Reflections on Ethics, Morals, and Social Responsibility

This past 9 weeks I have dove into the world of Ethics, Morals, and Corporate Social Responsibility. I have learned some great theories and concepts regarding ethics and morals. More importantly, I have thought more in depth about what it means to be moral and ethical in my life.

There are three take-away's from this course:

1. Ethics and Morals are not static things or ideologies. What was ethical to me as a teenager is different from how I view ethics now as a father, professional, and productive member of my community. As we grow in our experiences and values we can expect to grow in our understanding of what it means to be ethical and have a strong moral foundation. Further, others' ideas on ethics may differ from ours and require us to critically think about how they view the world of right and wrong, and why. We should all make a practice out of evaluating  or resetting our moral compasses every so often, and realign them when needed. Sure, there are certain ethical rules we should follow like don't murder, steal, or cheat others. However, we should gauge why we follow these ethical laws so we fully understand why we should not do these things. As we grow, so shall our ethics and morality.
2. Deontology or Consequentialism... which one is right? Deontologists believe that the act is weighted in ethical or moral responsibility. We don't do A, B, C because A, B, C are wrong in their nature. Consequentialists believe we don't do A, B, C because if we do we get X, Y, Z which are morally and ethically wrong. Staunch supporters of each view point hold fast to their beliefs. However, I believe both of these principle values are systems that can be used separately or in unison. I choose not to murder because taking another life without a valid cause (self defense, defense of others, war, etc) is wrong. I can also understand that if I take a life without a valid cause I deprive the victim of their right to live, their families from enjoying them, and the future they could have had. I think it is important to consider the consequences of our actions just as much as it is important to know the difference between right and wrong behavior.
3. We all need to be on a quest to be better. We should all be learning and continually examining our world around us. Evil can and has come with thunderous applause. I wonder how those who followed Hitler felt about the ethical and moral choices they were making when following his orders to commit genocide. How could so many be duped into abandoning their moral and ethical virtues? We must not allow ourselves to be persuaded into surrendering our grasp on what is right. We should all be willing to commit to self improvement, to being useful, and to being kind. It starts with what is directly in front of us. We make decisions on how we treat those we see everyday and those decisions create habits that we use to treat others' a little further removed from our immediate sphere of influence. Kindness is contagious. Ethical behavior is just as contagious. Be the example in your life and others will follow.

These past few weeks have been enlightening to say the least. Our minds are like rubber bands in the sense that the more we stretch them the less they will assume their original form. We must always be stretching ourselves. We do this by attending to our mind, body, and spirit. There is no irony in the fact that ethics and morality can be found in all three.

JP

Gun Control: What's the Answer?

Recent Tweets by astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science communicator, and other-wise pretty smart guy Neil deGrasse Tyson have shared some interesting statistical numbers on guns and death in America.

• 1.4 million Americans have died in all wars fought since 1776. 1.4 million Americans have died via household guns since 1968. 
• 400,000 Americans died in WWII. 400,000 Americans died by household firearms since 2001.
• 3,400 Americans died by terrorism since 2001. 3,400 Americans died by household firearms since five weeks ago.
• (Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) Nov 9, 2015)

These are pretty alarming numbers, no doubt about that. However, here are some additional interesting numbers:

• There were 30,057 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. in 2013, in which 32,719 deaths occurred. That averages out to about 630 deaths a week, or 3,150 over a 5 week period. (IIHS, 2015)
• 600,000+ people die each year from heart disease. almost 600,000 from cancer. 130,000 from deadly strokes. 85,000 from Alzheimer's. (CDC, 2015)

What is really alarming is when a mass shooting occurs and many innocent lives are lost at the hands of someone with a gun. Since 2006, there have been more than 200 mass killings in the U.S. (USA TODAY, 2015). There is no wondering why gun control is at the forefront of political conversations in America. Something has to change.

But, at who's expense? Gun control advocates argue that reducing the availability of guns in America will reduce gun deaths. That seams plausible, but is this probable? Has this tactic worked with illegal drugs? How many billions of dollars have been spent to eliminate drugs from our city streets? Who still thinks they couldn't go to any city, in any state and buy whatever illegal drugs they want? So, making guns illegal won't solve the problem.

