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