Illegal Downloads

Downloading music. It seems as though CD's are on the verge of becoming obsolete. I can't really image a world where every song you own is only on your computer and not on a CD, but that is the world I will soon be living in. People download mostly all of there music, and a lot of them are downloading it illegally.

Although I have never taken part in downloading music illegally, I am almost positive that some of the music on my Ipod was never bought. My music comes from someone else's computer. My question is how unethical do you feel downloading music illegally to be? Some would say that it is illegal, so it is clearly unethical. But this is not so in all cases of the law. It is wrong to not pay the artist for the music they produce. I have heard many people argue that they make so much money that they don't need me spending a dollar on a song. I have also heard people argue that they wouldn't listen to the songs if they had to buy them, thus not becoming fans of the artist.

These are all valid arguments, but do they really make a case for making illegal downloads ethical. I think that it is unethical. Ethics is about the only thing stopping the whole world from downloading illegally.

Does the fact that so many people illegally download music make it more ethical or just more acceptable? It makes me feel like it is not unethical. If it wasn't for all of those commercials urging you not to illegally download, I wouldn't even think about the ethics, I would just assume it is something that happened. Check out this article about the percentage of illegal downloads. Astonishing.

Do you download illegally? Take a bite.

I Won!

Today I got an ad in the mail that was addressed generically to Resident. It had a key taped to it and said, "You could drive away with this 2010 Ford!" Below that it had a scratch and win, if you got three gold bars you were a winner!! Well I got three gold bars. In order to collect my unmentioned prize I must go to the event headquarters. The first thing that crossed my mind is this is a scam to get my information so that they can attempt to sell my poor college butt a car.

I started to wonder if this was ethical. The prizes are usually barely anything, and always come with a catch. People give out information and are continually sought after that. Is it any different than any other form of advertising?

Being a business major, I know the benefits of direct selling. I also know that it is common and not unethical. This ad is an ineffective form of direct selling. But there is a fine line between ethical and unethical. I think that ads like this are on the verge of unethical. It makes me wonder how many of the other letters have three gold bars, how many other "players" are winners. Maybe I am just being a pessimist, thinking that there is no way I could have won so it must be a scam. Maybe I really did win! I guess I will never know.

Have you received ads like this? How do you react to them? Take a bite, I want to know.

White Lies

I seem to be thinking about lying a lot lately. I promise it is not because my life is now revolving around lies.

I just happened to watch the classic movie, Harriet the Spy the other night. In the movie, Harriet's nanny, Sully, gives the young girl some guidence. After Harriet gets in trouble when her secret notebook, full of harsh words about her classmates, falls into the wrong hands and is shared with her friends. Harriet looks to Sully and says, You said never to lie, the things in my notebook are true. Sully then responds with a message about how little white lies can sometimes be good, they can help a friend who is feeling down. The truth doesn't always need to be told.

Some theories on ethics, such as that of Kant, would say that lying of any kind is wrong. But we are all guilty of white lies. I tell my friends white lies all the time. Does it hurt them? Are white lies unethical even though in today's society they have become acceptable.

Take a bite. Tell me about your white lies.

Trust

Often trust goes hand-in-hand with lying. Although it is hard to addmit when you have done something wrong, the consequences of not being honest are often more long lasting than if you were to just come out with the truth.

Does being ethical usually have this benefit? I believe it does, the more you strive to be ethical the longer the benefits will last. Each time someone acts unethical, it may benefit them in the short-term, but chances are it will not benefit you in the long-run.

Do you strive to be eth

ical? Or would you rather face the consequences later in life?

Does internet make it easier to lie?

Take a bite.

Questions

The other day, I listened to a Police Officer guest speak. As students were asking the Officer questions, I thought about where some of these questions stemmed from. Students usually ask Officers questions that pertain to themselves, if I do this what will happen to me. As I listen to the students ask their questions, I wonder about the ethics behind asking the questions. As the officer said, if you are doing something illegal you are doing something illegal and there will be consequences. Yet the students continued to find out how they could get away with things.

