Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A spoof on Black Friday (from NPR)
The short clip listed below is from the NPR website poking fun and criticizing the crazed people who shop like it's a sport during the Christmas season for the "really good deal" or the "doorbuster" to be found on Black Friday. It puts human behavior into perspective and points out how foolish people have become worshipping the "act" of Christmas and taking a human life in the process.
I am one of those crazed shoppers. My sisters and I travel somewhere, usually Appleton, the day before Black Friday. We buy all the papers with the store flyers, lay them out on the hotel bed and scour them for hours while we make our lists. We will go to the store that night to "map it out", what area to go first, where is the item located, etc. (Years ago, we used to go to the store the night before and hide the items somewhere in the store, usually in the tote and garbage can aisle, and neatly store our prized goods until we can purchase them the next day.--They caught on to this devious plan and started covering the hot items with plastic until the day of the sale).
This was always a game for us. What deals could we get? How many other people are we beating out to get the coveted prize? It led us to buy things we didn't need or the kids didn't care about, overspend, and stress ourselves out. We went away from the point of getting our loved ones special gifts from the heart and commercialized it in a way that almost seems vile now, considering that a Black Friday store employee lost their life this year. To make matters worse yet, dozens of people walked/ran by the injured victim laying on the floor and did not stop to help. It appears that our Rules of Engagement, Ten Commandments, The 5 Pillars of Islam, or whatever we may follow as our guide is not working.
As it relates to the learning plan, I have a few thoughts:
1) The stores encourage unethical practices by enticing shoppers and inviting this type of behavior--they advertise these unbelievable deals to draw the masses, they keep the doors locked while making hundreds of people stand outside of a 3 foot door in the cold waiting anxiously for them to open. It's like making your kids wait until 8 pm on Christmas Day to open their presents.
2) What started out with good intentions (the myth of Santa Clause ) has since evolved into a holiday that makes most people wish Christmas didn't exist or are glad it only comes once a year. It has impacted society in the most negative of ways....
Outcome--putting this in to the relationship of the learning plan, I am committing myself to refrain from shopping the day after Thanksgiving, because it seems now to be immoral and unethical for me to do so and I don't want any part of it anymore. While Christmas will always be special at my house, Christmas's of the future are going to be different.
This frenzy is an example of non-consequentialism--I have never thought of the consequences of my decision to go shopping on Black Friday. I did not think there were any until now.
Brian Unger, the humorist that wrote this article did a great job comparing the shopper to a cheetah, stalking our prey in the jungle. Before this year's death, I would have laughed out loud hearing this statement. It's not funny anymore.
Forget The Gun And Other Shopping Tips by Brian Unger
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97650304#commentBlock
My ethical dilemna
Human Resource professionals are faced with ethical dilemma's frequently. People think that HR is a straight forward job--all you have to do is abide by and enforce the rules. Not so--nothing is black and white. Most situations that surface are gray and all have extenuating circumstances. Recently, I was faced with a work issue that challenged my faith, my profession and my Code of Ethics as an HR person.
Situation: An employee I'll call Butch, was on medical leave for about 8 weeks. Butch was very strong, had tattoos on his head and neck, lifted weights all the time, partied hard and was in to beefing up his body. He was intimidating and most employees tried to avoid him although everyone agreed he was harmless and people just blew him off most of the time.
Being the one to approve his medical leave, I knew that he was absent because his parents had him committed to a mental hospital. He was very unstable and made some threats against his family. I had kept in contact with his father during this time who was very open about Butch's problems and sure that his son has been "healed" and ready to return to work.
A few days before he was to return to work from his leave, he showed up at work and told several co-workers that he was going to kill his supervisor, named some other employees names, and seemed very aggressive (more than usual) to his co-workers. He then went into the office and spoke to the receptionist in an incoherent manner--like he was speaking "in tongue". She was a little frightened by him. He left the property shortly thereafter. He called me several hours later to tell me he was returning to work the next week and was released from his doctor and seemed perfectly normal to me. I did not know at the time of my conversation with him that he had done these other things earlier that day.
Here were my options:
1) Ignore the issue--Butch is harmless. Technically, he wasn't on work time and probably didn't say much worse than many do on a Friday night in the bar. But, what if something happened?
2) Call the cops and let them investigate.
3) Call his father and tell him to have Butch re-committed--we don't want him back.
4) Call his doctor and explain what Butch did. Tell him we don't think he's ready to return to work.
