A634.9.5.RB_HallMike

I have always liked discussing ethics so it is no wonder that I enjoyed the class yet feel a little disappointed in it.  Some of my fondest memories of my undergrad days were debating the pros and cons of different ethical points of view in my leadership & ethics class my senior year.  While I knew that it wouldn’t be the same because of this being an online course, I had hoped for a little more discussion from the class.  With that being said, this is an extremely hypocritical statement coming from me as I posted around 4 posts per discussion question and could have made a greater effort to both get myself and others involved in the boards – probably the one thing I could have done much better in the class. 

That aside, I definitely did learn from the class.  While I already knew about consequentialism, deontology, relativism, and some of the other big points in the first several chapters of the book, it was great to get to go back and revisit the material to further solidify my understanding of the subject matter.  Additionally, I thought the author did a fantastic job discussing opposing viewpoints throughout the book which helped to solidify the knowledge I already had.  Other than that, I would say I was rather pleased with where my ethical evolution stands and I look forward to continuing my pursuit of standing atop an ethical pillar.

So, three key lessons I took away from the course.  First off, the author made me change my stance on affirmative action.  Going into that discussion, I was opposed to it based on it being reverse discrimination.  How in the world I failed to put several things together without his help was surprising to me.  I knew darn well that the economic and educational stance of your parents plays a key role in determining how successful one person will be in life.  That fact alone perfectly justifies the existence of the program as racial equality was only “establish” a generation ago.  The second lesson involves the use of the Golden Rule.  As I said during that week’s discussion, if I had to describe an ethical person prior to this class, I would have used the Golden Rule.  As LaFollette states though, that is an almost childish definition of ethics and it doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of complicated problems.  The fact is the Golden Rule is somewhat like Newton’s physical theories– it works 95% of the time but when you need to start digging into complicated problems, it completely lacks the ability to define the solution.  Finally, I really enjoyed the discussion on slippery slope arguments.  I knew they existed but had no idea what they were (I knew they existed because I have heard them before – essentially if my response is “well that is a stretch” it is a slippery slope).  Now that I have learned about them, I can be better equipped to identify them when used (and they are used all of the time) and can help others to identify them as well.

Addressing some of the other required points, I wouldn’t say this was what I expected in the course but then again I wasn’t sure what I was expecting.  In the end, learning about ethics is quite unlike learning other topics as it is a much more fluid process without many concrete anchoring points.  I did enjoy the book however as I previously stated.  More so than any of the texts I have purchased in this curriculum, I plan on keeping that book readily handy to read out of it.  Other than that, as the text stated and science has shown, ethical codes are related to the amount of education you have and the amount that you have discussed ethics.  From that stance, the class was a success as it brought up multiple current day ethical dilemmas and presented multiple points of view in the process.  I don’t think the class can get too much better aside from my already stated complaints about the discussion boards.  As it stands, I am glad the class is required in the curriculum as it reminds us all this is an incredibly complicated world we live in.

A634.8.3.RB_HallMike

Oh gun control.  How such a topic can become such a heated argument is really beyond me.  I think the answer to gun control is pretty simple and can satisfy those that want restrictions and those that want unabated access to any weapon on the market.

Pure and simple, the Constitution is a modifiable document for a reason – the founding fathers had the foresight 240 years ago to see that times will change and the Constitution will need to be updated accordingly.  As a result, I think the 2^nd Amendment could easily be altered to reflect a more modern definition of right to bear arms.  First off, when the Bill of Rights was written, the country was completely different – it was a largely agrarian society that had major issues with attacks from Native Americans, had hostile countries to the north and south of it, and lacked the funding to maintain a large standing army.  As a result, the solution was to allow the citizens of the country to maintain arms to both protect themselves while also providing a readily available source of manpower to form a militia in the event the country /state needed it.  Today, I would argue that the need for militias is completely removed considering the huge amount of money we spend on national defense.  Because of this fact, I do not think the common citizen needs access to military style firearms with high capacity magazines.  This doesn’t mean that you can’t own an assault rifle as you can use them for hunting, however you shouldn’t be able to have magazines with a greater capacity than several rounds as this only servers 1 purpose: putting as many rounds down range to kill people.  With that being said, I think the need for self-defense is still there so a common law abiding citizen should have access to self-defense weapons. 