One of the questions that struck my interest most was, "What if I was driving and my friends in the car were underage and drunk, would I get in trouble?" The Officer had little to say about this. It is in itself a hard decision to make. Is it more unethical to aid these students who are participating in an act that is illegal, even if you yourself are not participating, or is it more unethical to not help them and leave them to possible hurt themselves or others?


I would choose to help them, as I see it being more ethical.

This article offers a different alternative that is probably more ethical, but much harder to do. Check it out, let me know what you think.
What do you think?
Take a bite so I can hear what you think.

I Was Just Helping

Sometimes helping people with there homework can turn into you doing their homework. At what point is helping somebody on their homework cheating?

The Things I Forget to Wonder

This weekend I was told two separate stories that made me gasp.

The first was told by my elderly friend. She said that her sister was down visiting and she found a wallet outside the store. She looked in for a name and gave them a call. She did not trust giving it to the grocery store as she feared a worker might steal it. The lady was so grateful she delivered flowers on the porch the next day.

The second was told to me by an older friend as well, who, while visiting, an elderly gentleman in the retirement home was putting money away for him in his hat. (He liked to roll up the dollars and stick it in his hat.) There was a worker watching while she did this. Although she thought nothing of it, she soon came to find out that someone was stealing money from this old man.

Both of these situations are sad. The first is acting ethically under suspicion that others might not. The second is acting ethically under assumption that others will too. What got me most about both of these stories is, in both situations, I would have thought of anyone acting unethically. I have the inability to think of what other people might and probably will do. I do not know if this is due to my personality or the age in which I have been raised. I take both of these stories as a reminder to act ethically, but remember that many others will not. The first situation is a great outcome, even if the store had been ethical, there is no harm in assuming they won't.

Tell me, do you often think about others acting unethically or are you like me and always assume others act ethically? I am often the last to know that something like this is occurring because it is not something I think others do. What would you do? Take a bite, and let me know.

Justified Crimes

I heard an oratory speech this past weekend. It was about how some crimes are justified. I was interested in the topic as soon as I heard the title. It is something we have all pondered. Movies like the Boondock Saints exhibits how perhaps, some crimes, are justified. I sat in my seat ready to listen.

In her reasoning she mentioned that it was just for this young lady to higher someone to kill her father because she had no other choice. The girl was abused by her father, sexually and physically. She started joining activities, and doing everything she could to stay away from home. Although she escape the father's brutality, he had moved on to the little sister. Unable to take this, she hired someone to end her misery by ending her father's life. The orator said that in this case, it was a justified crime, she had to do it. I sat there pondering in my chair, and couldn't bring myself to believe it. This girl had not tried the other options, the more civil options. She had not tried to put her dad in prison, she had not tried to get them out of the situation. She simply jumped to ending another human life. I don't know if I can consider that just under many circumstances. No matter how just it may seem at the time, she could have done more.

The one part of the speech that was interesting to contemplate, and a bit more grey for me then the above issue, was that of stealing. She mentioned how during Katrina people were stealing, and that under these circumstances it was ok. If they were stealing the necessities, what they needed to survive, then they were just.

What do you think about just crimes? Do they exist? Is stealing ok in some situations, is killing ok? Take a bite, and tell me.

I had a Reason to Cheat

The other day I was telling a friend about the one time I cheated on a test. I was in third grade, I had missed class because my grandmother had died. Upon coming back I had to take a test on the bones in our body. To say the least, I don't know my bones. I never have. She allowed me to take the test home for some reason I cannot explain except to assume that she assumed that I was a good kid who wouldn't cheat. I sat with the paper on my bay window staring out the window. I didn't know the information. Right next to me was the study guide, I pulled it out, and used it to help me complete the test. The next day I handed it in, and I felt guilty beyond belief. I had never cheated before, and I have never cheated like that since.