5) Be a coward and call Butch and tell him we don't have work for him and lay him off. Don't tell him the real reason why so he can't come back in anger and kill me. In other words, fire Butch just to be rid of him.
Butch violated company policy because he made threats concerning a supervisor and co-worker. This was pretty clear cut. However, I still felt like I would be doing an un-Christian-like thing if I fired him. After all, Butch was ill. He needed treatment, not to lose his job.
Long story short, we called the police, they investigated, but he was never charged with anything. We ended up terminating him based on violating company policy of our workplace violence policy.
I am still uncertain if we did the right thing. On one hand, I was scared of what he could do...he had a lot of issues. I didn't want to deal with him. On the other hand, it didn't help his situation at all by losing a good job and now he didn't have insurance to continue treatment.
This man has a girlfriend and a small child and I don't want to be responsible if/when he snaps. I (acting as a steward of the Company) took away his greatest chance of getting treatment for his condition. I hope we did the right thing...
Situation: An employee I'll call Butch, was on medical leave for about 8 weeks. Butch was very strong, had tattoos on his head and neck, lifted weights all the time, partied hard and was in to beefing up his body. He was intimidating and most employees tried to avoid him although everyone agreed he was harmless and people just blew him off most of the time.
Being the one to approve his medical leave, I knew that he was absent because his parents had him committed to a mental hospital. He was very unstable and made some threats against his family. I had kept in contact with his father during this time who was very open about Butch's problems and sure that his son has been "healed" and ready to return to work.
A few days before he was to return to work from his leave, he showed up at work and told several co-workers that he was going to kill his supervisor, named some other employees names, and seemed very aggressive (more than usual) to his co-workers. He then went into the office and spoke to the receptionist in an incoherent manner--like he was speaking "in tongue". She was a little frightened by him. He left the property shortly thereafter. He called me several hours later to tell me he was returning to work the next week and was released from his doctor and seemed perfectly normal to me. I did not know at the time of my conversation with him that he had done these other things earlier that day.
Here were my options:
1) Ignore the issue--Butch is harmless. Technically, he wasn't on work time and probably didn't say much worse than many do on a Friday night in the bar. But, what if something happened?
2) Call the cops and let them investigate.
3) Call his father and tell him to have Butch re-committed--we don't want him back.
4) Call his doctor and explain what Butch did. Tell him we don't think he's ready to return to work.
5) Be a coward and call Butch and tell him we don't have work for him and lay him off. Don't tell him the real reason why so he can't come back in anger and kill me. In other words, fire Butch just to be rid of him.
Butch violated company policy because he made threats concerning a supervisor and co-worker. This was pretty clear cut. However, I still felt like I would be doing an un-Christian-like thing if I fired him. After all, Butch was ill. He needed treatment, not to lose his job.
Long story short, we called the police, they investigated, but he was never charged with anything. We ended up terminating him based on violating company policy of our workplace violence policy.
I am still uncertain if we did the right thing. On one hand, I was scared of what he could do...he had a lot of issues. I didn't want to deal with him. On the other hand, it didn't help his situation at all by losing a good job and now he didn't have insurance to continue treatment.
This man has a girlfriend and a small child and I don't want to be responsible if/when he snaps. I (acting as a steward of the Company) took away his greatest chance of getting treatment for his condition. I hope we did the right thing...
Death Penalty Opposed by Victim's Families...
The attached link presents a letter from the families of victims of serious crimes to the Maryland General Assembly in opposition of the death penalty in their State. In it, they provide their reasons why they oppose the death penalty. You would think that a victim's family would be the LAST person/people who would oppose it--but instead, are advocating for life without parole as punishment. This exerpt justifies their train of thought:
"To be meaningful, justice should be swift and sure. Life without parole, which begins immediately, is both of these; the death penalty is neither. Capital punishment drags victims' loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, holding out the promise of one punishment in the beginning and often resulting in a life sentence in the end anyway. A life without parole sentence for killers right from the start would keep society safe, hold killers responsible for their brutal and depraved acts, and would start as soon as we left the courtroom instead of leaving us in limbo.
At the same time, a system of life without parole in place of the death penalty would save scarce funds. As Maryland taxpayers, we have spent millions of dollars and diverted endless hours of court and law enforcement time since capital punishment was reinstated in Maryland. What has it bought us? Years worth of appeals and overturned sentences that have clogged our courts and a system so broken that fixing it is probably impossible - all for what? Five executions that took decades to achieve."