This leads to my second point – this nonsense about not wanting background checks/mental health screenings for people to buy guns is crazy.  If you are mentally ill, have a criminal record, or have been part of an organization with ill-intentions as its primary purpose, you forfeit your right to own a firearm as you cannot be trusted.  To determine this, gun sellers must have access to this data and if there is anything the government is clearly good at (and too good at it in many ways), it is data storage.  The NRA (or at least some less than credible associates of the organization) has this ultimate conspiracy theory that by having to do background checks the government is recording where every weapon is in the country so that when they decide to take away all of our guns to prevent the next great revolution, they know exactly where to find them.  Being the engineer that I am, I actually ran the numbers on such an event if the government decided to do such a thing.  Assuming there are 150million firearms in this country, every single government employee (and I mean every single employee at the federal, state, and municipal levels – including the military, police, fire fighters, desk jockeys, etc…) would have to go out and fetch  almost 10 firearms apiece in order to accomplish the deed.  In today’s age of instant communication methods, there is zero chance that such an event would even get planned without the nation finding out none-the-less it getting started and the whole country flipping out before the evolution gets rolling.  It is flat out mathematically impossible.

So, in summary, I think that there should be restrictions on certain types of firearms, magazines, and ammunition, that there should be extensive background checks to determine eligibility, and that you must use the firearm responsibly in order to keep it.  I don’t think that outlawing all firearms is the answer as there are probably millions of unregistered weapons in the hands of people of ill-refute that would love to know that the person or house they are getting ready to knock off doesn’t have any real means of self-defense, so maintaining the self-defense aspect of the 2^nd Amendment is important.

A634.7.4.RB_HallMike

The Navy has a relatively small set of words that is supposed to define your values while serving in it.  Honor, courage, and commitment is something that is preached from the very get go regardless if you are an officer or an enlisted person and they follow you throughout our career.  Those values are part of our creed, are in every school house, and are displayed somewhere at every command I have ever been to.  The beauty of those 3 words is that they cover so much of your daily life and they seamlessly interact with each other to really become one big statement.  You can’t just have honor because having honor requires you to have the courage to do so and the commitment to having it at all times.  Conversely, if you have made the commitment to being committed to something, it will certainly take courage for you to stick with your honor and follow through with it.  The bottom line is you can’t have just one without the other two being right there.

With that being said, each individual entity in the Navy will probably have its own values that it wants to instill into its sailors.  For example, the nuclear Navy has the additional values of Understanding, Formality, Anticipation, Teamwork, Procedural Compliance, and Ownership.  While not as seamless as the Navy’s big 3, these additional 6 values speak volumes as to how important it is to operate nuclear reactors.  You must understand how the system will respond when you mess with it, you must anticipate those changes and take action to prevent casualties which will usually require teamwork to do so.  As serious as operating a reactor is, it goes without saying you should do so with the utmost due diligence and formality (no games on it), follow the procedures (since they were written by the people that designed the thing), and take ownership of your plant.  Additionally, there is the unofficial motto of the nuclear Navy – integrity.  Above all else, old Hyman G. Rickover wanted to ensure that anyone that touched a nuclear reactor had integrity.  This again rolls into the other six values.  The fact is without integrity, the other six will not exist. 

Time on board a submarine is littered with examples of people acting with integrity and without it.  I have messed up on many occasions and I had plenty of opportunity to cover my tracks to prevent anyone outside of a few people from finding out (especially the chain of command).  With that being said, at no point did I take any action other than the one that upheld both the Navy‘s and the nuclear side of the house’s values.  On the other hand, there are several people sitting in the civilian world with bad conduct discharges because they decided they wanted to forge some maintenance records when no one was looking vice taking the 15 minutes to do the maintenance.  Integrity lapses simply aren't tolerated.  Having integrity and doing what is expected of you no matter what the consequences are is something you just have to accept and do.  One of my least favorite phrases out there is the saying, “integrity is like a bank, you only have so much to use.”  To me, that saying goes against everything that integrity stands for.  You either have it or you don’t!

