Auction to Kill

(Photo taken from USAToday.com Karl Stromayer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service via AP)

A Texas man won an auction to hunt and kill a black rhino in Namibia. Corey Knowlton, a professional hunter from Dallas, successfully killed and imported a black rhino, and had to dish out $350, 000 to do so. In an ironic twist, Knowlton has received death threats from those supporting the life of the Rhino, so it is Knowlton who may now be hunted. The rhino has more value placed on it than human life, apparently. Knowlton says that the money paid will go to fund that aid in conservation of the animal. Knowlton justifies his killing due to the fact that the rhino was no longer contributing to increasing the population of rhinos, and may have endangered younger male rhinos. Comparatively, female babies in old Eskimo culture were killed out of necessity because there may have otherwise been a shortage of food (Rosenstand, 2013). Both examples rationalize one of the universal values: A policy of caring for enough infants to ensure the continuation of a group. So is Knowlton a murderer? Is he ethically wrong for paying to kill a rhino? In the usual public fashion, People are overreacting. Knowlton has actual logic in his decision to kill the animal, and it actually makes sense. I'm not surprised, logic isn't really a consideration, emotion rules in most cases. 



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/20/dallas-safari-club-texan-kills-black-rhino/27639801/

Watch What You Say...

This weeks article is of an employee of a national sandwich shop chain, Subway, who was fired for remarks made on social media. Sierra McCurdy celebrated the death of two police officers that were shot and killed in Mississippi, following a traffic stop. First, I need to rant about the fact that people are getting a bit carried away with their right to "the freedom of speech". The First Amendment is not a pass to say vile things without consequence. It also does not protect the way others perceive you based on your opinion. In an attempt to objectively understand why this young lady made her remark, I consider the state of current police/public relations. This woman obviously feels betrayed by the police. The police are her enemy, and as such she feels that we are better off without them. It is an unfortunate consequence of the negative portrayal of police in media, they are such brave public servants. In this situation, Sierra is not necessarily evil, as her post would suggest; she is merely voicing an opinion based on environmental stimulus. She should have considered the consequence of her actions. Several recent instances of police injustice include the Baltimore shooting of Freddie Gray, and the North Charleston, South Carolina shooting of Walter Scott, among other such cases. The expression pioneered by German philosopher Hanna Arendt, the banality of evil, provides theory to Sierras statement. Sierra's employment was terminated from Subway. It is important to understand that  people must consider who they represent at that present moment before voicing an opinion. Subway responds, "This kind of behavior is unacceptable and does not represent the values and ethics of our brand."

Read News Article Here

What's Yours Is MINE!

Alas! The time has come again for me to spread my wisdom across the web. I actually enjoy writing my opinion in this format, and may continue to do so even after the conclusion of my course. After a weeklong vacation, cruising in Europe, I am ready to tackle another post. This weeks article, taken from The Guardian, is of a couple that utilized a fertility treatment to preserve embryos, and the ensuing battle for disposition after the couple split. You'll shortly understand why this article is relevant, in the meantime I will summarize a couple of key points in bullet format.

• Man claims to consider himself Catholic
• Couple agreed to bring embryos to term with mutual consent
• Catholic church forbids unnatural conception
• Pope Benedict..."IVF embryos have right to life even before implantation"
• Man wants the contract voided so that he may take possession of embryos 

So you see the ethical dilemma here? There is none. Issues of morality prevail. Philosopher Immanuel Kant defines evil as a self-serving choice that individuals make freely, even when they know fill well the moral law they ought to be following (Rosenstand, 2013). Let's be clear, I am not calling this man evil. I am, however, curious about what his intentions were for making such a private matter public. Previously, I mentioned that the man considers himself catholic. So why would he engage in practices that the religion frowns upon? The answer is simple. People are sometimes inclined to disregard morality on the basis of personal satisfaction. As a predominately self-serving body, we tend to do the thing that will cause us the greatest amount of satisfaction. What rationale guided this mans decision? Does he desire the ability to create the "perfect child"? Perhaps he wanted to embarrass his former partner. Nonetheless, this article highlights a person who appears to desire public persuasion to achieve his desired outcome. He seems concerned with his own motives, with no regard to anyone else. 