When I was telling my friend about this story, I was sure to say that I had just gotten back from my grandmother's funeral. As though an excuse justifies my behavior. In reality, that excuse is the only reason I had the opportunity to cheat in the first place. But, it made me feel better about cheating.

This is just a small example of how we often look for excuses to justify our unethical behavior. As though, we had no other option. There is always another option, and just because it may not seem to benefit you the most, doesn't mean that we should allow ourselves to make the unethical decision.

Although, the ethics of cheating depends on what ethical philosophy you follow. Under some philosophies, cheating was the right decision for me. But in general, we all viewing cheating to be unethical, and I felt unethical doing it.

So readers, Take a bite. Do you notice people and corporations making excuses to justify their actions? Have you yourself made excuses?

Health Care Bill

The Health Care Bill passed earlier this week. Strong opinions are leading to many debates. I am wondering what the many ethical components to the bill are. Many individuals are complaining about the document being too long for anyone to have actual read. In sense that is unethical because the general public, whom it affects, is not given the true ability to understand what their congressman are voting for. The congress themselves are speculated to not have even read the document, many are calling them out for voting for a bill they haven't even read.

I am personally more concerned with all the added "pork barrel" to ensure that votes from certain states. I have also heard some issues with the government forcing us to take health care, saying that goes against our rights to freedom. Natural News pulled articles from the bill itself to discuss the possibility. It is an interesting thought. The bill itself has flaws, as all bills do, but is it really unethical?

The intention of the bill is, in many theories of ethics, the most ethical thing to do. It benefits the greatest amount of people. By ensuring that all Americans will be provided with health care we are making a statement that we care about them, and want them to be healthy.

However, if there really are some possible constitution violations, of which I have heard citizens worry about, is that not more important?

I have mixed feelings on the issue, because above all I believe that the constitution shall always be the priority, even if ethical theory says providing health care is more ethical. At the point when we are willing to give up those rights, is the point where America is no longer the same place. My thoughts on that could also have a little to do with enjoying the idea that the government will get called out if they try to violate our rights. To me, any breach, even if for a good cause, is a gateway to more and more breaches. I can't handle the idea, in the back of my head the book, 1984, by George Orwell rings as a warning.

I have not read the bill, I know not if it is unconstitutional. This article by Good Morning America discusses the possibility. It is a real issue, and one that if it is proven will set Obama's dream back. I guess only time will tell.

How do you feel? Do you believe that working for the great good should trump the constitution? Or do you not even believe it is unconstitutional to begin with? Take a bite, let me know what you think of the Government.

The Land of Layoffs

As the economy continues to spiral down, companies are making the decision to layoff many workers. Companies like Intel and Microsoft have laid off upwards of 5,000 employees. That is a lot of families changed. With so many people struggling in the economy, the question arises: Is it Ethical for companies to lay off so many workers just to ensure high profits?

This question is complex and perhaps depends on you view of ethics. In a way, although it is bad for those who are laid off, if it saves the jobs of the rest of the workers, is it not better? Or is it better for the company to just break even and keep those workers?

You decide. Take a Bite and let me know about layoffs.

Hotdogs an Ethical Decision?

We have all bitten into America's favorite baseball food, the hotdog. Every since I was little hotdogs were a familiar food, one that I enjoy a bit less now that I am an adult. Hamburgers and hotdogs were the main dish at every BBQ I went to. Know I am hearing that they are dangerous for little kids. Although I made it through my hotdog stage just fine, it makes you wonder. The ethical dilemma that hotdog manufactures are now facing is if they should do anything about this danger.

When I first read the line about hotdogs: "And it's potentially deadly. Should manufacturers act?" from The Business Ethics Blog, by Chris McDonald I was worried that the actual food product was dangerous, that it caused cancer or something (as everything else seems to lead to cancer these days). As I read further, it discussed that hotdogs are a choking factor. I remembered reading an article from Fast Company that talked about redesigning the hotdog. Click here to read the article. The article shows many possible designs that make the product less hazardous to children.