Guns need ammunition to be lethal. There is talk of controlling types of ammo available for sale. I would argue that a well placed shot from a .22 could kill just as easily as a military grade 5.56mm round. This argument doesn't seem plausible.

Limiting the capacity of rounds in a magazine. This one actually made me laugh. Does anyone remember how long it took Oswald to fire off three rounds from a bolt action rifle scoring three headshots from over a few hundred yards away... at a moving target? 6 seconds, according to the Zapruder film! It can take a seasoned firearm expert half that time to eject and reload a 10 round magazine from just about any platform. Really, reducing 30 round, or "high-capacity" magazines. Nope.

We already have laws about felons and offenders not being allowed to own guns, but that is pretty hard to enforce seeing as it is illegal to search them without probable cause... and being a felon released from prison, who served their time... is NOT probable cause.

My point is, there is no real legitimate gun control that will do what is needed... reduce gun violence. Here is why... people who commit gun violence are going to find a way, just as a drug addict will find a way. The only real solution is to take full responsibility for yourself, your weapon (should you choose to carry or not), and your training. Responsible gun ownership is the only real solution for gun control in America.

I am a licensed conceal carry permit holder. I am a veteran of the military with extensive training in firearm safety. I understand fully what a firearm can do, what it is intended to do, and the risks involved with carrying a loaded weapon. I train monthly at the range. I do not consider myself an avid "gun nut". I carry everywhere I am aloud to carry. I have a plan should I ever have to use my weapon in defense. I study the laws regarding guns in my state, and I seek to learn about any changes. I teach my children the universal gun safety rules:

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

Both my children can recite those back to you at a moment's notice.

I carry my weapon on me because there are people out there who have guns and make stupid choices. I carry my weapon at all times because there are imbalanced people with guns thinking up craziness. I carry everywhere because I cannot know the time or place I will be required to defend myself or another. I pray to God everyday I don't have to use my weapon to take a life. I thank Him at the end of each day I succeed in not using my weapon.

But, rest assured, if that day ever comes where lives are on the line and the use of deadly force is necessary... I will not hesitate a second to use my weapon. For me, I don't need a politician to decide for me what is right with my ability to defend myself. I will not get caught bringing a knife to a gun fight. In the end, I believe gun control is just another senseless argument used by politicians to divide a nation even further. I believe gun control to any real extent is futile.

You cannot stop crazy. You can only prepare for it.

It is better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

JP

Ethics and Behaviors

"Every choice has a consequence" ~ Chuck Gallagher

Ethics sometimes can seem like a very big word. Google ethics and you will find over 151 million pages of content on ethical decision-making, ethical theories, business ethics, ethics vs. morals, etc. The truth is, ethics are found in just about every decision we make. We are presented with choices, the choices have different and varying results, and those results will have different consequences. One choice may be better than the other. The weight we place on good/bad, right/wrong, better/worse comprises our ethical barometer.

I once heard a sermon in church from a pastor talking about winning the lottery. That would be pretty nice, right? To go from just making it to a multimillionaire with one drawing would make all our problems go away, right? How many of us have prayed to win the lottery? Really, what would you do if your won 100 million overnight?

USA Today suggests almost 70% of lottery winners go broke in a matter of years after winning large amounts (Ogg, 2013). Most people who fully understand the values of investing, saving, and working a plan to become independently wealthy (or rich, there is a difference) do not play the lottery. Those of us living paycheck to paycheck comprise the bulk of $1 investors. The pastor's point was that God will not reward those who can't manage small amounts of income with millions because we have proven to be less than adequate stewards of our money. If we don't make good decisions with our 50K a year, would it stand to reason we probably wouldn't make good decisions with 500K a year?

The conversation about lottery winners and ethics are closely tied together in this sense... The foundations of our ethical choices in small decisions will establish habits that will be ethical with big decisions. For example, let's say it is easy to cheat a little on the expense report at work and charge a few non-business dinners to the corporate card. No biggie, right? Everybody does it, right? If you make a habit out of cutting the small corners, how could you guarantee you wouldn't take the bait if the chance at scamming millions (or billions) from investors? Do you think Bernie Madoff woke up one day and just decided to run the largest Ponzi scheme ever conceived? Probably not. There were probably a series of unethical choices, much smaller in scale, Madoff made during his life that led him to the point of breaking the law, scamming billions from pension and hedge funds, and landing him in prison for 150 years.

