A634.4.4.RB - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action according to LaFollette (2007) is “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement” (p. 87).  I am a white male who makes a sincere and conscious effort to remove any bias or assumptions when addressing affirmative action.  I am fully aware there are differing opinions on affirmative action and this practice affects people (women, men, race) differently.  However, I make a point to not only try to educate and form my opinion on this issue through how it affects me, but also how it affects others.  Can I truly understand how affirmative action someone who is black or female or both?  Of course not, but I can at least try.  The question at hand here is not whether affirmative action is or is not effective.  The question is if it is ethical.  First I think a basic understanding of ethics should be addressed to help answer the ethical dilemma.  The definition of ethics according to Merriam-Webster is “an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).  So now the question gets a little more specific of whether affirmative action is good or bad behavior or if it is morally right or wrong. 

Affirmative action is described by Allen (2011) as “a measure designed to remedy the effects of wrongful discrimination or improve diversity.  Affirmative action can remedy the injustice of discrimination on the basis of race and sex, and other traits as well, such as sexual orientation or language.  As a U.S. civil rights policy, “affirmative action” commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty, and racism” (p. 254).  Personally, I think affirmative action is morally wrong, and therefore not ethical.  I cannot ignore that discrimination has taken place through many generations and still takes place today.  However, I and many others cannot control what happened in the past.  I agree with LaFollette (2007) in that opponents of affirmative action believe “people should be judged by what they do now, not by what their grandparents did” and “not have to pay for the sins of their parents and grandparents” (p. 89) because it is morally inappropriate.  However, he goes on to say that affirmative action “holds that the children and grandchildren of those who wronged blacks should not continue to benefit from those ancient wrongs” (p. 89).  I have trouble with that statement because how do we determine who exactly wronged blacks and who is benefiting?  It is impossible and immeasurable.  

Another debate concerning the ethics of affirmative action is if it is a form of reverse discrimination.  I admit, I have actually said that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination out loud, so it was interesting to read about the opposing views.  There are many examples countering the belief that affirmative is a form of reverse discrimination and I find flaws in them.  For example, Fish (2000) suggests “It was the express purpose of some powerful white Americans to disenfranchise, enslave, and later exploit black Americans. It was what they set out to do, whereas the proponents of affirmative action did not set out to deprive your friend's cousin's son of a place at Harvard” (p. 79).  I concur with Fish’s first statement; however, the relationship of who affirmative action deprives is irrelevant.  It still deprives someone.  On top of that, it deprives someone based on race.  LaFollette (2007) admits “it was wrong to deprive people of jobs, housing, health, public benefits, and legal and civil rights merely because of their race” (p. 87).  And, since opponents believe affirmative action is discriminating against whites because of their race, two wrongs do not make a right.  Yet, he believes the principle of universalizability applies because discrimination and affirmative action have general and relevant differences to justify different treatments.  He goes on to claim there are important differences between the two such as how “whites have subjected blacks to decades of systematic and widespread discrimination” (p. 88).  But I ask the question, have ALL whites done this?  He also proposes that “Whites are not thought to be inferior to blacks” (p. 88).  Really?  Is this an answer from all whites?  Is this a response from all blacks?  I am not sure how he can prove that statement, unless it is strictly his opinion.  He goes further into moral reasoning and shows how affirmative action programs do not favor blacks because they are black, but because they are members of a systematically victimized group.  He makes these comparisons using an example of two descriptions of a same event. “Mohammad Atta boarded an airplane in Boston; (2) Mohammad Atta flew an airplane into the World Trade Center” (p. 88).  I fail to see the comparison on a couple levels.  First, I have trouble believing that hiring organizations and academic admissions are looking at anyone as part of a systematically victimized group.  It is more likely that they are taking someone’s minority status into consideration if they are participating in affirmative action.  

I have my views based on my experiences and what how I see our society, just as someone who is black, or female, or Hispanic, or other minority has their views.  We, as a society, need to do what is right in the present and future regarding hiring and education placement.  I believe we live in a very different culture compared to the 60’s and decades prior.  Yes, racism does exist and may never be completely eradicated, but we are continuing on a positive path and live in a much more color-blind society now.  For example, Ward Connerly Jr. (2009), one of the most visible anti-affirmative action activists in the United States, stated "Although I did not vote for him, I think he earned the election by the rules of merit. He ran the best campaign ... The election of Obama to be our president reconfirms that the American people are ready for" color-blind policies that prohibit race-conscious affirmative action” (Roach, p. 17).

References:

Allen, A. L. (2011). Was I entitled or should I apologize? affirmative action going forward. The Journal of Ethics, 15(3), 253-263.