Rosenstand, N. (2013). The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics (7th Edition ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Read Original Article Here

Just Marrried

This weeks article involves, arguably, one of the most morally charged subjects today. It headlines a Supreme court decision that asks: (1)whether states have a right to limit marriage to a union between man and woman; (2) if valid, would same sex marriages have to be honored in states that forbid same-sex marriages. Moral absolutism has no place for variations from a traditional marriage. A person would marry an individual of the opposite sex. Justices provide some insight, that policy imposing same-sex marriage requirements on states, would be unpalatable for religious reasons. The issue with granting same-sex marriages is in determining if such an action would be harmful to society. But how would they know?....They wouldn't. The emotional thing to do would be to grant each request, but the rational thing to do is consider how new policy would affect current livelihood. For example, a criticism of same-sex, marriage as mentioned in the article, is that such an act would potentially harm traditional marriages. Again, one of the criticisms of utilitarian agenda is the lack of immediacy in consequences. Therefore, a decision will have to be made, but it will take some considerable time before being able to analyze the effects of such policy.

Link to Article on AJC.com

P.B. Jams

My blog views are up and I'm not sure why. I thought the only person interested in my blog postings is my instructor.  Finally, a story that will warm your heart AND relates to ethics....Think I hit the jackpot with this one...In summary, a restaurant owner in Oklahoma has opened the doors of her restaurant to service someone that has been rummaging through the dumpster for scraps of food. A sign on the door reads:

 “To the person going through our trash for their next meal, you’re a human being and worth more than a meal from the dumpster. Please come in during business hours for a classic Pb&j, fresh veggies, and a cup of water at no charge. No questions asked. – your friend, the owner.”

Wow! This amazing restaurant owner restaurant owner recognized a person rummaging through trash as a human being. Even an invisible person rummaging through a trash deserves the title "human-being."Interestingly, this weeks readings sought to define a human being. The restaurant owner selflessly opened her business, which by business standards, is open to make money. Certainly can't make money by giving food away for free. In this instance doing what she wanted was not selfish or self-motivated. Some businesses consider people going through trash that is thrown away as theft. However, as a consequence of her act of heroism, her restaurant is receiving nationwide media attention and will likely see an increase in revenue. The cost of kindness is free, but she will be rewarded for her kind gesture. Some comments are arguing that the owner did this for publicity as the sign would be better suited near the dumpster and not the door. Maybe so, but at least the offer is there and another human will eat and not got hungry.

Man Down

Four weeks of ethics blogging, hoping I get it right this time....Well, I didn't have to search long for this weeks article, as it is a headliner on almost every news site. First, let me say that each week it seems that I post a new article with the same subject...Police. Really, I may have a slight obsession with stories covering their actions. Nonetheless, the link below will direct you to a video of an Arizona officer ramming a suspect with his police cruiser. I will warn you, it is tough to watch. After watching the video I questioned how a human has the capability and mindset to ram another person with a vehicle, considering the outcome of potentially crushing them leading to death...The logic I later learned, that was presented by Terry Bozeman, chief of the Marana, Arizona police department, was that it better to eliminate this one person so that innocent people are not affected by this suspects self-serving actions. I suppose that is reasonable logic; another example of an individual feeling duty-bound to do something that others find repugnant. Im not sure I could ram another human with a vehicle, it seems so inhumane. How can I deal with the difference of opinion relating to this incident? Ethical Relativism. I choose to allow the logic of that Officers decision and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the events leading up to the incident as justification for ramming another human. Scrolling through the comments of various websites there seems to be a general consensus that the officer was justified in his actions; albeit, slightly excessive. The point of me choosing this article and the ensuing rant, is to solve a moral disagreement logically.  I'll admit, this format made that acceptance a lot easier. I am not particularly fond of incidents of excessive force.

Millennials

The mere fact that millennials code of ethics is continuously being challenged is iconic, as I have read many article about this topic. The basis for much of the argument is lack of conformity of the new workforce as past generations were. The new generation of employees, millennials, are more open about their moral guidelines. While I consider moral principle to be based on religious beliefs, the article points out that is possible to have a strong moral core without adhering to a religious belief system. The article further supports the claim with an insertion referencing studies from Universities that have found that secular American families do have deep moral values. Millennials are not amoral. Furthermore, it is not an employers’ responsibility to entice an individual’s moral guideline.  To tie this article into the topics of the class thus far, I reflect on the topic of moral relativism and how ones moral compass is subjective. That means one doesn’t fit all and cooperation’s embracing an individuals moral guidance may encourage a more productive organization.

READ THE ARTICLE HERE