MSLD 634 Module 9 - A Reflection of Our Learning

A Reflection of Our Learning

The Leadership Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility course expanded my perspective on ethics in every sense and scope. Initially I thought ethics in leadership was either covering a more philosophical approach, or covered legislation related to the corporate world. I got to learn that there is no definite answer for any of the ethical issues, neither a right nor wrong answer. Instead, ethical analysis involves the process of critical thinking and the ability to choose what is less harmful overall taking in consideration a deep and thorough thinking process, from the individual to the societal level (Nosich, 2012; LaFollette, 2007).

One key lesson I have learnt is that having choices is not necessarily a positive aspect in the decision-making process. The train dilemma studied at the begging of the course made me think about the impact that alternatives have on the quality of our decisions. Choices can blind and freeze us. The challenge is often increased when the amount of options is increased, because the ethical issue is not only faced on the consequences of our decisions, but on our decision itself. Often, when it comes to alternatives in complex and sensitive situations, less is more.

Another lesson from the course is based on Kramer’s (2003) article “The Harder They Fall”. The author defends that the higher one climbs, the harder can be (not necessarily is) the fall. This statement has no correlation with risk taking, neither neglect the importance of ambitiousness in the societal, corporate and personal success. It simply alerts the precautions necessary to climb safely to the top and know your grounds when you are there. Blind ambition, aversion for rules and for failure, the prioritization of efficiency over effectiveness, and the down and upward omission to unethical behaviors can lead a individual (as follower and leader), a corporation and even an entire society to drastic and almost irreversible collapse.

Last, but not least, my key take-away from the course is the importance of formally teaching (or touching base on) ethics from a very early age to the highest degrees. The impact the educational institutions have in our behavior is powerful and can be drastic. Including ethics in school and universities can be a challenge but if it involves the inclusion of professionals (in philosophy, psychology, public science, etc.) in the course development, linking the materials with real and ordinary case studies, it can create fruitful impacts (Pavlo, 2014; Podolny, 2009; UW, 2015).

These three examples expanded my views in the individual, professional and societal level, as mentioned, as they illustrate situation on every scope. The presence of ethics in our everyday life, and the ethical impact of our small actions on ordinary daily situations stroke me. I have learnt that I face more ethical issues that I have ever thought. Every single word that comes out from my mouth and every small decision I make can gratefully or drastically impact individuals, my organization and even society as we are all part of it.

References

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

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

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson

Pavlo, W. (2014, January 13). An MBA's Thoughts On Being Taught Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2014/01/13/an-mbas-thoughts-on-being-taught-ethics/#6e7d36476c26

Podolny, J. M. (2009). The Buck Stops (and Starts) at Business School. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 62-67. 

UW Philosophy for Children (2015). Philosophical Children. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/136588083

MSLD 634 Module 8 - Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

Often, the gun control issue is faced with only two starting points: support or opposition. With this limited mindset to the issue, we fall in the trap of defending ideas but jeopardizing effective solutions. A broader, but still limited way of thinking about it is the NA, MA and AA consideration, or respectively: no abolition, moderate abolition and absolute abolition. One important reflection is that restriction vary in strength and in content. For instance, the issue and possible solutions surrounds not only on the right to bear, but who owns a gun, how it is obtained, where and how it is stored and carried, so on and so forth, enabling us to have a content approach to the issue (LaFollette, 2007; Farrell, 2018).  

I believe citizens have the right to bear arms, but the context must be taken in consideration as the ones mentioned above, for example. I do not believe it is a solution for violence though, and neither I believe it is necessarily a good idea. The right to bear guns is supported, in the United Stated of America (USA), by second amendment, which says "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"  (Yuhas, 2017; Mervosh, 2020, Cornell Law School, n.d.) . LaFollette (2007), however, says that the right to bear arms is a moral question, not a constitutional one, highlighting the importance of compelling arguments. In this subject matter, for instance, Governor of the State of Virginia is making news headline lately, and people involved are already paying the price of every meaningful and complex change (Mervosh, 2020; Beckett, 2020; Schneider & Vozzella, 2020).

Back to my perspective of arms possession, let’s zoom out take a bigger picture of the issue. Gun control is a complex issue in most of country, and different countries with same approaches have different results, because the context matters. Here follows the background of my thoughts, which I believe must be taken in consideration:

1.      What the law says, in detail? If there is a gap, first this gap must be filled, to allow powerful discussions.

2.      How is the public safety of the country? If the police are not doing their job, citizens will find a way to protect themselves, obeying or not the law.