Ethics. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved March11, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic

Fish, S. (2000). The nifty nine arguments against affirmative action in higher education. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, (27), 79.

LaFollette, H.  (2007).  The practice of ethics.  Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Roach, R. (2009). Renewing the fight against affirmative action. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(26), 17.

Roach, R. (2009). Renewing the fight against affirmative action. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(26), 17.

A634.3.4.RB - The Harder They Fall

Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in society, work, and in your life.

Many of us were taught to strive to do our best in everything we do early in our lives.  It makes sense because if we work hard at something we should be able to achieve our goals.  This may be the case in many instances throughout life.  However, it is not always the case for everyone trying to reach career goals.  The further up the corporate ladder one wants to climb the more competition there will be in the winner-takes-all environment.  And, there is only room for one person at the top.  So many people have great intentions of traveling their path to success in the most gracious and ethical manner possible.  They cannot even imagine doing it any other way.  Yet, when faced with situations they never anticipated, they fail to meet their ethical standards.  They tend to lose sight of what they thought were their strong ethical codes or are simply willing to sacrifice breaking their code for career advancement.  Many people think that “getting ahead means doing things differently from ordinary people—for instance, finding a back door to success that others have not been smart enough to spot” (Kramer, 2003, p. 61).  

I used to believe that my hard work, dependability, loyalty, and dedication would allow me to reach any career goal I set forth.  I found out the hard way that this is not the reality.  I believe if I would have finished my career in the Air Force that the sky was the limit (pun intended) because I think the career progression system was fair.  I did not always think that way and believed the promotion system was flawed.  I thought that only “book smart” people made rank and it was not fair to see someone with great study habits and poor social skills climb the ladder.  In hindsight, that was just a poor excuse to avoid studying.  I have been out of the Air Force and working in the civilian sector for almost 9 years now.  In comparison, advancing in the civilian sector is incredibly more difficult.  I have grown tired of hearing throughout my career that “you deserve more” or “you should be doing something better”, implying I should be climbing the ladder.  I used to think climbing the ladder is what I wanted and what I was supposed to do because a stagnant career was one of my biggest fears.  I cared so much about what others thought in that regard too.  I have finally reached a point in my career where I know what is important.  And the keys are balance and knowing that I am the one who determines what makes me happy.  I have always tried to maintain a balance between family, education, recreation, and career.  I now understand I was not willing to throw that balance off for the sake of advancing my career.  For example, Kramer (2003) references a woman who walked away from her marriage and two-year-old daughter to gain an opportunity for improving her promotion potential.  She says “It was one of the most painful things I’ve ever done, but I just was not willing at that time to let all of this Ozzie and Harriet stuff slow me down or hold me back” (Kramer, 2003, p. 62).

The differences between those I have watched climb the ladder and me is that they were willing to sacrifice their balance and other things I refused to sacrifice.  I have seen people focus on their careers so hard that they lose sight of other important things like their family or health, sometimes to the point in which they lose their family or have health problems.  Some even have no problem using others to progress.  I have had many instances where coworkers take credit for other’s work or use someone as their proverbial sacrificial lamb to make themselves look better in leadership’s eyes.  I was just never that great and still not great at “playing the game”.  It is simply not worth it to me.  It means I have to adjust my moral standards and that is not happening. 

So what happens when this laser focused, career driven person reaches the top?  Some have extreme difficulty dealing with it.  For example, “the sacrifices an individual makes on the way to the top not only make it harder to cope with the rewards when they do come, they also make the person greedier for more of the same” and tend to “rationalize such an exaggerated sense of entitlement” (Kramer, 2003, p. 63).  This is not to say all have difficulty.  Some go on to become great leaders through what Kramer (2003) found to be “a remarkable sense of proportion” and “a high degree of self-awareness” (p. 64).  Their ability to remain grounded and highly effective leaders was found in “a certain combination of psychological and behavioral habits” (p. 64) such as keeping their lives simple, understanding their weaknesses, and being more reflective.          

References:

Kramer, R. M. (2003). THE HARDER THEY FALL. (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

A634.2.4.RB - Theories of Ethics

This week we began delving into trying to define ethics.  Considering how much information is available discussing ethics, one would think it would be easy to clearly define it.  However, I found this was not the case because there is so much information on ethics and differing theories.  Two such examples of these theories are consequentialism and deontology.  Both theories look at our actions from an ethical perspective, whereas, “Consequentialism states that we should choose the available action with the best overall consequences, while deontology states that we should act in ways circumscribed by moral rules or rights, and that these rules or rights are at least partly independent of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22). 

