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/