Reflections on MSLD 634

Different Points of View

I love to read and analyze other points of view, but the leftists need to go easy on the smugness and condescension.  Typical of leftists is that they believe that they “own” the field of ethics.  Obviously, it is because they are so much smarter, deeper, and more self-aware than others.  The smugness and certainty of statements (Hugh LaFollette in particular) begin to manifest themselves almost immediately after attempting to set a non-partisan tone at the beginning.  Hugh LaFollette, in his book, “The Practice of Ethics” reverts to such tactics after the first three chapters of his work.  By the time the reader is half-way through his text, there is no doubt about where he stands on any issue.  The purpose of this blog is not to re-hash every issue that I had with Mr. LaFollette in his text, but to express some of my own personal take-aways from the course.

I Love intellectual honesty and debate.  I didn’t get the warm and fuzzy from LaFollette that he had intellectual honesty nor was he interested in debate.  He states the obligatory counter arguments and theories that are different from his own point of view, and then dismisses them. 

Unlike many others, I embrace vetting arguments from opposing points of view.  I like to see where they have not critically thought through their arguments and default to the condescension as mentioned previously.  Not only is the superior tone annoying, it is used as a defense mechanism by the practitioners to stunt opposing points of view.  It is an effective tactic.  Annoy your opponent so that he focusses on your delivery rather than thinking about countering what you are saying.  I found myself annoyed several times with LaFollette and had to calm down and collect my thoughts before proceeding to deliver a critically thought out rebuttal of his claims.

Personally, another takeaway from this course is that opposing points of view can be enriching.  Many times, there are other thought trains from opposing points of view that illuminate ideas that I hadn’t thought of or incorporated into the subject matter.  I guess one could label that as intellectual growth.  Yes, I have suffered from it during this course!

Clever Situational Setups to make larger points

The beginning of the course saw us give our thoughts on the famous “Train Dilemma”.  I give kudos to the person who thought of the scenario in order to make their points about Consequentialism or Deontology.  The bottom line is that we are all human beings and may act (or not act) out of instinct whether that turns out to be right or wrong.  The point of the scenario was to get people thinking about the philosophy, ethics, and morality of the choices faced in the dilemma.  It was the best use of the situational setups throughout the entire course.

The eating out when there are poor people starving somewhere was a simplistic measure of trying to make Americans feel guilty about their wealth and abundance.  It was a small example that was unable to withstand the test of serious scholarship because the issue is much larger and complex than simply a child across the world is not eating because we are.  That implies a “fixed resource” mentality that the left manifests when it states that if we all start out with 10 marbles (the world’s resources) then someone must be left without marbles if the top two rich people gather at least 8 of them.  Unfortunately for the left, they have yet to realize that economics doesn’t work that way.  Capitalism doesn’t work that way.  Capitalism is a resource multiplier.  Rather than being an addition or subtraction equation, it is calculus that sets the results (x) to some sort of power (exponential).  That exponential will vary but always be greater than 1.

Another example of equating saving a drowning child in front of you with an unseen starving child in an un-named nation also fails because of its simplicity.  The issue surrounding world hunger and starvation have multiple variables and are extremely complex.  To equivocate a straight forward choice of saving or not saving a drowning child is resorting to reduction absurdum to make a point.

Cherry Picking Data

LaFollette cherry picks his data when discussing gun control.  He ignores statistics countering claims of increased violence in areas where the 2^nd Amendment is seriously defended.  He downplays or dismisses statistics of legal gun ownership thwarting crime.  Finally, he ignores the leftist hell-holes that have extreme gun violence despite strict gun-control laws.  It is as if Chicago and Washington D.C. don’t even exist!  Both of those cities destroy his arguments for gun control. 

Cherry picking data continued with the Global Hunger chapter in LaFollette’s book (LaFollette, 2007).  Ignored are the political, economic, and religious factors that all play a part in contributing to world hunger.  As pointed out above, leftists rely on the static resource theory in which the rich countries “steal” from the poor countries.  Although he somewhat discounted it, he also proposed a population stabilization theory that suggests that the population will adjust to the resources available.  Maybe.  However, that doesn’t explain Europe’s low birth rates.  Additionally, war is a population limiter for humanity as well and that was not discussed as another possible factor in world hunger.

LaFollette’s treatment of Crime and Punishment also seemed to cherry pick data without delving into pure statistical baselines.  He allowed his bias and prejudice dictate where he was guiding the discussion.  I pointed out previously that in all his arguments, he only selects other leftist authors that will support his bias.  Crime and punishment are difficult to baseline statistics because there are so many variables.  One thing is certain.  Blacks commit far more crimes per capita than their population percentage.  Hence, there are more blacks in prison for crime commissions rather than racism.

One last citation of certainty by LaFollette was his assertion that the alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill by Clarence Thomas was beyond dispute.  What a fool!  David Brock wrote the definitive investigative report on the entire affair and concluded that Hill lied for political reasons and for political payments.  The only thing that is beyond dispute is that an innocent man’s reputation has been permanently damaged.