Sometimes it is not the end result that matters most. Most of the time it is the journey, or steps we take to get to the end results that matter. Every choice has a consequence. Make the right choices in your life... big and small. Making the right choices creates a habit of making the right choices. ONce the slippery slope begins it gets easier and easier to slide down the unethical path.

JP

Ogg, J. (2013, August 25). Twelve things not to do if you win the lottery. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/08/25/what-not-to-do-lottery-winners/2696845/

What are Virtues?

vir-tue ~ Derived from the Latin roots vir - man and virtus - valor, merit, moral perfection (Google).
To be virtuous is to be a "man" of moral perfection.

Achieving perfection, from my point of view, has only been accomplished in one person historically. Consequently, this person is the subject of the most printed, and dispersed book of all time. Currently there are over 7 billion living people in this world, and if you were to add up all the deceased over the past, say, 2,000 years that would be an astronomical population that has not achieved perfection. Frankly, if you are not a deity in the flesh the chances of becoming perfect are non-existent.

When it comes to perfection it is not the destination that matters. It is the journey that refines us.

I had an amazing high school football coach who was known for his one liners. One of my favorites was "Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect". How true this is... is any aspect of life. If we are to strive to be better men (and women... I use this term generally) then we are dedicating ourselves to be better each day. We become better people through learning, understanding, and failing (which usually accumulates both learning and understanding). To be virtuous we must live with virtue in our lives every day.

Ben Franklin was a great American, and while he admits he was never able to live his 13 Virtues perfectly he felt he had become a better and happier man for having made the attempt.

Out of Ben's 13 Virtues I wish to focus on three that I feel will help kick-start our journey towards perfection.

• Temperance - Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation. In modern, civilized societies we are no longer reliant on the next hunt to eat. Typically, the rule of thumb is three square meals a day, and with modern achievements like the refrigerator and left overs we should not be gorging ourselves for winter... on Tuesdays! I am so curious on how the "All-U-Can-Eat" thing started in America. Should we really eat all we can? What would starving people in Africa or China think if they were to walk in to an All-U-Can-Eat restaurant? Here is a clip from Louis C.K. on eating habits (caution for his language, but he describes overindulging so well)

 

We shouldn't dull our senses with drink either... I hope I don't need to expand too much on that subject. Think of yourself as a rare, beautiful sports car driving through life. You could be on a casual Sunday stroll through the hills, or hugging the curves of a canyon pass. Would you ever fill the tank of an expensive, rare, beautiful sports car with regular unleaded? And you most certainly should never drive your expensive, rare, and beautiful sports car under the influence.

 

• Justice - Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty. I think the pendulum has swung a little too high on this one. We live in a ultra politically correct society in which we are so cautious not to say or do anything to hurt some anonymous person's feelings. That is not justice. Justice is doing the right things because they are the right things to do. Where have we taken the left turn off the moral and narrow path to drive on the cautious, apathetic superhighway? Having Justice as a virtue means standing up for others who can't stand up for themselves.
• Humility - Imitate Jesus and Socrates. During Thanksgiving football I was wondering, "what happened to just spiking the ball after a touchdown?" It seems every player now has some patented dance off after scoring 6 points. It brings all the attention onto them and nothing to the other 10 people on the field who helped make that touchdown possible (not to mention the coaches, trainers, and scouters). Humility is having that quiet confidence to allow your actions to speak for themselves. Do you think Jesus came out of the hut after resurrecting a dying child and did an end zone dance pounding his chest? No. He was the epitome of humility and should be a model for us to follow.

 

Ben Franklin sure was a lot of things to a lot of people. His actions were so powerful we discuss them to this day. He was not a perfect man, but he tried everyday to be virtuous. Something we can all strive to be better at in our lives.

 

JP





Is Marketing Evil?

Just today I had a conversation with the owner of the company I work for about ethics in advertising and marketing. We are a small retail store that sells about a dozen different products for the backyard. One of our newest product offerings are high-end outdoor furniture, and we are in the process of creating a brochure that elaborates on our three different lines of product. The owner was adding his input to the layout and content.

