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).

Two Theories of Ethics: Consequentialism & Deontology

October 23, 2018

Consequentialism.

Consequentialists say that people are “morally obligated” to act in ways that produce the best outcome for others.  LaFollette in his book, uses the examples of choosing a job or a major in college, with the best outcome in mind for the one making the decision.  Those examples could be called prudence.  Prudence is different from overall Consequentialism in that prudence refers only to what is best for an individual making those choices.  Consequentialism considers the interest of all who are affected by a decision.  This is a huge undertaking.  Further, Consequentialism requires three steps to be taken in a moral decision.  A. Which consequences are morally relevant? B. How much weight should we give to those consequences? & C. A set of rules or guidelines in how to use these factors in moral reasoning.  So far, this sounds great.  There are problems of course.

First, one cannot possibly know all the consequences that a moral decision or non-decision can have on others (and how many others at that).  Many consequences are “hidden”.  They are not known to the person making the decision.  A good example of this is found in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”.  James Stewart played the lead character, George Bailey, who ran into some financial trouble and potential scandal.  He “wished that he had never been born”, and his guardian angel granted him that wish to show him the “consequences” of that decision.  George is subsequently dumbfounded and confused about the condition of this “alternate reality”.  Apparently, George was such a good person in his real life, that his actions (most of them moral and correct) had a widespread but hidden consequence for a great number of people.  I can’t think of a better example to illustrate the hidden consequences that our moral decisions create.  It is also part of why Consequentialism is such a huge undertaking.  The two other problems that Consequentialism has, is that it lacks a moral foundation in its code, and it has a branch of its theory called Utilitarianism.  A Utilitarian would think it is perfectly okay to kidnap a healthy person off the streets, kill him, harvest his organs, and save 5 other people (LaFollette, 2007).  What?  That is an extreme example of Utilitarianism, but it illustrates the two main problems that I have with Consequentialism.

Deontology.

Deontology contends that there are strict moral codes and limits as to what we can do to other human beings.  They would be shocked as I was, with the example of the utilitarian kidnap scenario.  Deontology appears to abide by the golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  That is an abbreviated definition of the golden rule, but the point is made.  Deontologists often clash with Consequentialists even in circumstances when they agree on the choice being made.  They disagree in the reasoning that led them to the same conclusion.  For instance, If I made a promise to take a co-worker to get his car out of the repair shop.  The correct decision is to fulfill that promise.  A consequentialist would say that I should keep my promise only because failing to do so, may lead to some bad outcome for my co-worker.  A deontologist states that I should keep my promise because it is the morally correct thing to do.  Both theories arrived at the “correct” solution, but for very different reasons.

One of the advantages of deontology is that it reflects the moral code that most of us were brought up with in our homes and in our churches. The other advantage is that consequentialism, taken to extreme, becomes very unappealing.  Immanuel Kant was one of the great thinkers in Deontology that was quoted extensively in LaFollette’s book.  Kant says, “People ought to be moral, period – no matter what their desires or interests, or beliefs” (LaFollette, 2007. p. 34).  I agree with him on that point.  Where I disagree with Kant, is when he asserts that people should be moral at all times, and implies that we are born with that trait and knowingly deviate away from it.  Deontologists also have two diverging points of view.  They can either give something some moral weight when determining the consequences of their decisions, or they must simply state that consequences do not matter and a strict moral code must be followed always.  A good example of that, would be Jim Carrey’s movie, “Liar Liar”.  In this movie, his son makes a birthday wish that his dad (Carrey) could not lie for 24 hours.  The results are hilarious.  Part of the reason the movie is so funny is because it strips away everything – down to the white lies that people tell daily.  Are white lies immoral?   The answer is that sometimes they are.

Conclusion.

I find myself more in line with the deontology point of view on ethics.  One reason is because they utilize a moral code and incorporate the golden rule.  Another reason is because they don’t totally discount the weight of moral decisions that consequentialists give to everything.  However, unlike the pure consequentialist, they don’t have to make a decision based upon external consequences to others.  They can consider it, but they are not forced into any such decision.  I think it is prudent to give weight to moral decisions and to look at the resulting consequences, if possible.  As stated in our examples, we cannot always know what the consequences are of one of our decisions.  Some of them remain hidden.  That is why some people, such as myself, seek wisdom and hidden knowledge.  It becomes a habit as well as a life-long pursuit.  Good luck to all in your search.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

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

John Hescott (2017-2018)

The Train Dilemma – Reflection Blog  MSLD 634

 

October 17, 2018

 

Scenario 1:  A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. 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?

