?: Understanding the trolley dilemma. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-4045377