These are my main take-aways from the course.  I am not certain if there are better textbooks out there on Ethics, but I take great exception to this course using Hugh LaFollette as a subject matter expert on Ethics.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

Reference:

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

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

LaFollette in his book, “The Practice of Ethics” asserts that bearing arms is not a fundamental right.  Based upon this statement, gun control is the ethical and moral stance to take.  People are dangerous animals and with firearms are much more likely to commit crimes than if they did not have easy access to them.  He further cites studies that claim that firearms do not deter the commission of violent crimes against citizens who bear them.  The argument then devolves into assigning gun ownership as a “derivative right” (LaFollette, 2007).  The comparison used is alcohol consumption based upon societal restrictions.

 

The argument then progresses along the lines that “….owning guns is not a fundamental interest and that guns are inherently dangerous” (LaFollette, 2007 p. 184).  Guns are dangerous and can be misused.  Children have been killed when their parents have left firearms unsecured.  Evidence is presented that more weapons cause more violence.  “Armchair arguments” about firearms preventing crimes are statistically inflated (LaFollette, 2007).  The bottom line is that firearms could be permitted, but tightly regulated.  The corresponding restrictions would result in a less violent society.

 

I disagree with nearly everything that LaFollette writes in his chapter on gun control.  Primarily, it is obvious to me that LaFollette has a hard time comprehending the English language.   “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” (States, 1791).  The meaning of that sentence is clear.  Bearing arms is a “fundamental right”.  In effect, the basis for his arguments starts from a false assumption (or interpretation if we are to be kind).  The entire basis of the fundamental right to bear arms was not for self defense or pleasure.  The basis of the right of the people to bear arms was to prevent government tyranny.  “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist” (Federalist 29).  He cites freedom of speech and the press as a fundamental right but leaves out the other fundamental rights embodied in our constitution (LaFollette, 2007).  For example, freedom of speech, freedom to practice religion, bear arms, property rights, and a representative form of government, are the basis for our system of government.  The rights stated are to prevent against “psychological ego” (LaFollette’s term), or what I like to term human nature.  It is part of human nature to want to rule over other people.  LaFollette does so by trying to convince people of what his point of view is.  Governments do so by coercing people by force.  Our founding fathers understood human nature and evil very well.  In fact, they stated openly that the system of government they were devising would fail unless it was administered by “Christian moral men” (Federalist Papers, 1788).  Therefore, LaFollette, is wrong.  Bearing arms is a fundamental right of American citizens and was done so for a reason that he does not state in his arguments.  LaFollette needs to read the Federalist Papers.

 

Let’s examine his other arguments.  He cites deterrence as a non-factor for citizens owning firearms.  Leftists constantly “cherry pick” data that they agree with while ignoring other data that does not support their arguments.  Let’s look at two examples.  One of these examples relies heavily upon human nature and the judgements that we make as intelligent human beings.  The second example will show motives behind the cherry picking of data.

 

First, lets set up a scenario.  You are a criminal and you own a firearm (for argument’s sake, let’s say that it is a 9mm Glock pistol).  Your specialty is home invasion and subsequent robbery.   You live on the border of two states.  In one state, there is strict gun control.  Gun ownership by home owners is less than 5%.   In the other state, there is no gun control.  Gun ownership by home owners is over 95%.  Based upon your knowledge of the situation in both states, which state will you travel to for your next home invasion?  Most of us I am assuming will pick the gun control state.  Even if the home invasion is discovered or the people are in the house, they will likely be unarmed.  Self-preservation dictates where you should go to commit your crime.  After all, does a criminal want to be shot during a home invasion?  Is this scenario just theoretical?  No.  Back in the 1980s, there were a rash of armed robberies at some major tourist destination airports in Florida.  Why?  One was because the people coming off the planes had cash on them.  Second, the criminals knew that people coming off airplanes would be unarmed.  It is simple logic.

 

Second, let’s look at motives for cherry picking data.  While most of us want to be right in our analysis of an issue, money is also a factor.  Global warming advocates have been cherry picking their data for over 20 years.  Their advocacy of the issue is almost like a religion to them.  That doesn’t explain everything.  Why else would someone tout inaccurate data to promote a worldview?  Hidden behind the drumbeat of global warming (or is it simply climate change now?) is the monetary motive.  The U.S. government alone exclusively funds studies to prove global warming.  I did not say study global warming, or to study the question of climate change, I said to PROVE global warming.  No proof.  No funding.  It is funny to hear global warming advocates derisively dismiss studies conducted by energy companies that run counter to their views.  Their claim that those studies are tainted by accepting money from energy companies is exactly what they are doing in accepting public funding to prove the opposite.  It is hypocritical to say the least.  The leftists create an echo chamber in their community where they constantly cite each other and use it as “proof” of what they are saying.  For further information on the global warming scam, and the cherry picking of data, read Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear”.  At the risk of digressing too much, I will say the Mr. Crichton was a global warming believer.  He wanted to write a novel about it using real data from real sources.  As he researched the actual data, he was stunned.  He was stunned to find out that there was no global warming and that data was being manipulated to make it appear so.  He did write his book, but it was now an anti-global warming book based upon real data.  After reading his book, I became convinced that the worldwide socialist movement (one world order, or global government cabal) was behind the movement.  It is designed to scare people into giving up their freedoms (based on an emergency of course), submit to a global government, and be secure.  Enough digression.  Let’s get back to gun control.