 

This appears to be a “no-win” situation regardless of the choice made.  Simple logic would tell someone to sacrifice one, so that others could live.  Therefore, throwing the switch sacrifices one to save the other five.  An example of this reasoning happened during WWII.  Winston Churchill’s intelligence agency had broken the German codes from their enigma machine.  Churchill knew that if the Germans kept bombing the airfields, aerospace factories, and military harbors, that England would certainly lose the war.  Churchill cleverly provoked Hitler into changing his bombing targets by a spectacular bombing raid of Berlin (like Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo later in the war).  Hitler was enraged and ordered the British cities to burn.  With the code broken, Churchill knew of an impending attack.  He considered the codes so valuable that he ordered no air raid warnings to be sounded, no aircraft flying to meet the attack, and no black-out procedures for the targeted cities which included Coventry.  The attack came as what the Germans believed to be a complete surprise.  17,000 British citizens lost their lives on that first air raid.  Was this a moral ethical decision?  Certainly, keeping the secret of breaking the enigma codes was vital.  It probably helped win the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  Was the enough justification for the decision he made?

 

I believe that in an instance of the train dilemma, I would throw the switch.  Is that the right decision?  Who knows?  In today’s world, I may end up getting charged with murder regardless of what decision I made.  There are also the after-effects of guilt to deal with, for having to make such a horrible decision.

 

Scenario 1A: Same scenario except:  You are 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? 

 

The ethical dilemma posed is tricky because it is an “old man”.  Does that justify killing him to save the 5 children?  Again, logic may say so, but what would Jesus do?  Let’s not be funny and say that he would stop the train himself.  Would Jesus push the old man in front of the train to save the 5 children?  What about sacrificing oneself instead of the old man?  That would be a higher calling of spiritual morality.  I should say that most people wouldn’t do it.  I am reminded of the movie, “Message in a Bottle”, where the lead character played by Kevin Costner must decide whether to try and save a drowning woman, after saving her son and husband.  The odds of saving the woman were slim and no one could have faulted him for not trying.  In the end, he did and saved neither himself or the woman. 

 

In the end, a conscious decision may not even be made.  The self-preservation instinct in human beings is strong.  What would God’s judgement be upon a person if he made no choice and let the tragedy happen?  It would be difficult for me to justify any decision made.  Therefore, it is possible that I could “freeze” in the situation, not knowing what to do, and the 5 children would die.  The only consolation for me would be that I didn’t have to kill someone (outside of war) to save other lives.  That wouldn’t make the result any happier or better.  I guess I would have to honestly answer that I don’t know what I would do.  Any action or inaction on my part would probably be on some sort of “auto-pilot”.  One also has to be careful not to step on the slippery slope.  For if killing in this one instance is okay, where is the new line drawn?  There is the question that was brought up in the first scenario.  Could I as the responsible person be charged with murder of: 5 children, an old man, or one child?  I don’t know the answer to that question either.  It all depends on how the situation was perceived by others and what they thought what the right thing to do.  This also plays into the self-preservation mode that human beings have.  Would I like to be incarcerated or executed for any decision that I made in this situation?  Probably not.  Therefore, what should one do?  My answer is:  I don’t know.

 

Scenario 1B:  Same scenario except:  The one child on the side track is your child.  Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

 

In this scenario, the outcome is also a no-win situation, but I, like most people, would instinctively save my child.  Is that, morally right?  How many people would willingly sacrifice their child to save others?  I am betting not too many.  Abraham, in the Old Testament, was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar because God told him too.  Evidently, that story demonstrates the moral, ethical dilemma most people would have when faced with a choice of sacrificing one of their children.  Further, I believe that most people would not have the time nor the inclination to think out the “rational” solution.  The decision making logic of this scenario, is less clear and harder to prove when faced with one’s own child at risk.  I believe that I would save my child and it wouldn’t be a drawn-out decision.  I may freeze when faced with the unpalatable choice in the scenario above, but I don’t believe I would freeze in this one.

 

Regarding the train dilemma, I know that different cultures would react differently to ethical decisions.  Orientals may not make the same choices as Europeans, who would not make the same choices as Americans.  The factors surrounding the decisions are based on moral upbringing in the family and/or religion, ethical & moral education, specific crisis related training, and the culture that one hails from.  None of these answers have moral absolutes tied to them.  As with many choices in life, there is black, white, and varying shades of gray.  It is up to everyone to decide what shade they decide to participate in.

 

References:

 

Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11486219

 

Stevenson, William. (1976) A Man Called Intrepid. New York: Sky Horse Publishing

 

Movie: “Message in a Bottle” starring Kevin Costner (1999)

 

Old Testament, Genesis (Unknown)

 

John Hescott (2017-2018)