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.