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

Police Prejudice

This week eight San Francisco police officers are suspended, pending the outcome of an investigation. The police officers are accused of racist, homophobic text. Ouch! This is especially surprising and intolerable considering that San Francisco has the highest concentration of LBGT in the country. A police officer is held to a higher standard than the average person and are supposed to be extremely tolerant of diversity. Im not surprised though, desegregation is still a fairly new concept when matched against the amount of time racial superiority prevailed. This directly ties to the both realization that ethics and morality are associated with adolescent teachings and are the foundation of the root of what we consider appropriate. While these officers may not have felt they were doing anything wrong, it was obviously inappropriate in the eyes of SFPD chief of police, Greg Suhr, and I am sure the general public. I do not wish to condone the behavior of the officers, but I do know that the viewpoint of these officers is not something that appeared overnight...These officers were likely part of an upbringing that frown upon any race different from their own. That said, when you put on the badge you don't get to pick and choose which citizens you protect and which you don't. These officers violated ethically acceptable behavior of a public servant. I pulled this excerpt from the California POST commissions code of ethics, " I WILL never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions." It makes perfect sense to most, others are still caught up in old ways or negative surroundings. Either way, need I reiterate the intolerance of prejudice of those charged with public safety?........Didn't think so. Way to go Chief Suhr!

https://www.post.ca.gov/commission-procedure-c-3-law-enforcement-code-of-ethics.aspx

Read the article here