Should the manufacturers be obligated to change the hotdog to make it less of a choking hazard? I mean, haven't hot dogs been around for generations? At what point is the possibility of a child choking on a product extreme enough to hold manufactures at fault? I am not sure about you, but I remember my mother cutting up all my food when I was little to prevent choking. A child could choke on just about any food out there. Does that mean we have to redesign all food?

So where is the line drawn between parent obligations and manufacture obligations? Perhaps consumers view hotdogs being marketed to children, placing more obligation on the manufactures than the parents. This issue, is becoming more than an ethical issue for the manufactures of hotdogs. If they do not do anything, they face being sued. Is it unethical to produce a product that is so easy to choke on?

In my personal opinion, I do not think that the manufactures (in this case) have any obligation to change the design of the hotdog. It has been around for so long, and it is not the manufactures job. It is the parents job to ensure the child does not choke. If we continue to put blame on the manufactures, then what do we hold the parents to? It is important for humanity that we expect parents to take certain precautions with their children at all ages. We cannot continue to baby everyone through life.

Perhaps you disagree with my logic. I want to know what you think about the hotdog. Take a bite, contemplate, and let me know.

Another Dilbert

Just because someone has the title, does that mean that they are qualified? Is it unethical to have a title that you are not qualified for, what if you have the background education but not the skill required to succeed. Is it unethical then? For example lets say you are a doctor, and you have the training, the credentials, but you don't have the skill to really understand what is going on with the patients, and you are constantly getting it wrong. Is that unethical? Is it more unethical than this cartoon?

Take a Bite of that juicy apple, I want to know what you think.

Who Doesn't Love Dilbert?

Although this company is making an effort to be ethical, it raises the question about real business ethics. Is the effort more for the public or for security, or do they really want to make an effort?

Take a bite. Tell me your opinion.

Again with the Lie

The other day I was reading Ethics In Technical Communication: A Critique and Synthesis, by Mike Markel. The third chapter opens up with an interesting ethical situation, one that before reading this would not have occurred to me to be an ethical situation.

The situation is provided by Immanuel Kant:

Hypothetical case of the Inquiring Murders: you are approached by a man who claims that a murder is looking for him. The man runs away; you seem him go into his house. A few moments later, the murderer comes up to you and inquires whether you have seen the man. Should you tell the murderer where the man went?

If you are like me, my first instinct was to scream NO!! My instinct was not to think, well if I don't tell him, that would be a lie. We all know that lying is unethical, but in some situations it just doesn't seem to be wrong.

Kant argues that you do tell the man, you tell the truth. Kant argues that you should never lie.

Kant's arguments vary from reasons such as the victim has slipped out of the house to the murderer will be apprehended by efforts of the neighbors. He also argues that if you do lie, the murderer might come upon the victim in an other place and kill him. With this argumentation, Kant tries to show that regardless of the situation you should always tell the truth.

After reading this brief explanation I started to think about how it would be better to tell the truth. How do you even know that this guy is a murderer, and the other the victim? Perhaps there was a lie told to you from the "victim." Also, if you told the truth you would know where the supposed murderer was so you could get the victim help, opposed to being blind to where the man ran. Sadly, it also crossed my mind that if you told the truth, you would later feel guilty if you had lied and that had made the situation worse. As though telling the truth would release responsibility.

After thinking a long hard time, I agreed it would be better to tell the truth. I also started thinking about alternatives. Like talking to the man in an effort to hold him back. Ask him a question or two just to delay the time. I wasn't thinking that this may be dangerous, only that it may help the other individual.

Or couldn't I simply say, I don't know. I don't know where he is.

As I sit here and contemplate, I am almost positive that I agree with Kant. I get this feeling in my heart, I suppose that is like most people's gut feelings, that if I were to lie, either by pointing him in the wrong direction or saying I don't know, or delay the man it would end up worse. Lying would be putting faith in the victim having told the truth. It would be a risk. Delaying, could make things worse. It prevents you from taking action, from calling the police.

