A634.5.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Is Marketing Evil?

One thing that always thrills me is linking things together that are seemingly unrelated at the onset. Sometimes it appears that the topics that we study in our classes at Embry-Riddle have a semi-logical progression but at times are random. They all link back to the overall course topic (for this current class, everything deals with ethical decision-making) but the topics in any given module are often independent topics so I love trying to find commonalities between them. For example, our primary text and discussion for the week centers on slippery slope arguments (SSAs) which admonish us to either perform or omit an act based on it leading to another act which may be unethical. (For example, there is nothing wrong with having an alcoholic drink but it may cause you to want to have more and can lead to drunkenness so it is best to not even have the first drink.) However, this blog centers around the ethics of marketing. The two are seemingly unrelated but I saw a connection which I will briefly discuss later in this blog.

With my current job, I am very involved in marketing. Let’s face it – military recruiters are salespeople. As a Center Leader, I could put “sales manager” on my resume without feeling like I was lying. With my job, I evaluate and analyze data support systems, conduct area canvasing, conduct training, act as a human resource advocate, and market my product (a career in the Army). Therefore, it is critical that I understand the ethics of marketing.

Before I get too deep into this, I want to remind you that there are two primary theories of ethics – deontology and consequentialism. As a quick refresher, deontologists focus on the principle of the matter. A consequentialist tends to look at second and third order effects of a decision. If you subscribe to deontology, you may automatically dismiss marketing at unethical. In order to push a product, there may be some gray areas that might be hard for a deontologist to swallow. That may be a bad way to frame it but I think it makes the point.

The Army (especially the U.S. Army Recruiting Command – USAREC) is a very corporate environment and closely resembles many other organizations and business. We face our fair share of ethical decision-making dilemmas. As recruiters, misconceptions have led to a somewhat tainted reputation. Actually, I don’t know that they are misconceptions. There were surely instances in the past that violated public trust with the way that we marketed ourselves. We were able to mostly recover from that, though, and repair our reputation. “Businesses that effectively manage ethics can systemically absorb, react, and appropriately adjust to most breakdowns in conduct or decisions” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 3). It is critical that any professional organization have a formal system in place to deal with ethics. This includes both training on ethical standards/conduct and established procedures for dealing with breaches of ethics. The ethical codes can be both explicit such as written codes of conduct and standards or implicit through dress codes, anecdotes, and treatment of both employees and customers (Ferrell, n.d.). Though I don’t have a basis of comparison, I believe that USAREC has one of the strongest ethics programs available. As an example, the entire Bronx Company received an all-day workshop from the USAREC Office of Command Psychology. The intent of the training was to increase trust and communication to increase team cohesion and integrity. In the past, we had a huge problem with recruiters doing whatever they could to put people in the Army. A lot of bad stuff was happening. Recruiters were having inappropriate relationships with recruits, they were coaching applicants on how to conceal disqualifying information, and they were often telling lies such as promising combat exemptions or bonuses that didn’t exist.

Even with our formal programs along with our explicit and implicit guidelines, it may be impossible to eliminate unethical behavior. “Academic studies have shown that in any workplace, at least 10 percent of employees will take advantage of situations if the opportunity exists and the risk of being caught is low” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 6). Additionally, another 40 percent will go along with the group and not report the wrongdoing for fear of social repercussions. Though the Army strictly enforces our core values to include integrity, we are comprised of the members of society so this statistic still applies to us. That means that even in USAREC where multiple screenings take place to weed out those that don’t belong, unethical practices will happen. However, “the goal is to recognize that while you cannot remove the risk of ethical misconduct, great leaders are prepared” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 8).

Remember that I said that USAREC had some serious issues in the past. You can see countless videos on YouTube about recruiter misconduct. There are a couple that are particularly embarrassing where people had hidden cameras while talking to recruiters that are spewing all sorts of lies. The most embarrassing video, though, is probably of a recruiter in Oklahoma that was using his government vehicle trolling for prostitutes. Talk about tainting the organization! It is so difficult to repair a reputation with stakeholders! Even in civilian organizations, this same concept is true. “Poor sales performance is easier to recover from than ethical misconduct” (Ferrell, n.d., p. 9).

Using this base knowledge, let me address a few issues in marketing outside of the Army. First, how can organizations balance the need to “win” with ethics? Remember that I said that this may be a bit difficult for deontologists because there is often a little bit of gray area. Obviously lying is immoral and therefore unethical but it often seems that marketers do just that. I saw a funny meme on social media that had three different brands of toothpaste. Each had a caption that said something similar such as “9 out of 10 dentists recommend this” or “4 out of 5 dentists prefer this”. All of them said basically the same thing indicating that the majority of dentists recommended their product. How can the majoring recommend all of those products? Are those marketers lying to us? Perhaps. But perhaps they are also balancing the need to make a profit with ethics. Suppose they polled 1,000 dentists and found only 9 that recommended their product. The statement “9 out of 10” can still be a technically true statement if you only count those nine plus one more. A deontologist would say that is misleading but a consequentialist would say that it is technically true and harms no one but serves the organization. Consider marketing practices in the sugary snacks industry (Frank, 2017). They use actual facts but tend to omit the facts that do not support their cause to help market their products. Is this ethical? Well…maybe. Again, the deontologist will be quick to say no but the consequentialist will notice that an entire industry rides on this marketing. Is candy evil? No, not in moderation. Do we really want to put thousands of people out of work and never eat candy again? This argument isn’t just limited to unhealthy products and toothpaste, though. But where do we draw the line?