3.      What is the purpose of bearing a gun? Self-defense, sport, work, selling, etc.

4.      What is the minimum age to buy and bear guns?

5.      How is it stored?

6.      Who runs background checks (federal government, state, city, county, private organizations) and how often? Systems on background checks should be linked, and purchase should be under approval after a detailed analysis. Background should not only be necessary during the time of purchase, but in a regular basis, being part of a regulation to keep a license to bear guns.

7.      How many guns one can have? Which type of guns?

8.      If it is allowed for sports only, dedicated areas (not open and public) should be designated and guns could be the facility’s property.

9.      Arms should be carried or only permitted at home?

10.  Does background checks should involve only criminal backgrounds, or psychological?

Only when these and other important questions are answered, gun control can be discussed with a moral perspective. Rallies as the one planned for 2020 January 20^th, in Richmond, does not only put solutions farther that they already are, but increase the chances of a shift in focus (Schneider & Vozzella, 2020; Mervosh, 2020. There are no effective changes without all parts sacrificing a piece of their believes, pride, money or whatever holds them to an extremist point of view and to an “either or neither” solution. People will keep fighting about guns, while in the meantime others will be using guns to fight. Until a decision is made, one, if not both parts, is using a rhetorical speech in social media, news outlet or streets, instead of using this time and platforms to have a meaningful debate about the subject.

Leaders of militias and public figures, including the President of USA, as stated in Schneider and Vozzella (2020), are so determined on fight for their interests, that they fall in the trap of missing the big picture and jeopardizing their impact in society. While I have no issues with my ideas being opposed, I do not believe that by standing and watching, the mass shooting issue in USA, for instance, will be solved. It takes efforts from all parts and forces, and a piece of all pies. But who is willing to share that piece? Who is willing to get up and move the needle towards the “opposite” side? Until then, the constitution will be the only stable field to step on, the only common ground among us all. Perhaps this, in fact, is the greatest moral issue: defending written words while neglecting human lives.

References

Cornell Law School (n.d.). Second Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Beckett, L. (2020, January 17). Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/virginia-lee-carter-school-strike-bill-guns

Farrell, D. (2018, July). A Solution to Gun Violence found in US History. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/david_farrell_a_solution_to_gun_violence_found_in_us_history#t-787124


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


Mervosh, S. (2020, January 17). What to know about the Virginia Gun Rally. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/virginia-gun-rally-explainer.html


Schneider, G. S., & Vozzella, L. (2020, January 18). Richmond braces for giant gun rights rally on Monday. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/richmond-braces-for-enormous-gun-rights-rally-monday/2020/01/18/0dc41a76-3702-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html


Yuhas, A. (2017, October 5). The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history

MSLD 634 Module 7 - Egois: Psychological and Moral

Egoism: Psychological and Moral

           

            Ethical egoism is the claim that people should always act to promote their own self-interests. Psychological egoism, covering morality and self-interest claims that everyone always seeks to promote self-interest, independent in which field you work, ranked position or if it is related to personal causes. It defends the idea that one engagement in moral behavior is the best way to advance his own interest. Although it gives a brief notion that is a selfish way of thinking, it holds some moral truths in it, as neglecting the motives and consequences, the roots of one’s action, the real and perceived interests, and the frequency of when it happens (LaFollette, 2019).

            I rather apply relativism in the subject of egoism. One’s motives and consequence of his acts shouldn’t be put aside. I also understand there are limits to whether someone neglect herself in favor of others and do not realize that the only way to give to others is when our own wellbeing is taken care off. For instance, if someone volunteer in a remote place, where diseases are spread around, the is no basic condition of life, and food provision is a scarce, for how long this philanthropical action will last and which real impact will bring. Even if the motives are genuine, eventually, there will be a point that we need to be egoist to give back to the world, otherwise there won’t be something to give.

            One problem of egoism, in the organization field, is when ego gets in the way of the decision-making process. Ego is defined as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance. An ego that is never satisfied and always craves more never appreciates the moment and is never grateful for the present (Miller, 2017). I believe ego blinds one thinking, and when it comes to decision making it impact on the effectiveness of the results. A perfect illustration is observed on the TV series Suits, where the character Louis Litt, because of his ego, constantly makes poor decisions, leading to him to lose trust of his coworkers and making him stagnate.