Of course, my agreeing with Kant here opens up new avenues of thought. If I agree not to lie to this supposed killer, than should I also restrict myself from telling those "little" white lies to my friends? It seems as though I have a new goal in life.

I am curious. Do you agree with Kant, or is lying, in some situations justified?

Take a bite, I want to know what you think about this lie.

Bigger the Temptation

Is easier to act in an ethical way when the situation is a large issue? For example, is it easier to lie to a friend about why you can't hang out with them, or is it easier to lie about something big like cheating on your boyfriend or girlfriend? It seems to me like it doesn't seem as bad, as big of an ethical breech, to lie to your friend about hanging out. I wouldn't feel as morally wrong about making a decision to lie about that as I would about a bigger issue. However, the bigger the situation, the more temptation there is to lie. You know that by telling the truth you will get in trouble, and that the consequences will be bad. This may lead you to lie. Both are unethical. Which one do you find to be more unethical? Which one would you be more likely to do?

Take a bite.

Clicker Dilemma, We All Know This One

Check out this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WIId7tC4nU

This scene is familiar to many college students. Many students do this on a regular basis without a valid excuse.

Do you think it is an ethical dilemma?

Take a bite, I want to know.

For Ourselves?

If I were to ask you if every action you made was for yourself, most of us would say no. Many theorists argue, however, that we always act in our own self-interest. This was a concept that when I first entered into a philosophical debate, took the position of no. The more we discussed the topic, the more I started to see that every action, to some extent was in our own self-interest. Self-interest might not be the driving force, but an individual would never do anything that they, in some form, did not gain satisfaction. Even the toughest issues, those issues that would be classified as selfless, to some extent possesses some kind of value to the individual.

Let us look at some examples. An individual volunteers, in all respects this is for other people, it helps other people. Yet, the volunteer receives some form of satisfaction. Perhaps they feel good to have volunteered, perhaps they felt guilty and needed to give back. There could be so many reasons for a person to make a decision, and each decision has some underlying personal effect.

A more rattling example is to sacrifice yourself to save someone else. This is something we see a lot in movies, and books, and even the news. These acts are heroic, and I in no way mean to degrade the power and strength it must take an individual to make that decision. However, even that to some extend was the individual acting in their own self-interest. There could be so many reasons for why a person would choose to do that. Perhaps they value the other individuals life as more worthy than they value theirs, perhaps they feel as though they couldn't live if they did not act. Some underlying issue is there that indicates self-interest is present.

I am not suggesting that every decision is purely self-interest guided. I am just suggesting that it is impossible to make a decision that in some way is not made for yourself. It is unconscious behavior. You can debate it as much as you like, and you may be able to sway my opinion. I have already switched points of view once, so I know the topic well. Lives and emotions are so complex that there is no way that your life is not factored into your own decisions. It is important to remember that acting in your self-interest may not always appear to be the best decision for yourself.

So what does this have to do with ethics? Self-interest guides your decisions. It is an element of ethics itself. Different views on ethics suggest that the ethical thing is to only act in your own self-interest. I am proposing that it is almost impossible to not act in your own interest. Although self-interest is a part of ethics, it is important to examine the many avenues of ethics. Ethics is complex, and your personal ethics are complex. Self-interest is just one piece of the ethics puzzle.

Do you agree that we all act in our own self-interest? Do you think that it is possible to avoid acting for yourself.

Take a bite, because I want to hear what you have to say.

Values

Over the years ethics have changed because values have changed. Looking at past ads alone can give you a sense of how values have changed. Older ads have a lot of strong family values, sitting down and eating together, opposed to the rush of family life today. There was more emphasize on honesty. Shows have changed. Reality TV is new, and it affects humanity. We are now able to relish in the ideas of other peoples real lives, and their mistakes. It has changed our world. It has changed the way we think, the way we function. For the most part, a handshake doesn't carry the same promise today as it did even 30 years ago.