The cherry picking of data is evident of LaFollette’s assertation that crime prevention incidents are inflated statistics (LaFollette, 2007).  Really?  I think most of the 95% leftist media underreport these incidents because it doesn’t fit with their worldview.  LaFollette is simply repeating what is heard in the leftist echo chamber.  In fact, the information I have read shows that states that loosen their gun control laws see a corresponding decrease in crime.  What about areas that have strict gun control?  Is Chicago safe?  I don’t think so.  Gun control only affects law abiding citizens.  Law abiding citizens will submit to gun control, leaving only the criminals having weapons.  How exactly does that correspond to decreasing violence in society (LaFollette, 2007)? 

 

I do agree with the fact that some children are harmed by firearms left unattended or secured by their parents.  That is an educational issue and not one that alters our fundamental right.  Tragic?  Certainly.  My heart breaks when I hear of those stories.  I can compare that to a table saw.  A table saw, much like a firearm, is a dangerous tool.  Would I want small children playing with a table saw with no formal training?  No.  It is a dangerous tool that requires educating anyone that is going to use it or be around it.

 

I agree with LaFollette on one thing. I do wish that we lived in a world where we didn’t need firearms at all.  That is a good thing to wish for, but it is not the reality of what our world is.  The worldwide socialist movement has long stated that the citizenry of a country needs to be disarmed.  Both the Bolsheviks of Russia and the Nazis of Germany were successful in disarming their populations.  Some of the survivors of Tiananmen Square (1989) came to the United States and said, “Don’t ever give up your guns here.  Otherwise, what happened to us can happen here”.  The world is not a nice place.  I equate that thought with Ronald Reagan’s view on socialism.  “Socialism works in only two places:  Heaven where they don’t need it, and Hell where its working great, but everybody hates it”!

 

Respectfully,

 

John Hescott

 

References:

 

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

 

10 Amendments, (December 15, 1791) The U.S. Constitution, 2^nd Amendment

 

Hamilton, Alexander and Madison, James and Jay, John (1788)
The Federalist Papers. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc.

How Does My Organization Reflect its Values?

November 28, 2018

I work for the Department of Defense (DoD) as a civilian safety officer working installation level radiation and explosive safety for Fort Rucker, Alabama.  My work experience for the past 28 years were with the Army and with the U.S. Customs Service (prior to merging with Homeland Security).  As a young man, I also spent 11 years working in a unionized grocery store chain based in Flint, Michigan.

My thoughts for this writing are to show how my organization portrays its values.  I will attempt to show both good and bad examples from my past work history.  The two links listed below are two short videos on organizational ethics.  I thought that both videos had a powerful message to share about ethical behavior within organizations.

The first video talked about ethical intelligence and the framework necessary for that to be built in an organization.  The top three points the speaker made when comparing a slippage of ethical values down a slippery slope of small sins/transgressions that ultimately led to felonies.  Criticism is about bringing out the best in other people.  Too often in our society we think of criticism as a negative and are unable to accept it in order to improve.  Every man is right in his own eyes.  The speaker urges those in leadership positions to harness their anger and direct it towards positive improvement.  Conversely, only a secure leader is able to apologize sincerely for making a mistake and taking action so that it never happens again.  A good leader also is able to show appreciation to those who are in need of it.  These three traits exhibit more than just strictly ethical intelligence.  I believe it also is part of emotional intelligence (EI).  It appears that it is necessary to have both of these characteristics in order to be an effective leader.

One example I can give you of a secure leader was when I worked for U.S. Customs.  A new set of agency regulations were published on how to handle seized property.  Seized property for U.S. Customs could be drugs, cash, weapons, vehicles, or real estate.  As my supervisor conducted a meeting, fine tuning the procedures, I spoke up and suggested a course of action that would eliminate duplication of work, greater efficiency in storing seized property, and greater accountability for sensitive items.  He paused and then looked directly at me and said, “That’s a good idea and that is what we are going to do”.  A less secure leader would have discounted the idea because it was not his.  I found that to be an example of good leadership and ethical behavior. 