This article strikes me as an appeal based on sympathy, rather than facts. The end of the article is "signed" by all the families and lists the family members who have been killed--that tugged at my heart. It makes me feel sorry for these people and the horror they must have went through in the judicial process. However, this article doesn't present any factual data or figures to show us the cost anaylsis and benefit, which is what seems to be their holding point.
Many advocates of the death penalty argue these points: 1) An eye for an eye and 2) It's cheaper to kill them (inmates) than to keep them alive and provide them with housing, food, employment, etc for years and years.
There are over 3300 inmates on death row and there are 38 states that allow the death penalty, according to NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. In 2007, only 42 were executed. If the death penalty was abolished, the implications for society would likely be minimal. When so few are being executed, it certainly doesn't seem like we are really saving any money anyway?
Keeping the death penalty does not deter anyone from killing and it isn't serving the purpose, but I would not want to be a jury or the "executioner." I am not saying we shouldn't have it, I feel the problem is with the legal system and the number of appeals inmates have that prolongs the process and increases the costs.
I agree with several of the points the writer is making, such as the prolonged pain the victims family has to go through during the appeals process, but the article lacks evidence to support their claims to abolish the death penalty.
http://www.mdcase.org/node/124
"To be meaningful, justice should be swift and sure. Life without parole, which begins immediately, is both of these; the death penalty is neither. Capital punishment drags victims' loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, holding out the promise of one punishment in the beginning and often resulting in a life sentence in the end anyway. A life without parole sentence for killers right from the start would keep society safe, hold killers responsible for their brutal and depraved acts, and would start as soon as we left the courtroom instead of leaving us in limbo.
At the same time, a system of life without parole in place of the death penalty would save scarce funds. As Maryland taxpayers, we have spent millions of dollars and diverted endless hours of court and law enforcement time since capital punishment was reinstated in Maryland. What has it bought us? Years worth of appeals and overturned sentences that have clogged our courts and a system so broken that fixing it is probably impossible - all for what? Five executions that took decades to achieve."
This article strikes me as an appeal based on sympathy, rather than facts. The end of the article is "signed" by all the families and lists the family members who have been killed--that tugged at my heart. It makes me feel sorry for these people and the horror they must have went through in the judicial process. However, this article doesn't present any factual data or figures to show us the cost anaylsis and benefit, which is what seems to be their holding point.
Many advocates of the death penalty argue these points: 1) An eye for an eye and 2) It's cheaper to kill them (inmates) than to keep them alive and provide them with housing, food, employment, etc for years and years.
There are over 3300 inmates on death row and there are 38 states that allow the death penalty, according to NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. In 2007, only 42 were executed. If the death penalty was abolished, the implications for society would likely be minimal. When so few are being executed, it certainly doesn't seem like we are really saving any money anyway?
Keeping the death penalty does not deter anyone from killing and it isn't serving the purpose, but I would not want to be a jury or the "executioner." I am not saying we shouldn't have it, I feel the problem is with the legal system and the number of appeals inmates have that prolongs the process and increases the costs.
I agree with several of the points the writer is making, such as the prolonged pain the victims family has to go through during the appeals process, but the article lacks evidence to support their claims to abolish the death penalty.
http://www.mdcase.org/node/124
Monday, December 29, 2008
Ethics--Learning Plan 1
Morality is much more than what I have ever thought about--I did not realize so much thought, research and "knowledge" has been evaluated and considered in terms of all of the different theories. I am not sure that any of the theories studied so far have really changed my conduct or values (if that is the intention) other than to give me a bigger perspective and respect for other peoples beliefs.
To me, morality is a combination of all of our interactions since birth that have directly or indirectly shaped my life and individualism. I have been "shaped" by religion, family, work, my own anatomy and appearance, how others view me, what I have and have not, my relationship with others, nature and the environment to name a few.
There are many kinds of people in this world, including moral and immoral ones. If Eve wouldn't have bit into the apple (cause), maybe their wouldn't be so much crime (effect). Or, if the scientific approach is yours, humans evolving from apes could also explain why everyone doesn't follow the same rules. Wild animals are the best survivors, some would say. If that includes killing and eating an ape baby, that is what they will do as they are driven by nature. A human would be considered crazed and insane for doing such a thing but it has happened.
Why does a person do drugs (cause) and ruin their health or perhaps even die (effect)? It might feel good to do the drugs and they may know others who did the drugs and weren't affected at all, but that doesn't mean everyone can do it. Can you do drugs and drive (cause) and then hit someone while driving and kill them (effect)?