But what is the reason for this change? Advertisements have changed, and some blame the media for the reason that values are not as strong. But, relation doesn't always mean causation. The ads have changed because marketing makes an effort to always appeal to the audience. They have to do what the consumers want. This, to me, makes a strong argument that the advertisements simply show the change in behavior. We can use ads to gage the change.

We could look at many factors, each as a possibility of why values have evolved. Generations are different. Some are more motivated to succeed in the work place, other generations are more family oriented. These values change because of the way each generation brings up the next generation. The other day I was discussing with some friends the idea that our generation, the people we go to school with and work with, our friends, are, well, lazy. They do the least amount of work that they can to get what they want. They do little, and complain when a situation isn't ideal because they have done nothing. Our parents, they are hard workers. We believe that this is because our parents worked so hard to give us more than they had. Their parents lived in the age of the depression. Our parents having so much to give us, and wanting to give us so much, caused much of our generation to be spoon fed. I am generalizing to make the argument. You, of course, get a mix of kids who work extremely hard, just like their parents, and those who aren't. This changes our values. The generation in which we were raised changes are view on life because our lives are so different. Values will continue to change because each era of life is so different.

Other factors also come into play. War, economic situations, among others.

What do you think is the most important part in the change of values?

Take a bite, tell me what you think.

Do you ever feel like sometimes those things that are legal seem to be just a little bit immoral? This cartoon depicts that problem. Often things become legal because such a large majority of people believe that it is unethical. It has been said that the legality is the ethics of society, whereas morals are the ethics of individuals. Killing, for example, is considered socially wrong, so it is law. This comic depicts the fine line between what is ethically right for you, and what you have to do legally. What would you do? Do you turn left or right? Or do your morals always line up with law?

Readers, take a bite, and tell me what you think.

No Explanation Needed

This comic is funny. It is funny because it is so true. It is one of the most common dilemmas in ethics. Doing the "right" thing always means giving something up. Usually, this something, is the one thing you really want. In this case, the cartoon says that it interferes with his legal practice. Meaning that doing the right thing puts him behind in business. This is something a lot of big corporations are finding. Sadly, many choose to do what is best for them or rather, what is the unethical thing to do.

Choosing this option is not a new concept, it is just more public now then it use to be. More and more we are hearing what unethical practices businesses have. These are not new. Do you agree, or do you think that it is new something that has arisen just recently?

Go ahead and take a bite, I want to know what you think.

Comic Strips

Over the next few days I will be posting some comic strips. They all of course deal with ethics. The very fact that they have comic strips for ethics mans that it is a realm in which people dwell and understand the complications. For example the comic on the left depicts the common cartoon of a devil and an angel trying to persuade you of what choice to make. The man has a document in his hand and they are trying to figure out how to handle the situation. The ethical venue would be the angel, however, the devil usually has some pretty good arguments. This comic is humorous because we understand exactly how this man feels.

Read the comics, chuckle and don't forget to take a bite.

I would take a bite of a bagel

Just the other day, a friend was telling me about this experiment he was learning about. A guy decided to sell bagels to groups of people by simply putting a basket or jar with some money near the bagels. He collected data about which methods were the best way to collect money. It was not so much about money as it was about ethics. There was a difference between the jar and the basket, there was a difference where he placed the stand. Sometimes somebody would just steal the whole jar, but for the most part, he made money from the endeavor. One of the things that caught my interest the most about this story was that when the guy placed the set up in an accounting office, most everyone put something into the jar. When he set it up in a business with managers he was much less likely to receive anything for the bagel. It is a curious thing. Accountants are often the individuals getting hit hard for their ethics, or lack of, in business. We often assume that the manager, although at fault, was not the main cause. This situation brings out a bit of new light. The man conducting the study suggested that the mangers may have felt more entitled to the bagels. So was it really an ethical decision?