            Naïve is to ignore that one is completely absent of ego. The problem is not the existence of egos, but in whether one lets it get in the way of decision making, especially large egos, as stated my Miller (2017). A large ego is threatened by anything or anyone who could possibly damage their notions of self-worth. This leads one to act constantly on the defensive mode, being necessary some ego checks to avoid being trapped on this pitfall.

            Although I believe benefits is a form of incentive, I do not believe that leaders should get it by the decision they made. It should get contractual benefit, independent of results, if its intention is to use benefit as a motivational tool. When results are involved, I believe the entire team should get benefits, as a leader does not act alone in the workplace. A leader without a follower, is not a leader per se. A perfect example that happens in my organization is that high ranked leader gets bonuses in all profitable years, while the workforce and the leadership at the bottom of the ladder, is due to company’s discretion. My question is, who implemented the decisions? A decision without implementation is simple a talk, if no one walks it.

            When it comes to rewards and ethics, I do not believe a leader should be rewarded to promote ethical behaviors. It gives the idea that being ethical is going beyond, while being ethical is the basics of one’s employment, a non-negotiable requirement. A reward to leader, in the wake of ethics, in my opinion, is an unethical decision on itself.

References

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

Miller, R. (2017, February 7). Unwelcome egos in the workplace. Retrieved from timesunion.com/tuplus-business/article/Unwelcome-egos-in-the-workplace-10916035.php

MSLD 634 Module 5 - Is Marketing Evil?

Is Marketing Evil?

     Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large (American Marketing Association, 2017). It is a key functional area in the business organization that provides a visible interface with not only customers, but with all other stakeholders. It is important when addressing marketing ethics to recognize that it should be examined from an individual, organizational, and societal perspective (Dincer, B. & Dincer C., 2014)

     For marketers, ethics in the workplace refers to rules governing the conduct of organizational members and the consequences of marketing decisions (Ferrell, 2005). In my perspective, companies do not need to choose between winning or making ethical decision. I believe there is room for both on the process of decision making.

     A poor example for marketing with integrity was the recent campaign of an Italian football club, which started an anti-racism initiative featuring paintings of monkeys. The sport in Italy has been blighted by racist abuse this season, and the artwork commissioned by Serie A was designed to stop fans directing monkey chants at players (Sinnot, J. & Mezzofiore, G., 2019). Although the espoused intention of the artist was good, the anti-racism campaign, in my opinion, not only dehumanized black people by the comparison with an animal, but also reinforced racism by a campaign with a strong message and poor judgement, which provoked a counterproductive result. It reminded me of the Gucci campaign at the beginning of the year, when in a tentative of fighting racism created a sweater which reminded black face. (O’Kane, 2019). I believe both campaigns lacked integrity because in order to cause a brand impact they missed the bigger picture, the holistic perspective that a marketing campaign should take in consideration. These companies, in fact, fed racism and possibly made it stronger.

     If I am in a position of a leader in charge of selling my service to a potential customer, the main consideration I will take is at which expense my argumentation and persuasion will be powerful. Gordon Brown (2009) touches on this point and included the term of global citizenship suggested by Chris Anderson. As mentioned at the beginning of this post, marketing, for its exposing platform and link with the service/product to be provided, must consider all parts involved and affected in the process from creation to publishing. 

     Although a campaign is created to achieve the customer, other stakeholders (internal and external) should not be neglected, neither the competition. One type of campaign that I believe to be unethical is the average political campaign. Instead of seeing candidates talking about their policies and ideas, I often (if not always) observe them mocking and diminishing their strongest competitors. A lot of marketing campaigns focus on the “adversary’s” weakness as a strong strategy. I think that if I reach this point, I need, in fact, review the quality and relevancy of my product/service. While creating an ethical campaign, my number one priority would be analyzing at what expense I am creating an impact. If a campaign is creating harm in any part involved, in my opinion, it means I am lacking integrity. Financial results shouldn’t come first on marketing campaigns. As a leader, we don’t need to choose between a successful or an ethical campaign. With responsibility and creativity, we can have both!