His vision for our informational brochures include adding customer testimonials. The use of testimonials in advertising and marketing is powerful tool that relays others' experiences with our products.

He asked me to search our Facebook and Google+ pages for a few good candidates, and suggested that I may truncate the message if I need to. However, he then added that this would only be necessary to clear up the message for printing purposes and he did not want to change the words of those who left their thoughts. He felt we had a moral obligation to convey the customers true meaning if we were going to use their testimonials. Otherwise it loses the point of adding them to our brochures.

I thought about his words for a while. He didn't say "make something up that sounds like a satisfied customer". He said share what our customers are saying. He said we have a moral obligation to be truthful. He understands marketing, and he knows people aren't as dumb as some advertising firms think they are.

We are inundated with advertising and marketing. Everywhere we look there is someone selling us something. Exposure is everywhere, and not all of it is ethical. Advertising and marketing can also be very expensive. The bigger the price tag the larger the expected return on investment (ROI).

I was watching the Masters this past year with my 6 year old son. He has shown an interest in golf, and I wanted to show him some of the best golfers in the world competing against each other. What I didn't plan on doing was explaining to my young son what Viagra was, or erectile dysfunction. I wasn't prepared for that.

Now, those who sell Viagra are targeting a selected audience. Apparently their audience watches a lot of golf. Did these advertising agencies consider the younger audience as well? Was that considered when making and placing their commercials? Did the benefits outweigh the costs? Not for me and my son, I can tell you that. It seemed like every commercial break had one of these ads. Eventually, we turned off the TV and found something else to do.

Marketing is a medium, and just like any medium the user is responsible for their message. I can attribute my quitting smoking to those horrific commercials of cancer patients talking about how they are dying because of their smoking habit. My 8 year old daughter saw just one of those commercials, turned around with fear in her eyes, and begged Daddy to quit smoking. That did it for me.

Those who intrude into our private lives should offer the option to disengage if they don't want to hear the message. Like the "click here" button on emails if you want to unsubscribe to future messages. It gives the consumer the choice to listen or not. That's harder to do with other forms of marketing like commercials and billboards, and that should be considered when designing the message.

Advertisers know how their message will be received, or at least have an idea on the emotional responses they want to attach to the minds of their viewers. If they choose to share unethical messages it will ultimately reflect on the product, how people view their company, and may generate publicity... just not the return they were shooting for.

There are certain lines that can't be crossed, but there are advertisers out there who get dangerously close. They push their limits further and further to see how far they can take it. While these companies see how far they can go, I wonder if they ever think if they should.

We are all responsible for our actions, and marketing our products is no different. It was important to my boss that our message be genuine, and this a clear example of how a business owner chooses to market his company. It was important to him that we send the right message and not cut corners to fluff it up. He understands that even if our customers read those testimonials and never question whether or not those are real words from real customers... he would, and that made all the difference in the world to him.

JP

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

In preparation for this week's blog, Is Affirmative Action Ethical, I became enthralled with the history of racism in America. Affirmative Action (AA) is but one measure to help one group and even the playing field for another. To gain insight into why such a controversial program and policy was needed and implemented in the workplace we are forced to take a closer look into racial violence and autrocious behavior that for so long defended white supremacy. By today's standards... this reflection is disgusting.

But here we are. Our politically correct society shuns any thoughts of racism, not to even consider speaking negatively towards another "minority" race. The Black Lives Matter movement is protesting in defiance of police brutality while shouting "death to pigs" and rioting.

America is still a very racially charged nation. We just hide it better than we did a hundred years ago. It seems the more we discuss racism the deeper the wedge becomes between the races. As Eugene Robinson put it in his Washington Post article... "America will only end racism when it stops being racist".

Affirmative Action was designed to increase minority representation in America's education system and workplace. It is not surprising that many Americans rejected this idea. AA was a step towards reducing one's race as a disqualifier for school appointment, job, or promotion. The concept of AA was based on the fact that minorities in America, especially blacks, have for many years been members of pervasively, systematically, and continuously victemized races. Compensatory justice demands something be done to help engage racially disprivillaged minority groups climb up out of their stations towards successful generation in society.

Opposition for AA suggests this policy is reverse racism, hurts those who have done no wrong (great-great grandchildren of slave owners and oppressors), stigmatizes minorities who gain traction by AA, and infringes on the rights of employers to hire who they want.