In the second video, the speaker made the statement that had been spoken to him a long time ago: “You have made a terrible mistake, but you are not a mistake”.  Wow.  How many leaders can harness their anger at a mistake and still support his subordinate?  I have a less pleasant example to share when I was a young cashier at a unionized grocery store chain.  The cashiers on our shifts would typically take in $5,000.00 of cash, checks, food stamps, and food vouchers.  The supervisor I worked for was widely known to be hard-nosed to the point of being feared almost universally by his employees.  He was tall, with dark hair, penetrating dark eyes, and an intimidating beard.  His very appearance was ominous.  Our cashier tills were required to be within a dollar of balance when closed out.  It was an extremely difficult standard due to a number of circumstances.  Food stamps stuck together.  People would buy small items and give large bills to cash.  Payroll checks were accepted.  In other words, it was tough.  After three times of being off more than a dollar (but never more than two dollars), I was fired.  The supervisor berated me and told me that I was worthless, I never should have been hired, and that he was glad to get rid of me.  Okay.  Was I lazy?  No.  Was I a top performer?  Maybe.  I was always near or at the top of monetary intake for the cashier tills.  Was I intimidated?  Absolutely.  I was terrified of this man.  I couldn’t stand it when he would stare at me while I was working.  He made me nervous.  The man didn’t seem to have an iota of joy in his life.  He never smiled.

Bottom line, he was NOT a good supervisor.  He had neither ethical intelligence nor emotional intelligence.  He even lied to the company about the procedural violations that I was being terminated for.  My mother was so upset that she attended a union meeting with me to help me get my job back.  I did.  The union got the standard relaxed to three dollars for cashier till closeouts.  I never had another problem with closeouts again. 

As an un-necessary post-script to this story, that supervisor committed suicide about 4 years after I worked for him.  Wow.  I was actually stunned when I heard the news.  I thought he would have been happy.  He drove a nice Corvette and had a nice house.  Material things aren’t everything.  Sometimes it is the things we can’t see that are much more important.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

Retrieved From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

Retrieved From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE

Reflection Blog on Three of Ben Franklin’s list 13 Virtues

Reflection Blog on Three of Ben Franklin’s list 13 Virtues

 2. Silence:  Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself.  Avoid trifling conversation.

 

I have made progress in this area.  I used to be too outspoken.  I was overly friendly to the point of continuous “trifling” conversations, not to mention trusting unscrupulous characters.  My mother was a big gossiper and could tell you about everyone’s life within the family – good or bad.  That led to me developing bad habits where I engaged in such behavior.  I probably hurt a lot of people.  I probably slandered a lot of people.  I was judgmental.  About 20 years ago, I decided that I needed to change.  I stopped gossiping about people.  I related what I learned from my dad that “stupid people talk about other people, while smart people talk about ideas and concepts”.  I started holding my tongue more and not speaking whenever I had a thought flow through my head.  I started becoming more of a team player in organizations and in group settings.  I began using self-deprecating humor and elevating other people’s ideas.  I became a collector of information, not a disseminator.  What I mean by that, is that I would not pass on “bad” information about people unless I had first-hand knowledge of the bad behavior and it was a necessary instance where I should ethically dispense of that information to someone else.  For instance, as an aviation safety officer (ASO) in the military, one hears all kinds of stories and innuendos about other people doing “unsafe” or “stupid” things in the unit.  I was not careful in my stewardship of this inflow of information and it caused me a number of issues with the command and my peers.  Lesson learned the hard way!  As my communication skills improved, my emotional intelligence (EI) also improved.  Is there room for improvement?  Certainly.  Today, I would align with Ben’s virtue of silence. 

 

5. Frugality: Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e., Waste nothing.

 

I chose this virtue because as in the example above, I did not always follow that guidance.  I used to be tremendously in debt.  I owed for everything and despite a good income, couldn’t figure out why I was always “broke”.  Instant gratification along with pressing necessities in life contributed to my financial woes.  I have been financially destroyed at 4 different points in my life.  I never declared bankruptcy, accepted welfare, or received unemployment.  I did borrow some money from my parents, but I paid that debt back.  Learning a new way seemed to be essential. 

 

After my fourth financial disaster, I received some advice from a friend at work.  He was older, wise, and financially stable.  He suggested two books to get me started on my road to recovery.  I read Robert Allen’s “Multiple Streams of Income” and Robert Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad Poor Dad”.  I consumed those books and vowed to change my habits.  I also met my wife about this time and she is fantastically frugal and a great bargain shopper.  I cleared out my debt except for my mortgage.  I changed my buying habits.  I saved to pay cash for cars rather than loans.  I saved money to purchase items rather than put it on a credit card.  If I ever had to put something on my credit card, the balance was paid for immediately before the end of the billing cycle.  I am not rich today, but I own 13 homes (with only 1 home carrying an outstanding mortgage balance), I have money in the bank, money invested in the stock market and 401ks, and zero credit card debt.  It is never too late for anyone.  Prior to reading those books (and I have since read many more), my financial education from my parents consisted of: “Get a good job.  Put money in the bank.  Pay your bills on time”.  That was it.  In today’s world most of us need more than that.  This virtue is another that I am living now.