This brings in the justice system. Who shall make the decision on whether it was an intentional act / negligence or should we feel sorry for the driver because they were a mother who just lost her job, recently divorced, has a severaly disabled child, lost her best friend to cancer, and turned to drugs to ease the pain? There are no good answers but only series of events that causes a viscious circle that will be repeated by the next victim...
The purpose of morality is to give humans a structure. Without structure, there are no rules. Without rules, people would run wild. Everyone would kill everyone else, thus having no life.
Regarding Lectures (and powerpoints)--They gave a good summary of what was covered in the first several chapters but has still left me confused on what I am actually reading/viewing. Every theory contradicts another theory and there are no right/wrong answers. I hope the reading gets a little easier as we get into the book.
What questions am I left with?
As I read the book, I feel like I need to be "picking one"--pick the set of rules that I ought to live by. That is up to the individual, and I don't think we will all live in harmony because everyone's rules are going to be different. Some tolerate more immoral or unethical behavior than others and hopefully, you surround yourself with people of similiar values and beliefs.
I have read and reread every theory and get more confused by the definitions. Am I supposed to think in a specific pattern? I don't think that is possible. Every situation will pose a different outcome, based on the factors of the situation.
To me, morality is a combination of all of our interactions since birth that have directly or indirectly shaped my life and individualism. I have been "shaped" by religion, family, work, my own anatomy and appearance, how others view me, what I have and have not, my relationship with others, nature and the environment to name a few.
There are many kinds of people in this world, including moral and immoral ones. If Eve wouldn't have bit into the apple (cause), maybe their wouldn't be so much crime (effect). Or, if the scientific approach is yours, humans evolving from apes could also explain why everyone doesn't follow the same rules. Wild animals are the best survivors, some would say. If that includes killing and eating an ape baby, that is what they will do as they are driven by nature. A human would be considered crazed and insane for doing such a thing but it has happened.
Why does a person do drugs (cause) and ruin their health or perhaps even die (effect)? It might feel good to do the drugs and they may know others who did the drugs and weren't affected at all, but that doesn't mean everyone can do it. Can you do drugs and drive (cause) and then hit someone while driving and kill them (effect)?
This brings in the justice system. Who shall make the decision on whether it was an intentional act / negligence or should we feel sorry for the driver because they were a mother who just lost her job, recently divorced, has a severaly disabled child, lost her best friend to cancer, and turned to drugs to ease the pain? There are no good answers but only series of events that causes a viscious circle that will be repeated by the next victim...
The purpose of morality is to give humans a structure. Without structure, there are no rules. Without rules, people would run wild. Everyone would kill everyone else, thus having no life.
Regarding Lectures (and powerpoints)--They gave a good summary of what was covered in the first several chapters but has still left me confused on what I am actually reading/viewing. Every theory contradicts another theory and there are no right/wrong answers. I hope the reading gets a little easier as we get into the book.
What questions am I left with?
As I read the book, I feel like I need to be "picking one"--pick the set of rules that I ought to live by. That is up to the individual, and I don't think we will all live in harmony because everyone's rules are going to be different. Some tolerate more immoral or unethical behavior than others and hopefully, you surround yourself with people of similiar values and beliefs.
I have read and reread every theory and get more confused by the definitions. Am I supposed to think in a specific pattern? I don't think that is possible. Every situation will pose a different outcome, based on the factors of the situation.
Patty's Blogspot
I am Patty Noland, student of Mr. Kashdan's Ethics Class. I have lived in Wisconsin all of my life and am not your traditional student. I have been out of school for 20 years and am returning to school now --not because I have to, but because I want to. I must be nuts! I am married, work (very) full time, and have 3 children.
I never thought I would be creating a blog, learning about google readers or RSS Feeds. I didn't know these things even existed--but that's the beauty of growing older--you learn something new every day, even when you think you've already "been there, done that".
I love the Packers, (and the Jets too) fishing/boating and reading. I am excited to join the class even while feeling quite intimidated by the technology this class is going to use! I hope it goes well!
Go Pack Go!
I never thought I would be creating a blog, learning about google readers or RSS Feeds. I didn't know these things even existed--but that's the beauty of growing older--you learn something new every day, even when you think you've already "been there, done that".
I love the Packers, (and the Jets too) fishing/boating and reading. I am excited to join the class even while feeling quite intimidated by the technology this class is going to use! I hope it goes well!
Go Pack Go!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)