A635.3.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

50 Reasons Not to Change

          Change is not seen as an easy thing to create; at least not in a way that one would desire. Nonetheless, change occurs every day, everywhere. It is the nature of things to change. However, people are creatures of habit and prefer to remain comfortable in a familiar routine. Knowing this, it can seem overwhelming the idea of making a change in terms of the status quo. It seems more likely to get push back from the naysayers than support from others. How many people, believing they may isolate themselves, will stand up and support an idea that challenges the status quo? Most likely, if any, will not extend themselves that far in the name of self-preservation; remaining a part of the current tribe.

           The excuses listed throughout the graphic, '50 Reasons Not to Change" (Watkins, 2011), are all too common. I hear these excuses at home, at work, amongst peers, and even colleagues. We are most certainly in no shortage of these types of excuses; unjustified, unchallenged, and unfounded. Having been a nationally competing gymnast and a Special Forces member for over 40 years combined, I had little to no tolerance for these types of excuses. I grew up being taught that I can do anything I put my mind to (thanks mom). Challenge up! So, every challenge that presented itself, I presented myself saying, 'actually, yes I can watch me.' Now, when I hear my colleagues throw around these excuses like its small talk, I immediately and diplomatically challenge their perspective with a plethora of versions from the 5 Ws; who said? when did that happen? where did that take place? what makes you think that? and my favorite, why? In the end, I often get my point across...you're making an excuse!

          Years ago, I have caught myself using some of these excuses for a myriad of reasons such as being lazy, too comfortable, feeling the gain did not outweigh the loss, or because I was emotionally attached (addicted) to a feeling or behavior. It was not common for me to use excuses, but when I did it was often for one of these reasons. Brown (2011) shared some of the reasons for one's resistance to change may be due to the following: the comfort zone, fear of the unknown, disruption of a routine, loss of benefits, threat to security, threat to position power, redistribution of power, disturb existing social networks, and conformity to norms and culture. If an individual (change agent) can somehow gain buy-in from another (resistance), then we have begun change. I often use empathy to associate and build a common ground so the resistance understands I can relate to their concerns and return to them from a common framework. These types of responses to change efforts are not always easy to overcome. Depending on the person(s), I think a number of factors can be considered that may be a catalyst for a change in thinking. Perhaps the catalyst touches an interest, a curiosity, or perhaps even a passion of another. If we can show the resistance that the change better serves them as part of the whole, or that the gain outweighs their loss, we may have a chance at changing this type of thinking in response to change efforts. On the other hand, there will be those we can not change.

          In Godin's (2009) TED Talk, "The Tribes We Lead," he discusses how the charisma of a leader can attract others of like-mind to spread the message to attract others of like-mind in an attempt to create a moment. While I do not think change is driven by tribes alone, I do believe this is a very effective way of creating change. It's not people that we would be changing, but gathering enough of the right people to incur a change about an idea. 

          Reflecting on this exercise, I am inclined to take away the concept around the cyclic module of Challenging, Culture, and Committing. Remembering and applying the consideration of who it is I am upsetting will help me be aware of that party and consider how best to help them transition from resistance to acceptance. Remembering and applying the act of connecting with the like-minded people in an attempt to build a culture. Finally, committing to that culture and continuously challenge the status quo as the movement spreads.

          In our change efforts, as we confront resistance, create new cultures, deviate from old cultures, address budget concerns and develop processes in support of the new movement, when and how do we manage unexpected third and fourth-order effects? Can these effects kill the movement? Can a movement ever be regenerated once it loses momentum?

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development. Boston. MA: Prentice Hall.

Godin, S (2009, February). The tribes we lead. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_the_tribes_we_lead#t-1027179

Watkins, D (n.d.). 50 Reasons not to change. Retrieved from https://erau.instructure.com/courses/113760/assignments/2076642

A635.2.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Reflections by Wayne Siegmund

          In my experience, a company's culture shows there are numerous nuances in inter and intrapersonal relationships that lead to how employees choose to integrate themselves across the organization to include decision-making opportunities. Some of these nuances are driven by one's own self-worth, trust, fear, position, and expectations. When employees feel welcomed to engage if they want to, I believe a sense of acceptance is felt by the employee allowing them to feel comfortable in engaging and making a decision. However, when an employee is expected to make decisions, depending on the employee's experience and position amongst their peers, they may feel anxious or confident. However, if an employee is purposefully engaging to make decisions within their organization, there is more than likely a good chance the employee feels connected to their peers and organization resulting in better decision effectiveness. Yoerger et al (2015) offer "Past studies have found that individual's levels of participation in meetings was positively related to performance and greater commitment in carrying out the course of action decided upon during those meetings" (as cited by Rosenberg & Rosenstein, 1980; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1996).
          Having the right leaders, with the right information in decision-making roles, can produce excellent results given the timing and culture within a given organizational environment possessing a flatter-than-hierarchal structure. However, various obstacles can impede good decision-making. I believe if the timing is not good, the decisions may not be received well by the other invested parties, or will not receive the effects as originally anticipated. If the employee chosen to make the decision does not have the relative education or experience for that position, the organization risks acting on a poor decision that may lead to unrecoverable effects.
          According to Blenko (2016), she believes there are five obstacles that can impede the process of good decision-making. These impediments can be organizational complexity, a lack of clarity in who should make the decisions, the decision-maker making decisions based on wrong information, leadership behaviors that include lacking a previously organized constructive debate on the matter, and having the wrong talent in the position of the decision-maker role.
          Echoing Blenko's (2016) words, I believe a good decision made quickly and executed effectively with the right amount of effort can lead to high financial performance. I also believe planning ought to be an element leading to decision effectiveness as well. As it appears each element leads to the next, what precedes Quality? I can only imagine that solid planning where understanding the complete framework of the context of the matter, as well as all the affected aspects that the decision touches, must be known and considered in order to ensure that the decision is, in fact, a high-quality one. Otherwise, the ripple of 3rd and 4th order effects may go unseen wreaking havoc behind the organization's construct just to discover the potential financial or reputational injury to the organization months or even years down the road.
          The best thing I can take away for use in my organization at this time is applying the awareness of the impediments that can hinder good decision-making.  Being more aware of this can help set me up for success rather than delaying the process or hurting the organization. Often in my community, poor decisions are made, but go unrecognized until the effects are acknowledged; this is a waste of time, effort, and money.