A634.6.3.RB_HallMike

Ben Franklin… what an interesting character in our country’s history - an inventor, a playboy, an incredibly important member of the founding of this country – and to top it all off apparently he tried to live a very ethical life.  His 13 virtues that he attempted to live by are still quite relevant to life 223 years after his death.  Virtues like temperance, order, resolution, silence, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility are all fantastic ideals for people to utilize in their everyday life (“Ben’s 13 Virtues,”).  While I was closely aligned with his virtues, there are some areas that I could improve on to bring myself into closer similarity with how he lived. 

For example, tranquility.  This is actually something I have been trying to work on for the past several months now.  Before I went to Iraq, I let petty things get underneath my skin.  While I wouldn’t act upon that irritation, people often could sense my change in attitude and I developed a reputation for being a hot head.  When I came back from Iraq, I was much more clam – after all, being in a combat zone for 7 months gives you a certain perspective on life about what is and is not important.  With that being said, I have slipped back into my old habits and let stupid things get to me.  Several months ago, I (admittedly) saw a quote from Elizabeth Kenny on Facebook that really got my mind going and that essentially resulted in an epiphany – “he who angers you conquers you.”  Since then, when I start to get heated about something trivial, I quickly remind myself that it is not worth it and whoever is getting under my skin will not own me.  In only several months, both my wife and I have seen improvements in my demeanor and is something that I plan to continue to work on.

Frugality is another one that both my wife and I have been trying to work on of recent.  We in no way hurt financially, however taking a step back and looking at where we are in life, we realized that we spend way too much money on material things and not near enough on things that matter like living life to the fullest.  Essentially, it occurred to us that we have all that we need and everything else is pure excess.  Since coming to that conclusion, we have drastically dropped our spending on materials and instead spent some on an experience – we just got back from a cruise (our first vacation alone in 6 years).  We didn’t buy anything except a few petty trinkets to remember the cruise by despite all of the “great deals” underway purely because we didn’t need them (to say it is a remarkable feat that my wife was able to abstain from purchasing any jewelry is an understatement)!

I am going to conclude with something that I have lived with for many years.  I am an ardent supporter of having humility.  I was taught pretty early on that being humble in life is a great trait to have and have ensured that I stayed so for years now.  This is almost to a fault now since I can’t brag about myself when that ability to do so is almost a requirement for the Navy evaluation system, however I refuse to be anything but humble.  I am just a man that tries to do his best which is all that I want out of anyone else.  That attitude has helped to win the confidence of both upper officers and the guys below me, and I have no intention of changing that anytime soon.

Ben's 13 virtues. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html

A634.5.4.RB_HallMike

When I first saw the title of this assignment, I was quite excited to get into the weeds and read what the authors had to say about marketing and then do a little research myself.  This was mainly because while I understand that marketing is a requirement for business, I whole heartedly believe that marketing is evil.  Marketing makes people buy things that they don’t want or need, caters to people’s subconscious minds, and alters people’s behavior to benefit an organization/business often at the expense of the person.  My prime example of this is the medical industry in general in the US and in particular the drug industry.

25 years ago, drug companies were not allowed to sell their product commercially directly to consumers.  In other words, the incessant commercials we now see almost every commercial break didn’t exist because the law prohibited them.  1999 however, that changed and the FDA decided that it would be ok for companies to provide information about their drugs to consumers (Huh & DeLorme, 2010.  Since then, advertising increased exponentially to where it is at today with companies spending almost $5bil a year pushing their products (Huh & DeLorme, 2010).  In fact, the US and New Zealand are the only 2 countries in the world that allows prescription drugs to be advertised (“Should prescription drugs” 2013).  While most companies would argue that it provides consumers with information about available drugs out there on the market, I would argue that this might be one of the key reasons why the US is the most heavily medicated population on the planet.  In fact, sales of drugs that are advertised outsell those that are not by 9 times (“Should prescription drugs” 2013)!  The facts out there surrounding medical commercials is astounding, including: for every $1 spent in advertising, sales increase $4.20; the US currently has a $291billion a year industry in direct to consumer drug sales (“Should prescription drugs” 2013).  Clearly advertising has drastically changed the money making in the industry by “informing” consumers about their options.  As a result, Americans might be the most medicated people in the world yet are far from the healthiest.