I felt I would agree with and relate the most with consequentialism because I tend to review all consequences associated with moral decisions I make in an effort to produce the best consequence.  I find myself asking questions such as “If I choose decision A, how will it affect this, this, and this…or if I choose decision B, how will it affect this, this, and this?”  My process of reviewing consequences is similar to LaFollette’s mention of how a good consequentialist theory should specify morally relevant consequences, how much weight they hold, and how they should be used in moral reasoning (p. 23).  I can understand and relate to these specifications when applying it to an ethical situation.  Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism and is rooted in the belief “the sole consequence we need to consider is happiness” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 26).  I can see where the level of happiness, as a result of making an ethical decision, can come into consideration.  However, I do not think an ethical decision should solely be based on happiness.  For example, if someone was faced with an ethical decision to make and half of those affected would be unhappy as a result of the decision, would the amount of happy people define whether or not the decision was ethical or unethical?  

Many critics of consequentialism side with the deontology theory in which they “contend there are strict moral limits on what we can do to others” where “consequentialists do not” and “not only that we do the right thing, but that we do it for the right reasons”  (LaFollete, 2007, p. 24).  They take an opposite approach of consequentialists in that they believe ethical action is done out of duty and not by consequences.  Deontology also differs from consequentialism in how each view rules applied to making ethical decisions.  More specifically, “the consequentialist thinks the “rules” are derivative.  They are defensible only if following them will bring about the best consequences.  In contrast, deontologists claim that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rules, partly independently of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 24). I interpret this to simply mean deontologists do not allow any exceptions to the rules, where consequentialists do.    

  

I personally see an attraction and flaws with both theories.  I can relate and connect better with the consequentialist theory better by nature.  However, I do not agree that only consequences need to be considered in regards to ethics.  Conversely, I share a similar deontologist view that we should be ethical out of duty and moral obligation.  However, I think not allowing any exception to rules is a slippery slope.  Who determines all rules?  Who determines if all the rules are good and ethical?  Nobody has that right to make that determination in my opinion.  Perfection is not achievable by humans when it comes to being one-hundred percent ethical, no matter how hard we try.  I think by incorporating the best of both theories into ethical decision-making, we can come pretty close though.  Let us look at consequences, rules, morals, happiness, and duty in each ethical situation.  Because more times than not, each situation will be unique. 

References:

A framework for making ethical decisions.(n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions 

LaFollette, H.  (2007).  The practice of ethics.  Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

How shall we live, as individuals in the face of decisions about right versus wrong? How shall we handle those occasions when none of the choices are attractive? Consider the following ethical dilemma and create a reflection blog regarding what you would do when having to make a choice in each train scenario. Justify your position and create a synopsis of your position and the implications. 

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switchperson.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  Will you throw the switch?

There are only two options in this case and neither is attractive.  That may be a gross understatement considering the outcomes of each decision.  Do I throw the switch to save five children but live with the fact I essentially murdered a child?  Or do I stand there and make a choice to do nothing and allow the five children to be killed?  As difficult as it may be, I would choose to throw the switch to save the five children.  This action would not come easily, but sacrificing one life to save five lives seems like the lesser of the two evils.  From an ethical standpoint, I do struggle with wondering what would give me the right to determine whose lives are spared and whose are not.  Nevertheless, for the sake of the exercise, a decision has to be made. 

Same scenario except:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him? 

If I am willing to sacrifice a child to save five children, I would sacrifice an elderly man.  The difference in this scenario is obviously the age difference of the person being sacrificed, but also the manner in which I have to carry out the act.  The first scenario was throwing a switch and this scenario is physically pushing someone with the intent on killing them.  They are different methods, but they have the same result.  So throwing a switch or pushing someone will still make me equally guilty of killing them.  I could use the rationale that the elderly man has lived a long life and he does not have a lot of life to live, but my decision is based more on saving the most people possible.  And it also does help that those people are innocent children.  

Same scenario except:

The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

I would unequivocally, without any doubt in my mind, not throw the switch to save the five children.  I still stand by my decisions made in the previous scenarios, but a variable which cannot be ignored was added to this scenario.  I have an undeniable love and bond with my child and would do anything to save his life.  If that meant sacrificing others in a situation where someone would be killed regardless of any decision, then so be it.  That may sound heartless and cruel, but I am just being brutally honest.  And I believe those with children can relate and understand, and maybe even those without children can try to understand.  The thought of being responsible for anyone’s death is difficult to comprehend and deciding who lives and dies weighs heavily on me even in these hypothetical scenarios. However, again for the sake of this exercise, decisions need to be made.