 

6. Industry:  Lose no time.  Be always employed in something useful.  Cut off all unnecessary actions.

 

I have never been lazy.  However, I have wasted many years of my life in unsatisfying jobs, relationships, and schools.  Why do I describe it as wasted?  A lot of my personal choices were not good ones.  Therefore, I became a bit of a late bloomer.  My plan to overcome my late start in life was to be in Ben’s words “industrious”.  I worked hard on my financial condition, my living arrangements, my job, and my education.  I have learned how to paint, drywall, lay carpet, install plumbing, work electrical issues, and better lawn maintenance practices.  I am also a planner.  I make lists and stick to accomplishing those items on it by priority.  My hard work has paid off, but I am not going to stop being industrious.  I have a goal of finishing my Master’s Degree after starting and stopping it three different times.  I want to retire within the next couple of years with my remaining mortgage paid off.  I have further plans for my two primary residences.  I continue to work on my rental properties.  People have asked me, “Won’t you get bored when you retire”?  My answer is, “No”!  I have plenty of things to do.  I have properties, boats, trailers, vehicles, a motorhome, and multiple yards to maintain.  If I get bored, I will go golfing, fishing, or hunting.  I also like to read.  I play chess on a master’s level.  I will not ever be bored because there is always something to do.  I have made my life path more difficult because of the choices that I made in my early years.  However, a lack of industry was never one of my faults.  I always played sports in high school and practiced my skills diligently.  I also became a black belt in martial arts because I wanted to.  I played piano when I was younger and now, I think that I want to learn how to play the guitar.  I have never been described as “lazy”.  These are examples of how my life aligns with this virtue.

 

Respectfully,

 

John Hescott

 

Reference:

Ben Franklin’s List of 13 virtues

Is Marketing Evil?

This reflection blog is prepared with my thoughts and analysis of Dr. Ferrell’s article, “Marketing Ethics”.  The general topics to be addressed will be bolded below.  One last requirement before we dive into this:  The reader must enjoy reading the content. 

 

Guidelines.

“Overbilling clients, deceptive sales methods, fraud, antitrust, and price fixing are all marketing ethics risks” (Ferrell).  I think that Dr. Ferrell is lumping quite a few areas simply upon the marketing aspect of an organization, but for the purposes of this discussion, we accept her premise.  Would ethical guidelines and training make an organization behave ethically?  I don’t think that ethical guidelines make as much a difference to marketers as the public would want to believe.  Ethics within an organization are going to start with individuals and the slowly percolate upward into the organizational culture.  However, if rewards are freely given for performance and not “doing the right thing”, then the risk of unethical behavior will increase. 

 

Balancing Success with Ethics.

Does an organization feel that it has to win at all cost?  Apparently many do.  “The rewards for meeting performance goals and the corporate culture, especially for coworkers and managers, have been found to be the most important drivers of ethical decision making” (Ferrell).  Winning the Super Bowl is a financial bonanza for the winning team.  Based upon that, there is a cutthroat culture within the NFL.  Every single NFL team has been fined, lost draft picks, or suffered personnel suspensions based upon violating NFL rules.  The old adage, “If you are not cheating, you are not trying”, seems to apply here and is what makes balancing the need to win with ethical behavior a difficult thing to accomplish.  If an ethical, but poor performing marketing manager is admonished for his performance, while his unethical colleague gets praise for being a high performer, what is the message that is being sent out by leadership?

 

Tracking.

I was disappointed that Dr. Ferrell’s article did not address tracking the buying habits of consumers without their knowledge or consent.  It is a simple right or wrong answer and it is definitely wrong.  Let me share with you an example of how deeply technology has been used to undermine our privacy, and how marketers are using it to their own ends.

 

My example will be broken into two parts.  The first part is easy to understand, while the second appears to have no easy answer.  I was overseas and sent an email to my wife discussing how we needed to upgrade from a gasoline-powered motor home to a diesel-powered motor home.  Immediately, she was inundated with ads regarding deals on motor homes, every time she signed into the internet.  While the filters for my overseas location were stronger, I too began to get ads regarding diesel motor homes.  All of this happened without running a single search with an online platform.  Of course, one will say that personal information is sold on the internet.  Okay.  But, reading and acting upon someone’s email?  Is that ethical?

 

The second part is even more troubling.  My wife and I had a conversation in our house without being online or on the phone.  We talked about what it would be like to buy a fabulous house in a country like Belize (Central America), where a $500,000+ home could be purchased for well under $100,000.  We both started getting ads for great real estate deals in Belize.  Again, this was before any online research had been performed.  Now, I ask the reader, how did that happen?  I don’t want to go out on a tangent and give my theories about it, but simply to say that tracking of consumer information is wrong and it violates our 4^th Amendment rights as U.S. Citizens.