Proponents of AA argue that AA promotes those who are qualified to enter a school, job, or a promotion, but are passed over due to the sheer fact that their skin color is not white. "The most deserving" idea is relative at best (LaFollette, 2007). If 12% of Americans are black it would stand to reason that 12% of the workforce would be black, but it's not by half. Reducing 6% of non-black applicants to acquire a more fair representation in the workforce is a step in the right direction for a culture of blacks who have for centuries been deemed second class citizens.

The problem with AA is that it fails to deal with the root causes of racism in America, just like every other piece of legislation, doled out punishment for racial offenders, or punitive action to promote a particular races' cause. Healing is not found in treating the symptoms. Healing only happens when you isolate the root cause and repair the damage. For example, say I break my leg and the doctor gives me Motrin for the pain. No cast. No splint to help repair the broken bone. My leg will never heal properly without fixing the bone. In fact, once my leg heals incorrectly, affecting my walk for ever, it can only be fixed by rebreaking the bone... causing more pain and longer recovery. That's what happens when you only treat the symptoms.

AA, while a sound effort to increase equality in America, still only focuses on reducing symptons of poverty, discrimination, and oppression. However, it has opened doors for those who may never have had a shot otherwise.

There are deontological and consequentialistic view points for AA. Racism is wrong, and not offering an opportunity to better one's self is wrong (deontological). By not offering opportunities to minorities we will continue to see those same minority groups stagnate in their little corners of America (consequentialism). Ethically, we should be looking to provide opportunities for those who want them, are willing to work for them, and who will do the most good with the opportunities they strive for.

Affirmative Action has both good and bad properties. In the vien of ethics, AA is a step towards recognizing that minorities deserve the chance to succeed in life, but we already know that... or should by now. You know what is not ethical by any stretch of the imagination? How we treated blacks for the first 400 years of our countries history. While white Americans cannot be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors, we do have a respponsibility to promote the American dream to ALL Americans regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or religion. That is ethical.

JP

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, MA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-roots-of-racism/2015/06/22/24e61d56-1909-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html 

The Harder They Fall

We've all heard the saying, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall". This is true for giants, beanstalks, and exaggerated self images. In reference to the latter, what makes us fall? What was it about Enron's Kenneth Lay, Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, WorldCom's Bernard Ebbers, and other top execs that precipitated their falls? I'll tell you in one word... Pride.

Proverbs 16:18 - Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall (NIV).

Now, before you go and think this is a religious rant on pride, let me assure you there are some very powerful messages about pride in the Bible that should not be ignored. A close look at any downfall, whether a nation, an empire, or a CEO will present pride and arrogance as key factors that led to their demise.

To narrow my point on pride and its destructive nature I will focus primarily on the corporate world. Most large and successful companies have one CEO. There are a few examples of co-CEOs like in the merger between Citibank and Travelers Group where John Reed (Citibank) and Sanford Weill (Travelers) briefly co-shared command of the behemoth Citigroup. I emphasize briefly, because Weill eventually took the seat at the top by outmaneuvering Reed. But, typically one person makes it to the top at a time. The struggles to reach the top are worthy of a separate discussion, and there are countless captivating examples of the epic paths traveled to reach the top floor corner office. Whether this opportunity falls in the laps of deserving execs, or the fight to claim the throne was a hard-fought endeavor spanning years of possitioning and hard work, the rewards for the top seat are usually plentiful.

One would think that along the way to corporate superstardom that a person's flaws would reveal themselves. It takes staunch focus and strong willed determination to achieve such lofty goals. Focus keeps us moving forward, growing, and sharpening our skills. Once the race is won, however, lack of focus in the elements that got you to the finish line may fade or change. What does one do with power and influence with a lack of focus? Fall, and fall hard.

Roderick Kramer penned a great article in the Harvard Business Review titled The Harder They Fall. In this article Kramer identifies the intelligence, resourcefulness and drive to go the distance, yet just when they (CEOs) appear to have it all, these A-listers demonstrate uncharacteristic lapses in professional judgement or personal conduct (Kramer, 2009). Something changed in these people. They lost their moral bearing, got complacent, or just forgot who they were and what they stood for. Fame and fortune can be a double edged sword, and pride is the devil's favorite tool.