It is something to wonder what you would do in that situation. If you would be more likely to put money depending on the basket or the jar. With no one watching, do you think that you would exchange money for a bagel? It is hard to know what you would do and how much you would give up for that scrumptious bagel. When I was first asked that question I answered the typical answer, put down some money and grab the bagel. However, I do think that a jar would be different than a basket, and that would affect my choice.

This scenario reminded of a story my sixth grade teacher told me about. She said that when she was little there was a little store where you could get fresh fruit and vegetables. Nobody was there, you just took what you needed and left the money in a basket. Today, this would be suicide. No business would every be so trusting as to practice this principle. Oh! How times change.

I know wonder why those things have changed.
Don't forget to take a bite.

The Tracks

How you view the situation on the train says a lot about your personality toward ethics. There are different categories depending on your attitude to different situations.

It seems as those the West has gained their own reputation for ethics.

Cowboy Ethics is a book by James Owen that has been adopted by many businesses. It has even been made into a short Film, focusing on ethics in Wyoming. Below is a trailer for the video.

The Code of the West: Alive & Well in Wyoming - Trailer from Havey Productions on Vimeo.

Does this video portray Wyoming ethics?

Ethics have changed over time. Wyoming is not immune to those changes. Although Wyoming is fairly rural, when society changes, Wyoming changes too. I believe you still see a strong "Cowboy Ethic" in Wyoming, but that is not all you see. Everywhere you go there are going to be ethical and some not so ethical people.

To those who do not have first hand experience with Wyoming, this video depicts not only the stereotype of cowboys, but it also shows Wyoming in beautiful light. To outsiders, Wyoming seems to be the ethical kingdom untouched by the technological era. But Wyoming's population isn't just cowboys. It is said that some companies from the East coast find being from Wyoming a reason to higher an individual. It is as if being from Wyoming has given you a skill that puts you above your competition. Is this justified, or do videos and this idea of ethics in the West being superior give false hope?

It is important to remember that ethics have evolved, and that Wyoming may still hold more of those original core values. The West may have even had a much different view on ethics to begin, the cultural difference from the east coast to the west coast were and are vastly different. The east has always been more prone to cities than the west, and that could change the very basis for how ethics were first established. History may play a key role.

So many things to ponder. So don't forget to take a bite.

The Train

A train is rolling down the tracks. Up ahead the track divides into two different paths. One path leads to a dead end where the train and all the 50 passengers on it, will die. The other track leads to the death of your mother/sister/brother/father. Which path do you let the train travel? Does it matter if you know that those 50 individuals on the train are all on death row? What if among those 50 individuals was the President of the United States? What if they were just your average arrangement of citizens? At what point does it matter who those individuals are, or does it matter at all?

This is a question I would spend hours discussing in my business class in high school. I remember arguing that if the individuals were on death row anyway, that we might as well save my brother. My teacher argued, that the ethical decision would be to do what is best for the greater population, suggesting that saving 50 people no matter who they were would be better. The class didn't always agree, and that is when the debate started.

I am interested in what you have to say. What would you do with this train dilemma?

Thanks,

Rachel

And don't forget to take a bite.

Take A Bite?

Take A Bite is a blog that will spend a lot of time looking at ethics. Ethics play a huge role in the world we live in. A lot of the laws that are now in place stem from ethics. It was unethical for a human to kill another human. This was a universal thought, and thus became law. When enough support comes behind an ethical belief, or it is perceived that there is a need for all of humanity to follow an ethical idea, it becomes law. Society plays a huge role in the difference between unethical and illegal. The best examples of this process can be found in business. Many things that were unethical to do a few years ago, have become illegal. This blog will discuss different ethical situations, laws, and society. I urge you to take a bite of what I say and share your thoughts on the ethical dilemmas and other situations that are brought up.

Don't forget to take a bite.

Rachel