References

American Marketing Association (2017). Definitions of Marketing. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/

Brown, G. (2009, July). Global ethics vs national interest. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_global_ethic_vs_national_interest

Dincer, B; Dincer, C. (2014). An Overview and Analysis of Marketing Ethics. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences (4)11, 151-158

Ferrell, O.C. (2005). A Framework for Understanding Organizational Ethics, in Business Ethics: New Challenges for Business Schools and Corporate Leaders. R.A. Peterson and O.C. Ferrell, (eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 3-17

Sinnott, J., Mezzofiore, G. (2019, December 2017). Italian soccer anti-racism monkey artwork condemned as 'outrage'. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/16/football/serie-a-racism-artwork-spt-intl/index.html

O’Kane, C. (2019, February 7). Gucci removes $890 "blackface" sweater, apologizes after receiving backlash. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gucci-blackface-sweater-gucci-removes-890-blackface-sweater-apologzies-after-receiving-backlash/

MSLD 634 Module 4 - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is basically the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement (LaFollette, 2007). First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination. (Andre, Velasquez & Mazur, 1992).

LaFollette (2007) and Andre et al. (2007) presents some favorable and opposing arguments to affirmative actions (adapted with my words and opinion):

Against:

1.     Reverse discrimination: when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different.

2.     Hurts those who have done no wrong: impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices; therefore, it is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

3.     The qualification argument: The relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex.

4.     Stigmatizes minorities: devalue minorities achievements, possibly leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

5.     Victimizes minorities: encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace or classroom.

6.     The rights of employers: those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen, resulting is reduced productivity and efficiency in the workplace

7.     Neglects others’ needs: ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

8.     Poor target: only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

9.     Feeds segregation and tensions: as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups.

10.  Opens for all types of discrimination: as racism and discrimination affects several groups and not minorities, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. For instance, non-minorities are already charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission, bringing us back to point number one.

The circle of harms is created!

Favor:

1.      Continuing racism: as a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Racism continues to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams.

2.      History: Throughout generations, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education. While many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects

3.      Domino effect (the minority saga): as descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males.

4.      Domino effects (the majority saga): while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects. Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots. Preferential treatment programs help neutralize this unfair advantage.

5.      Equality of opportunity: preferential treatment programs aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits.

6.      Cost-benefit: preferential policies redirect jobs and educational opportunities to those who are most in need of them, leading to a reduction in poverty and its associated social costs. And the real cost for the initiative are a fraction of its impacts.

7.      Eye opener for diversity: different perspectives and experiences that minorities and women bring to the workplace and to colleges and universities is an advantage for educational and corporate environments.

8.      Backslash on stigma: any stigmatizing that might concur with affirmative actions is no worse than that resulting from the absence of minorities in positions of influence and power.

9.      Backslash on the productivity factor: in cases in which candidates are equally qualified, productivity will not be affected and in cases in which qualifications do differ, the differences are unlikely to be significant enough to affect productivity.

            While reflecting and inputting my opinions above, I believe that affirmative action programs are only temporary solutions. This doesn’t mean I am against affirmative action, but I believe that other factors should be taken in consideration, in hiring and admission, as:

            1.   Qualification, based not only hard but also soft skills

            2. The hiring and admission requirements should not only look at skin color, geographic                       background or sex, but educational background and family income

                  3. A deep look at criminal background (if any)

                  4.  Quota should allow some flexibility

                  5.   Results after hiring and admission should be a measurement tool on keeping individual or   not., however results should not be limited to numbers but a deep analysis of effort and     contribution.

          I believe a more powerful way to make affirmative action really works is having programs inside corporations and universities that empowers the minorities. There is a high chance the domino effect of the disadvantages from the past will affect the present of individual in minority groups. If the goal of the programs is not only a façade, but it is founded on its espoused intentions, then affirmative actions should be systemic, meaningful and focus on mid and long-term results. Lastly, I defend the idea of affirmative actions at a very early age. Only by working on the cradle of injustice we will see powerful and long-lasting effects.

References

Andre, C; Mazur, T; Velasquez, M. (1992). Affirmative Action:
Twenty-five Years of Controversy. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

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

MSLD 634 Module 3 - The Harder They Fall

The Harder They Fall

            Overall, being ambitious is a positive quality, however positive consequences of setting and achieving high goals is not always the reality. In fact, in some cases, extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good. If you believe you're the type of person who is overwhelmingly ambitious, you'll need to watch out for some dangerous side effects (DeMers, 2017).      “In their brilliant and rapid ascents, star leaders repeatedly demonstrate the intelligence, resourcefulness, and drive to go the distance”. They look adept at overcoming whatever obstacles they encounter along the way, however the same leaders “demonstrate uncharacteristic lapses in professional judgment or personal conduct” (Kramer, 2003).