Imagine a potential CEO candidate on his/her way up. They have to keep their moral fibers tightly wound up and close to them. There are a lot of competitors jockeying for the same opportunities who will expose any loose thread they can find to gain an advantage, but the winner leaves no loose ends to grab. Once the race is won, the guard comes down a little here and there, the focus shifts to other obstacles, and little threads are exposed to be pulled. Pretty soon the moral fibers are unravelling like a ball of yarn. Without the strong moral conviction that got the exec to the top pride sets in and exposes the soft underbelly of our frail nature. We become susceptible to immoral behavior and decisions. We think we are invincible, untouchable, and powerful... we become full of pride.

Another potential reason top execs falls is who they surround themselves with. It is a small and privileged group at the top. One bad apple can spoil the bunch, and pridefull people attract each other. Power is a strong anesthetic to reality. Without a strong supporting cast of morally and ethically charged people any leader can be tripped up.

Kramer suggests a few principles that can help a CEO have (and keep) everything they worked for:

• Keep your life simple. Distractions are just that... distracting.
• Hang your lantern on your foibles. Don't hide from your shortcomings. Own them, learn from them, and understand your weaknesses. After all... they are yours and yours alone. 
• Float trial balloons. Always be on the look out for potential disasters. Test your people, processes, and procedures... and test them often.
• Sweat the small stuff. It's often the little things that can, and do trip us up.
• Reflect more, not less. Identify the successes and failures that got you where you are, and don't make the same mistakes over and over again.

The devil loves pride in people. It is a powerful force that can blind people to what is good and right. Pride leaves people open to attack, and pride always precedes the fall. Remember how you got to where you are in life, and don't lose focus on the important things you valued so dearly on the way up. The top seat comes with top-seat responsibility, and many people beneath you depend on your leadership. If you are one of the fortunate ones to take the helm of a large and successful corporation, don't let your pride set you up for a fall. Continue to work on yourself and make others around you better. Don't let go of your moral and ethical foundations. In fact, grip a little harder to what you believe in. Success does not define a person, the person defines the success. And once the race is won, enjoy the fruits of your labor briefly... a new race is always waiting to be ran... and won.

JP

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall (Links to an external site.) . (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Deontology and Consequentialism

What is more important to you... following the rules, or knowing why we follow the rules?

Contemporary ethical decision-making can be defined by two theories of reason. Consequentialism, which is choosing to act based on the best possible outcomes. Deontology, which is acting based on ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and these rules or rights are somewhat independent of their consequences.

Consequentialism requires that we think of the consequences of our actions, before we act. This sounds like a great concept to make sound decisions. However, when talking about making moral and ethical decisions, if we only look at the end results and make decisions that represent the greater good we may make immoral decisions as a result. In other words, the ends may not always justify the means.

For example, let's use the CIA's torture techniques to acquire intelligence from a known "bad guy". Let's assume this intelligence, gained by excruciating measures, saved thousands of lives and thwarted a major terroristis attack on innocent civilians. We might be inclined to say the ends justified the means.

But, is torture ever considered morally right? Is causing harm to another allowable, even if the results are for the greater good? What are the consequences of torturing enemy combatants?

Here is another example... suppose the intelligence directed us to a mosque that was being used as a bomb-making factory. We knew that all the "bad people" were going to building some bombs at a certain time of the day, and devised a plan to drop a bomb of our own on the mosque to kill the evil doers. However, as our bombing run was commencing we noticed a group of children playing in the courtyard of the Mosque. Killing innocent children is completely immoral, wrong, and otherwise a huge no-no... so we cancel the mission in accordance with our moral duty to protect innocent lives. The bomb-makers live, create some powerful explosives, and kill a lot of people.

The deontologist believes that it is morally wrong to kill innocent people, and acts accordingly. The consequentialist weighs out the options and may consider to drop the bomb (committing and immoral act) because the end result saves more innocent lives. So which is right?

I think it is important to fully know both theories, and apply the best judgement based on our human duties as well as taking into consideration the consequences of our actions. Now, both situations above are under the context of war. Does the context make a difference in making ethical decisions? I believe so.