 

Leadership Plans.

Communication is key.  Placing ethical leaders in key positions is another way to have oversight on an operation and in doing so, preventing unethical behavior.  Dr. Ferrell cited Jeff Immelt as a leader who gets it.  According to Mr. Immelt:  “One thing that keeps me up at night is that among the 300,000-plus GE employees worldwide, there are a handful who choose to ignore our code of ethics.  I would be naïve to assume a few bad apples don’t exist in our midst” (Ferrell).  

 

Dr. Ferrell cited Jeff Immelt’s words to hold his company up as an example of good ethical conduct and intent.  Is that a joke?  Jeff should probably look in the mirror to find unethical behavior.  How about making huge money off of trade deals with Iran, while Iran was busy killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq?  Is that ethical Jeff?  Or, because GE was one of former president Obama’s favored companies, GE made billions and paid no federal corporate tax?  Is that ethical?  Do good intentions outweigh an organization’s actions?  The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  Personally, I don’t buy GE products anymore.  They have veered away from being an American company to a global company.  Good for them.  People ought to know where a company’s loyalty is before they spend their hard-earned dollars on their products.  If they know where a company stands and still choose to buy their products, then good for them.

 

Conclusion.

I would like to conclude this foray into marketing ethics by saying that in our instant gratification society, it appears to be easier and more likely for people to choose the easy wrong versus the hard right.  What does that mean?  It means that human nature plays a big part in the ethical conduct of organizations.  If one feels that taking shortcuts is easier, more profitable, more rewarding, and there is little chance of being caught, they will do so.  Not everyone would do so, but a good number of people would.  Unpopular oversight can help as can extensive corporate investment in ethical training.  I compare ethical training to safety training.  Everyone recites the proper words regarding safety, but without constant reinforcement, the urge to do the right and safe thing diminishes.  It is the same with ethical behavior in an organization.

 

V/r

 

John D. Hescott

 

Reference:

 

Ferrell, Linda (Unknown) “Marketing Ethics”

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

As one who has been discriminated against, I find strawman arguments and tenuous reasoning are used to support LaFollette’s (The Practice of Ethics) view that affirmative action is ethical.  There are so many points of disagreement in his book that I can hardly list them all without writing a major thesis on it.  I will give it a shot point by point.  In fact, this sort of touted high-level reasoning is one of the main reasons that I have a healthy skepticism of intellectuals who possess a liberal point of view.   I find that they cherry pick their data while ignoring evidence that may go against their assumptions.

While arguing about discrimination, LaFollette argues about “Blacks have been subjected to systemic discrimination over centuries; whites have not been” (LaFollette, p. 72).  Untrue.  There were over 5 million whites captured and taken into subsequent slavery by Muslims.  In Russia alone, the vast number of white slaves (nearly all Slavic peoples) taken by invading Muslim armies led to the English word for “slave”.  This slave trade was centered on the Crimean khanate which was part of the Ottoman empire.  “Described by Christians as the ‘heathen giant who feeds on our blood,’ the khanate is estimated to have enslaved and sold ‘like sheep’ some three million Slavs – Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, and Ukrainians – between 1450 and 1783” (Ibrahim, 2018 p. 280).  That doesn’t even account for the remaining number of Western Europeans that were also taken into slavery.  A few things need to be pondered about these facts.  First and foremost, all races on our planet have been conquered and/or enslaved by other peoples, so to single out American blacks as a unique experience is selective reasoning.  Second, the timeline in which the enslavement of white Europeans took place, lasted far longer than the number of years that slavery existed as an institution in North America.  Finally, the very same Muslims who were enslaving white people of Europe also enslaved millions of Africans as well.  In fact, the Muslims were the main clearinghouse (sellers) of slaves to the Americas.

LaFollette than touches upon the white privilege that has become popular with the political left. “The rich can harm the poor in a way and to a degree that the poor cannot harm the rich” (LaFollette, P. 72).  The issue at hand is racism and not economic status.  Plenty of whites are hurt by rich people and/or organizations and can do nothing about it.  I am not even going to cite a reference to say that this point is wrong.  I will give an example from my family history that gives lie to the statement by LaFollette that this is a racial issue.  It also debunks the ridiculous white privilege theory.  My great-grandfather owned a business in Flint, Michigan before the great depression.  It was in a busy commercial district.  It was a general store, had a restaurant in the back, and had gas pumps in front of the establishment.  When the great depression hit, my great-grandfather had less than a year to pay off the business loan.  During one of the bank runs during the depression, the bank called in his note and he was unable to pay the balance of the loan and he lost his business to the bank.  The banking laws have been changed since then and it is illegal to call in loans that are being paid on time.  I want LaFollette to explain how white privilege or some sort of hidden financial advantage of being white protected my great-grandfather.  My family never recovered financially, and we grew up on the borderline between middle class and poor.  Are there instances of wealthy families passing wealth, assets, and opportunities to their children?  Certainly.  Would a black family that is wealthy do the same?  They can and they do.