            What Kramer (2003) defends is my strong belief that the higher one climbs, the harder can be (not necessarily is) the fall. This statement has no correlation with risk taking, neither neglect the importance of ambitiousness in corporate and personal success. It simply alerts the precautions necessary to climb safely to the top and know your grounds when you are there. A blind ambition, the aversion for rules and for failure, the prioritization of efficiency over effectiveness, and the down and upward omission to unethical behaviors can lead a star leader (in a personal, professional and public scope) to drastic and almost irreversible collapse.

            Thinking in the societal scope, the ambitiousness of governmental leaders can lead to objective and subjective consequences. In one hand, unethical ambitious can negatively impact on tariffs, taxes, laws, quality inspection of governmental agencies, employment, social services, for instance. On the subjective side, depending on how influential a leader is, it can impact on the society’s behavior and approach to habits and aversion to diversity, for example.

At work the consequences are more explored and explicit, as we have seen several scandals in the past decades being uncovered, leading to radical and spread outcomes, as the great recession of 2008. Unethical ambitious in a small business perhaps affects only the employees and the community around, but usually this trait is rooted in mega corporations, as power has often the last say on the decision-making process. In the latter case, as Kramer (2003) says, the harder is the fall. The consequences achieve once an unimaginable precedent, if was not for the recession. Mega corporations has often equal or more powers than governments, even in developed countries (Kohls, 2014; SPERI, 2019; Ketchell, 2018; Vanbergen, 2016).

In my life, on an individual level, I am often reminding myself of where I came from and the real value of money. Although I am not a high ranked leader, the lifestyle my company provides to me and my fellow colleagues causes confusion and often illusion and distraction from reality. A simple example can illustrate it: my way to work. My salary easily affords a driver on my way to the company. In fact, going to work by taxi or driving is the most common type of transportation of majority of my colleagues. But here follows the math: if I go by taxi, I will spend an average of 50 dollars (return trip) and I will be ready in the office in 25 minutes. Going with my own car will cost me around 25 dollars and will take me around 40 minutes as I need to find a public parking spot. However, if I go by metro, it will take me one hour and fifteen minutes, but it will cost me 5 dollars   (return trip). When my colleagues ask me why I decided for public transportation, if in a month I would spend an average of only 5% of my salary on private transportation, I instantly say: “because I need to keep my feet on the ground”.

The reality of the country I live in, especially the city where I reside and the lifestyle, I can have access of, often deludes people, who struggle to adjust when they need or decide to shift careers and place of residence. It also reflects on uncontrolled expense and perception of monetary devalue. I constantly policy myself of the traps that a blin ambitious life can lead me too. While climbing to the cliff of my career, I triple check the straps and the safety gear, and I keep skeptic about the pleasures of the view and the breeze of the tip point!

References

DeMers, J. (2017, September 7). Can Excessive Ambition Actually Ruin Your Chances of Success? Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/299222

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Ketchell, M. (2018, July 11). Who is more powerful – states or corporations?

Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-corporations-99616

Kohls, G. G. (2014, March 4). The Powers and Abuses of America’s Mega-Corporations. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-powers-and-abuses-of-americas-mega-corporations/5371901

SPERI (2019, January 3). Corporate Power & the Global Economy. Retrieved from http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/01/03/corporate-power-the-global-economy/

Vanbergen, G. (2016, June 21). The Rise of the Corporatocracy. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rise-of-the-corporatocracy/5532097

MSLD 634 Module 2 - Theories of Ethics

 Theories of Ethics

There are two main theories behind the definition and understanding of ethics: consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequence, requiring the consideration of the interests of all affected. On the other hand, the deontologist approach states that we should act by moral rules and rights, partly independently of consequences (LaFollette, 2007).

I tend to lean more toward consequentialism, but often I catch myself as a deontologist. LaFollette (2007) highlights one point that explain why this happens to me. I get offended if someone lies or hide anything from me, even if I know that it produces a significant benefit for me or others. The movie Consumed by Daryl Wein (2015) is an illustration of this dilemma. Although I know that the mass production of food is indirectly helping fighting hunger around the globe, (which is often neglected as hunger is a not a reality for most of the countries in today’s society) I disagree with the negative impacts and side effects of mass production of food items. This example illustrates how deontologist and consequentialist I am. Genetically modifying an organism (GMO) for me is wrong by itself, independent of the positive consequences (fighting hunger, creating jobs, moving the economy), however when I analyze the consequences explicitly shown in the movie, I bend to consequentialism and consider GMO a clear unethical behavior. Although I have the same opinion regarding this subject, it is based on different foundations.