I whole truly believe that marketing is inherently evil.  If all it did was say “Hey, I have this product and if you want to buy it this is where you can get it” then I would be alright with that.  Instead, companies spend billions of dollars researching people’s psyche to determine the best way they can get people to buy their product.  They intentionally alter messages in order to put in subliminal messages to attack our subconscious’s and in today’s advertising have been blamed for some of the recent health problems in America (people getting fat due to the rampant advertising of fast food, getting people hooked on smoking early in life prior to cigarette advertisement getting banned, bulimia and anorexia because of the models used in campaigns, etc).  Yep, no doubt about it, I really think marketing is evil…    

Huh, J., & DeLorme, D. (2010, March). Direct to consumer drug advertising. Retrieved from http://www.minnesotamedicine.com/Default.aspx?tabid=3351

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers. (2013, June 13). Retrieved from http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/

A634.4.4.RB_HallMike

I am not going to lie.  When I read the assignment my very first thought was “of course affirmative action isn’t ethical – its reverse racism.”  Man was I wrong.  After reading chapters 5 and 6 I can say I am rather ashamed of my short-sightedness when it came to the issue.  LaFoullette does a great job breaking down my thoughts against affirmative action (all of which he hit on in chapter 6) and then did a great job building a case for it.  I’m only going to hit on the one key point that really sealed the deal for me.

The thought that solidified my thoughts on affirmative action are based on how much of an effect past transgressions can have on the future.  Why I never really thought about affirmative action with respect to that fact is beyond me.  After reading other books (Freakonomics comes to mind where they discuss at length the fact that a person’s chances at success in life are directly linked to the parent’s education levels), I’m surprised that I never thought of this fact.  Of course discrimination 100 years ago has had an effect on people today.  Holding people down 100 years ago resulted in fewer opportunities 50 years ago, which has limited opportunities today.  Limited educational opportunities of people just 30 years ago has resulted in less opportunity for people entering the workforce today.  As a result, you must take steps to level that playing field for them since the past has harmed them.  If it was a level playing field in this country from the get go, the country/workforce might have a considerably different look to it.  For example, I know that the military officer corps struggles to find minorities to fill the ranks.  In a perfect world, the all parts of the military would represent the society we are protecting, however that is not the case.  I do not have exact numbers for all of the branches, but I know the Army is severely lacking in black officers, especially at higher ranks.  As a result, they have pushed to bring in young black officers into the corps in order to fix the problem.

The other fact that always made me give some support to affirmative action was the fact that its mere presence means that blatant racism can’t exist.  As much as I would like to think it (racism) doesn’t exist with people who are in positions of power, I know that there are people making decisions based purely on racist ideals.  These people must be held in check at a minimum, and affirmative action ensures that.  In the end, people that get upset about affirmative action very well maybe closet racists or just naïve.  Prior to the readings I would have thought affirmative action is wrong, but I was quite naïve also… 

A634.3.5.RB_HallMike

After reading the article by Kramer about how/why successful leaders makes meteoric rises to the top only to come crashing down a short while later, the first real dilemma that comes to mind is a very basic principle that we all are faced with quite often: integrity.  Integrity is a rather simple idea that has many definitions.  The nuclear navy has a pretty easy one to remember that I am a fan of: doing what is right even when no one is looking.  For example, you come across a valve out of position.  You know why it is in the wrong position and could easily reposition it with no one ever knowing but you also know that you should report this.  The nuclear navy would hope your only response would be to report the valve out of position and thus you have integrity.  Unfortunately however this is not always the case.  In my opinion, you either have integrity or you do not; you will either do what is right or you will not, and I think part of the problem with some of these leaders is a result of that.

The article directly mentioned that many successful CEOs have a winner take all mentality and are willing to do whatever it takes to succeed, including as we saw in the article, lying and cheating the system.  For example, the CEO of DreamWorks who forged a UCLA diploma in order to advance up the company.  Clearly this was a dishonest act aimed at promoting only himself.  I would venture to say that that was also probably not the only time he acted in a selfish, unethical manner.  So why then is it surprising to us when they do exactly what they have always done just because they are at the pinnacle of success?  They had no integrity to get to the top so why would they have any once they are at the top?  They aren’t going to change who they are; after all, it did lead them to some of the most powerful positions in the country.