Immanuel Kant believes all humans should be treated as the end, and not mearly the means to an end (Shakil, n.d.). There are certain natural laws we are bound as humans to uphold. We have a duty to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also need to develop our understanding of the why's. Why is murder wrong? Why is stealing wrong? Knowing the why's will help us gain a better understanding of our duty. We must act ethically because there are inalienable rights in life, and we should choose to behave morally to avoid potentially negative outcomes.

Subscribing to both deontology and consequentialism allows us to perform our duties as a society AND develop our virtues and character as individuals.

JP

Shakil, A. (n.d.). Kantian duty based (deontological) ethics. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from Seven Pillars Institute: http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics    

The Buck Starts and Stops with You

"Unless America's business schools make radical changes, society will become convinced that MBAs work to serve only their selfish interests." ~ Joel M. Podolny

There has been complelling evidence that resentment against MBAs is growing. According to Podolny's HBR article The Buck Starts and Stops with You, there has been a noticable decline in teaching the humanities in business schools. Studies in arts, cultural history, literature, philosophy, and religion help to develop powers of critical thinking and moral reasoning... elements that business schools have lacked in teaching MBAs.

Business schools like Harvard and Yale promote the many benefits from graduating from their prestigeous institutions of higher learning. Higher starting salaries, pomp titles, leaders of industry... these are a few of the notions surrounding the future of MBA graduates. But are these schools teaching enough to prepare our future executives how to lead ethically and morally?

Podolny suggests that many people believe that management education has contributed to the systemic failure of leadership causing the most recent financial crises. He believes that value-based leadership and ethics are not present in the MBA curriculum. Podolny also believes that business schools can turn this around by emphasizing values as much as they do analytics and by encouraging students to adopt a holistic approach to business problems. In other words, Podlony believes we need to better prepare our students to think morally and ethically in today's corporate world.

Take into consideration doctors and lawyers. They have associations that govern the actions and ethics of each industry. Commiting malpractice can result in disbarment or loss of the right to practice medicine. This keeps the professional standards high, and unethical behavior is met with severe punishment and professional embarrassment. Why should this be any different for the management industry? How many examples can we readily find that prove how far-reaching and devastating poor corporate leadership can cause harm on a global level? Enron, substandard mortgage lenders, Lehman Brothers, just to name a few. Poor leadership in large cororations can cripple economies. Where are the standards for this industry? Who is holding our corporate leaders accountable? The answer is... it should be our business schools.

"An occupation earns the right to be a profession only when some ideals, such as being an impartial counsel, doing no harm, or serving the greater good, are infused into the conduct of people in that occupation. In like vein, a school becomes a professional school only when it infuses those ideals into its graduates. "

 The reasons to be a doctor should not be to make the most money. It should be to help sick people. The specialization and success of a doctor should dictate the financial rewards. The reasons to become a lawyer should be to defend the law and the rights of people, businesses, and governments. Lawyers become wealthy when they are excellent at their jobs. The same should go for business school graduates. MBAs should want to make business better, lead, and make morally right decisions in their industry... not just follow along with the crowd and collect higher pay. They should be taught to inject ethics and reason into their moral fiber to make great business decisions and choices that will benefit their companies and people in general. And they too should be held accountable for their decisions.

Podolny makes a great suggestion... business schools should develop a code of conduct for their graduates. Deviate from the code of conduct and lose your degree. Make unethical decisions and be ousted from your community. He dubs this idea the Manager's Code, and all MBAs should fully understand what it means to uphold the highest ethics, morals, and values. How would our corporate world change if the Manager's Code governed leadership decisions?

I am reminded of the movie Jurasic Park. Jeff Goldblum's character makes this statement, "you spent so much of your time discovering what you can do with genetics instead of asking yourself if you should". Our business graduates should learn to make the right choices based on elevated values, ethics, and morals. MBAs should be prepared to solve business problems with reason and critical thinking. Our future business leaders need to understand just how much their leadership decisions affect so many people, and this all starts in business schools. We do need to change how we create our leaders, and we do need to demand a higher level of ethical behavior in our corporations. Our world is becoming more and more connected, and poor business decisions can have much further reach toady than in the past. Let's hold our MBAs accountable for making better choices and raise the bar for our future corporate leaders.

JP