I believe these two theories have their pos and cons. The deontology approach is easier to understand and to explain, therefore, to find a common ground on the decision making process of one’s action, while the consequentialism cover a broader perspective, taking in consideration more variables and possibilities in the “equation” of ethics. An important aspect which I strongly believe is that one cannot limit himself on theories, approaches, tales or whatever names we want to call. I defend the idea that meaningful and respectful dialogue can accept all theories, although the decision possibly will bend to one of the sides. Facts, when making decision, should be the foundation of an ethical decision, independent of morality (Tiatorio, n.d.), feelings, laws and societal bias (Velasquez et al, 2010). Gathering facts and spending time and energy on finding a common ground (internally if the decision is only upon you, or externally if it directly depends on others) should be an issue worth talking about.

As William Ury (2017) says “we tend to see conflict as two-sided, and we frequently fail to see there is always a third side.” We should not be limited by a tale of two theories, but what we can positively learn from and act upon both. In my opinion, looking for the right or most appropriate theory deviates us from what really matters when it comes to ethics.

References

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

Tiatorio (n.d.). Intro. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsineducation.com/intro.htm.

Ury, W. (2017, February 7). There are three sides to every argument. Retrieved from https://ideas.ted.com/there-are-three-sides-to-every-argument/

Velasquez et al (2010). What is Ethics? Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics.

Wein, D. (2015). Consumed. United States of America: Mister Lister Films

MSLD 634 Module 1 - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

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

When someone asks us why we made a decision or why we support some position, we offer, or should be prepared to offer, reasons for our actions, decisions, or conclusions. To make better choices, we must become aware of our options and the relevant background information; we should identify the consequences of our actions for others, for ourselves, and for the people we will become. (LaFollette, 2007).

Better choices do not mean good ones. In fact, sometimes no choice is the best choice we can have. The Trains Dilemma exemplifies this statement:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.

1.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

2.      You are the switch person. By throwing the switch you can put the train on a sidetrack where one child is standing. The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

3.      You are outside the train, standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Asked what I would do in each scenario could lead to an unrealistic answer, as my decision would not be rational. The dilemma implies that stopping the train was not a possibility, which made me assume that I would lack time to think about alternatives and the consequences. I would be led probably by emotions or impulse.

On the first scenario, probably I would thrown the switch as a reflection. The presumed immediate consequence is that I would kill the one child on the side. In a long-term perspective, I would feel devasted for killing one child, and guilty for killing the one who was playing on the supposed safe place. But the fact I saved five could bring me comfort.

On the second scenario, I probably would just close my eyes, because emotion would overcome impulse. The consequence is that I would feel devasted, but I am not sure I would feel guilty. My child was not on the way of the train, not playing on an unsafe place, and I don’t believe the number of kids would make me feel guilt, although I don’t think I could ever recover from the consequences of my inaction.

On the third scenario, I could behave by impulse or emotion. With no time enough to think I don’t believe I would see the old man and per his age and the fact he had a long life comparing with the promising future of the kids, but by the fact I would hit a fragile person. The fragility could hit my emotions, but the reflection could kick in first.

What is not stated or clear also need to be taken in consideration when we think about the consequences of our decisions. In the scenarios perhaps wouldn’t make a difference on the decision itself, but in a situation not under pressure, going around the circle (Nosich, 2012) of critical thinking could impact greatly on the consequences.

For instance, I don’t know if the five kids by looking at the train coming would jump to one of the sides and coincidently be the same side the train ended up. Or perhaps the kid on the side would run far away when looking at the train? What about the kid on the side jumping by impulse on the trail in an act of bravery? If I was outside close to the old man, I had the alternative to jump in front of the train instead of pushing the old man. If I was the switch person I would need to take in consideration what would happen with the train, and the possible passengers, if I decided to throw the switch bottom. Could I cause an even worse accident? There are several variables which is hidden behind the scenarios and proportionally a bunch of unknow consequences. There could be countless implications.

The main learning outcome from this dilemma for me is timing. As LaFollete (2007) says, if we are not under pressure to make potentially momentous decision, we will be better equipped to make good decisions when we must act.

References

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