There is no such thing as white privilege.  One may think so if one is black and buys into the victimology mindset that is constantly peddled to young blacks by the American left.  It is to their advantage that blacks remain at the bottom of society's totem pole.  It ensures a sizable number of blacks voting Democratic to fix their status.  It will never happen that way.  The only way for blacks to shake off the victimology stigma is to desert the described “Democratic Plantation” and start embracing freedom and equality.  Why do blacks from the Caribbean seem to do well in our society?  It is because they are embracing the freedom opportunity that this country offers without the baggage of the victimology mindset.  With true freedom, unencumbered by meddling government and left-wing race provocateurs, comes greater personal responsibility for blacks.  Suddenly, they have to learn how to swim or drown.  It has been 45 years since President Nixon signed affirmative action.  There have been some positive gains, but overall the positives do not outweigh the negatives. “Today, the statistics on black and white inequality are so unchanging that they can be recited by rote: The black unemployment rate holds steady at double the white unemployment rate; the median net worth for black households is about 7 percent of white households; annual per capita income for blacks is 62 cents for every dollar of per capita income for whites” (Slate. February 10, 2014).  While I rarely agree with anything the Slate writers publish, this is a similar comparison to a Consequentialist and a Deontologist coming to the same conclusion about an ethical action but using different reasoning to arrive at their positions.  The Slate author is saying that affirmative action isn’t working, but for different reasons that I think.[1]  Slate is using the racist argument saying that affirmative action isn’t resolving that, and therefore it doesn’t work.  I take the position of the golden rule; “two wrongs do not make a right”.  Better deserving candidates for jobs or schools are denied simply because they were born of the wrong race.

I am 1/8 Native American.  My great-grandfather on my father’s mother’s side of the family was a Frenchman from Quebec that married a full-blooded Native American.  Subsequently they migrated into United States in the 1880s.  I was researching my family history while I was in high school.  I had dreams of getting “free” education and a leg up in the job market by claiming minority status.  My father told me that I was not going to do so……ever!  He told me that I was going to make it in life based upon my character and my abilities, not upon family ancestry.  Taking my father’s guidance, I always claimed Caucasian on job applications.  I have been the victim of reverse discrimination multiple times during my life as a result of this choice.  Is that right?  My life may have taken a quite different path than what it has.  Maybe I would have ended up in an awesome job and become quite wealthy.  I have struggled to progress from growing up poor to a place where I can be considered upper middle class or “member of the UMC” as Bob Seger sang about.  With all of that, I am happy that I chose the route that I took and haven’t had to have others wonder whether I was deserving of my accomplishments, or whether I achieved them due to a protected status.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

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

Slate.  (February 10, 2012). “The Massive Liberal Failure on Race Action”  Retrieved from:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/features/2014/the_liberal_failure_on_race/affirmative_action_it_s_time_for_liberals_to_admit_it_isn_t_working.html#cx

Ibrahim, Raymond. (2018) Sword and Scimitar. New York: Da Capo Press, Hachette Book Group

---

[1] Interestingly enough, (and possibly ironically!) after I wrote my comment that I didn’t agree with Slate much and that I didn’t agree with the arguments presented in their article, I found the following comment at the end of their article.  “I find the tone of this series to be deeply annoying – ‘privileged white liberal discovers black people and realizes history doesn't fit a tidy narrative!’   A lot of liberal white folks don't live in a suburban bubble, and don't need the lesson, thanks” (LaFollette Progressive).

Reflections on Kramer's Article "The Harder They Fall"

October 30, 2018

In his excellent article, Kramer discusses the phenomenon of people who ascend to the pinnacles of their profession and subsequently fall from grace.  These people appear to have it all; money, job, prestige, and power.  Why do they lose it?  Could they have avoided those mistakes?  Kramer provides some good interesting strategies that could be pursued to prevent such dramatic falls from grace.  I will discuss three such examples of a fall from grace that occurred in society, at work, and in my personal life.

Societal Example

Kevin was an outstanding Catholic Priest.  He was 29 years old, tall, athletic, and very good looking.  Kevin was something more.  He was an extremely spiritual and holy individual.  The goodness of his soul seemed to emulate from around him like some barely visible energy field.  Kevin had made it through high school, college, and the Catholic Seminary in great order.  Where ever he was in life, he excelled and wowed people with his charisma.

I got to know Kevin better during a weekend spiritual retreat sponsored by St. Patrick’s Church in Brighton, MI.  Kevin was the associate pastor of St. Patrick.  During the weekend, we reflected on our lives, meditated, played sports, conducted group inquiries into philosophy, and sang songs.  It was a tremendous experience that is still with me 20 years later.