References

Allen, J. A., Crowe, J. & Yoerger, M. (2015). Participate or Else!: The Effect of Participation in                  Decision-Making in Meetings on Employee Engagement [Article Submitted for Publication].              Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska.

Blenko, M. (2016, November 1). How companies can make better decisions, faster [Video].                          Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGw6QNRjPrQ.

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development. Boston, MA: Prentice              Hall.

A635.1.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

21st Century Enlightenment

     For many years now, I have contemplated what it means to be living in today's society and the world at large. I wonder what my place is in it all. Asking myself questions about where we are going as a global society and if we are bound to repeat history or learn from our past mistakes shifts my perception to one of greater self-awareness. It is not enough to just be happy with your friends. We, collectively, must share a vision that contributes to the world writ large. As we all learn what it means to share and come from a common framework, we will make better decisions as they relate to each other with empathy being the foundation.

     The work conducted by Taylor (2010) addresses multiple concepts drawing on history's previous enlightened periods to highlight today's current need for our global society to conscientiously apply what we have learned so that we may forge beyond what we have been able to achieve socially, technically, economically and humanistically. I think the title was meant to invoke a call to a new awareness; an awareness based on a change in the way we think in order to perceive the outside world in a new light, thus making new decisions based on a new perception. It is no longer a good idea to believe we are just by continuing to ride the coattails of our founding forefathers. 

     Albert Einstein is credited with the quote, 'the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result." Change will not come about in our lives until we make different decisions. As creatures of habit, humans tend to repeat their behaviors and in turn, see the same world we have always seen when it comes to healthcare, civil rights, minority groups, gender inequality, racism, and religious persecution to name a few. I believe Taylor (2010) meant, when he said, "to live differently, you have to think differently," a person cannot truly change their lives until they look at their lives differently. The type of conscious decision making Taylor is eluding to is mindfulness. We must become more mindful of ourselves and those around us. If we continue to react to our environment out of some humanistic ritual behavior, we will be doomed to see history's results. Whenever I intended to change my diet in hopes of detoxifying my system and eating healthier, I would often find myself reverting back to the same old eating habits. Inspiration is the fuel to initiate change. Motivation is the force to sustain it. However, motivation must be nested in the root thought or the thought behind the thought. It must touch us on an emotional level so that we may continue to be moved by it.

     When I returned from Germany in August of 2018, I moved to an area different than I had prior to moving to Germany. In the new area, I looked for a diesel mechanic workshop for my truck. After a few weeks of shopping around, I found myself defaulting to my original mechanic that was outside the area. The reason for choosing him again despite the distance was because I had no idea what the reputation and work history was of these other diesel technicians. I chose to go with who I was familiar with instead of taking the risk of choosing an unknown quantity. I was afraid of changing mechanics because I did not know what would come of it, so I deemed it the wrong choice. However, I know if I continue to make the same decisions, I will never learn what may come from new and different ones. Similarly, I think Taylor is saying the same thing when he argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that of which is only strange" (2010).

     In the case of welcoming new service members to the command, consideration of their new environment must be helping them find a comfortable shift into the new culture as they adapt to the norms. According to Brown (2011), if the adaptation period is ineffective, "...a new member may choose to rebel, to reject all values, or to leave the organization altogether."

     It is not only possible to "...eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and ... spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens," it is a moral imperative that we do so if we are to help people grow from a culture of insensitivity to one of empathetic morality (Taylor, 2010). It seems the framework from which most people come from is that of an egocentric perspective that builds walls of insensitivity and moral blindness; where people disassociate from personal responsibility and point fingers. 

     In my experience of team-developing, mentoring, and guiding within my organization as a Navy Chief, the implications of atomizing any given collaborative effort could be numerous depending on what the objective is within the organizational change effort. Normally, if we were to see it as potentially a destructive effect on their growth, then the implications could be a breakdown in cohesive teamwork, a disruption of collaboration, isolation of team members, and possibly an increase in feelings of insecurity and incompetence. 

     As a senior enlisted member within the ranks of my organization, I am at a place in my career where I am not only expected to take initiative to make changes that foster teamwork, professional development, inter-department collaboration, and improves organizational efficiencies, but I am also inclined to leave the organization better than I found it. Seeing I have been around this command for over five years, I find it necessary to provide insight and a holistic look at how they are conducting business in terms of evaluating both pivotal and peripheral norms. One area of contention is a lack of genuineness on behalf of their senior officers. Unfortunately, the concept of the 'good 'ole boy club' is still flowing through many of these types of organizations where the fair treatment of all does not always apply.  However, it has been ever evident that the rotational inertia has been such that new people with new ideas can and will come through on their two to four-year tour and change once again all that has been developed. This begs the question, to what avail am I taking the time and effort to develop something anew just to have it all undone after I depart? If change development is to be recommended, yet the Headquarters element is not all in agreement, development processes can become stagnant at the first signs of 'strange'.

Reference

Brown, D. R. (2010). An experiential approach to organization development. Boston, MA: Prentice         Hall.

Taylor, M. [Matthew Taylor]. (2010, August 19). Rsanimate: 21st-century enlightenment. [Video].           Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo

     

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/