One day, during a summer-time Mass in 1998, Kevin prepared to give his homily.  A homily is usually a collection of the Priest’s thoughts & reflections on the Bible readings of the day, and how they could best be applied in our everyday life.  The congregation was prepared to hear Kevin’s thoughts.  Kevin always gave relevant and powerful homilies.  Kevin opened by stating the following: “I am leaving the Priesthood to get married to xxx, and nothing can change my mind about this.”  He further explained that he would not have joined the Priesthood if he had not been convinced that the Bishops of Rome would reverse their position on Priests taking wives.  It was a shocking announcement.  There was anger.  There was a sense of betrayal.  There was a sense of abandonment.  My reaction was sadness.  I was saddened that our Parish was about to lose this great Priest because the Church could not allow married Priests within their ranks.  (They do!)  I know a Catholic Priest in Corpus Christi that is married.  He was a married Protestant Minister and he converted to Catholicism and the Priesthood.  How unfair is that? 

The point here is, Kevin’s behavior towards women changed from when he was an aspiring Priest to another perspective after he was ordained into the Priesthood.  I am not saying that his choice was wrong.  However, just as some of Kramer’s examples changed their behavior once they attained a goal, this example is similar.  Just like the Kramer examples, Kevin suffered a huge fall from grace due to his actions.

Professional Example

Most of us know people who have done “everything”.  There isn’t an experience that they haven’t had or something that they haven’t done in their lives.  If they can convincingly articulate their experiences (real or imagined!), they can move up in the ranks of an organization.  We had one such guy where I currently work at.  He was known for always “having been there and done that”.  Behind his back, he was derided as a “legend in his own mind”.  This person, we will call him “Rick”, moved up rapidly.  His behavior also changed as he moved up. 

He was no longer respectful of people.  At company gatherings, he was loud, obnoxious, and usually drunk.  People began to lose respect for him.  As the director of a key area in the organization, he was tolerated by people.  That all changed when it was revealed that due to his direct actions, his directorate lost the organization millions of dollars over the past several years.  Rick was then publicly humiliated by being removed from his directorship and demoted.  Rick could have avoided this if he had paid attention to a few simple rules.  Social graces, moderate drinking, and a humble profile would have served him well.  In addition, although he moved up the ladder by appearing to know everything, that very trait got him into trouble with his directorate.  Rick did not like to ever receive advice or information.  He always thought that he knew more than anyone else, so he did not ever have to consider an alternative viewpoint or course of action.  I took no pleasure in seeing Rick fail.  However, reading Kramer’s article reminded me of that situation.  This was a time where Rick’s “know-it-all” attitude should have been jettisoned and replaced with a humble inquiring mindset.  He made it to the top but proceeded to fail.

Personal Example

My last example comes from a tale of two brothers (cousins of mine).  The younger brother appeared to have life mastered, while the older brother struggled.  Whereas the older brother struggled in his personal and professional life, the younger brother appeared to have an easy path in his personal and professional life.  The younger brother was educated, articulate, and good looking.  He was also personable, athletic, and tall.  On the surface, he appeared to have it all.

The younger brother attained a wealthy status.  He owned multiple homes, had boats, cars, motorcycles, money in the bank, and investments.  He was married to a beautiful woman and they had three kids together (since grown and out of the house).  The younger brother appeared to have it all, then fell from grace.  The traits that brought him to the top were abandoned.  He was described as perpetually angry, bitter, and critical of everyone around him.  His brothers and sisters stopped associating with him.  His kids stopped coming around except when they were expected to.  He was fired from his job.  Finally, he discovered that his wife, unhappy for over 20 years, had started seeing someone else.  He had received the wake-up call of his life! 

Meanwhile older brother finally got settled in life and appeared to have caught up to his younger brother.  The older brother was different in that he was not bitter, angry, or critical of others.  Instead, he appeared to have learned some valuable lessons in life and was now very pleasant to be around.  The older brother received a call from his younger brother in which the younger brother made a serious attempt to make amends for his actions over the course of their lives.  Of course, the older brother accepted his overture and they both forgave each other and promised to do better in the future.  But, what went wrong with the younger brother?

I can’t say for sure what went wrong.  I can only speculate since I heard the story second-hand.  However, sometimes when a certain level of success is attained, such as surpassing what one’s parents did in life, a pent-up bitterness at the unfairness of it all explodes.  I believe this happened to my cousin.  He appeared to have all the attributes of a successful person, but his strengths that he relied on during his ascent to the top, he abandoned.  Not only that, he abandoned his religion as well.  Contributing to the mess was probably a lack of emotional intelligence (EI) development, during his climb to the top.  (He and his wife are attempting to make their marriage work and are involved in counseling.  He has also revived his interest in the Catholic church.)  I hope that all turns out well for him.  The one thing that Kramer did not cover in his article, was a fall from grace that included a subsequent rebound after learning the lessons of what caused the fall.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall (Links to an external site.) . (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Hescott, John. (2017-2018).