Speaking of drawling a line, surely you have heard about companies tracking your browsing history to market products to you. I see this all the time on my social media. Even just today, I saw a targeted advertisement for the EMBA program at Pace University which is located here in Manhattan. A lot of people now feel that this is a violation of their privacy. The search engines are selling their history and IP/MAC addresses to advertisers which some view as a violation of privacy. Is this ethical? Well, it is legal. That much is for sure. I think that the real question, then, is what are companies doing to protect that data (Bradlow, Gangwar, Kopalle, & Voleti, 2017)? The true ethical dilemma comes with that burden of protection. The risk of malicious compromise and mishandling is minimal due to the effort required to truly analyze the data but there is a risk. That data must therefore be protected but a consequentialist may realize in an analysis that the cost of protecting the data of millions of people far exceeds the cost of reparations should damage to an individual occur. This is where we must refer back to the point made by Ferrell (n.d.) that the damage to reputation is more difficult to repair than poor sales.

As I wrap up this week’s blog, I want to remind you that I like to link our topics. As a leader charged with marketing a product, I have to remember that both the carrots and the sticks – the positive and negative motivators – that I provide can open the door to unethical conduct in my organization (Ferrell, n.d.). In other words, the incentives that I provide for stellar performance as well as the consequences for a lack of production can both encourage my team to take shortcuts. Though a few shortcuts might not be a big deal, they may set a precedent for future unethical behavior thus taking the first step onto a slippery slope. As a Center Leader, it is up to me to ensure that I balance mission accomplishment with ethics. In this case, though, I do believe that I have to put my deontologist ways to the side and look at the big picture. When it comes to marketing, I think we have to be consequentialists but we have to watch out for that slippery slope!  

Bradlow, E. T., Gangwar, M., Kopalle, P., & Voleti, S. (2017). The Role of Big Data and

Predictive Analytics in Retailing. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 79-95. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.00

Ferrell, L. (n.d.). Marketing Ethics. University of Wyoming.

Frank, M. K. (2017). Sugarcoating the Truth. Scholastic, Inc.

A634.4.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

I was born and raised in Texas. When we think of Texas, we often think of cattle, oil fields, amazing sunsets, the best barbeque, people with big hats and big boots, and a very conservative political leaning except for a few urban areas such as Austin and Dallas. Those conservative views were never pushed on me by my parents. I was always encouraged to form my own political opinions but I was still heavily influenced by my environment. Due to the law of primacy, I have often found myself conflicted when I come face to face with some of the realities of my political opinions. One such opinion is my stance on affirmative action – “the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 87). Affirmative action was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy in Executive Order 10925 in which he called for aggressive hiring of minorities in government positions to combat many of the racial struggles highlighted by the Civil Rights Movement (Chrismas, 2013).

(Before I proceed, I want to make it very clear that my intent is not to make a political argument but rather to focus on the ethics of affirmative action. It is very difficult to separate the two, though – politics and ethics.)

In a previous discussion in this class on ethics, I had a revelation that has honestly changed the way that I view just about everything. Morals are not relative but ethics are (LaFollette, 2007). As an example, we would all agree that murder is immoral. This truth spans all cultures through all time. However, what we view as murder can be relative. That is why we have debates over issues such as abortion. The pro-life camp views abortion as murder whereas the pro-choice camp does not. This same concept applies to just about every political and ethical debate we have. The big revelation that I mentioned is that our ethics are not based on opinions but rather on the facts of our own lives. For a rancher in Texas, affirmative action may be unethical because of the facts of his life. However, for a young black woman from the projects, affirmative action may be very ethical because of the facts of her life. One is not inherently right or wrong. Because of the facts of the situations – not their opinions – they can both be right at the same time.

Let’s start by focusing on some facts that support the use of affirmative action. First and foremost, “Racial preference exists in the United States-but it continues to benefit white Americans, as it has for the past 375 years” (Chrisman, 2013, p. 71). I understand that this is a contentious statement but let’s consider that minorities were repressed by policy for hundreds of years. One could not possibly expect that to just correct itself overnight. It takes several generations. Racism today may not appear as it did before the Civil Rights Movement. “Current racism is less flagrant. It does not wear a sheet or burn crosses. Now it lurks in the boardroom, the court6oom and the classroom, embodied in our habits and enforced by our institutions” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 96).

Another ethical case for affirmative action comes in the form of ensuring diversity within organizations (Crosby & Sincharoen, 2016). Without diversity, organizational leadership can potentially become so focused on one way of conducting business and can force policies without checks and balances. Diversity ensures that all views are considered.

Affirmative action legislation of the past is now laying the groundwork to support another marginalized community – the LGBT community. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (EDNA) was first introduced in 1994 by Senator Ted Kennedy to end discrimination in the workforce based on sexual orientation (“LGBT Rights in the Workplace”, 2013). EDNA has faced much resistance over the years but is gaining traction based on the positive results of affirmative action. Without EDNA, those belonging to the LGBT community would have little recourse for discrimination.

Of course, there are also ethical downsides to affirmative action. One of the most common arguments that I heard growing up in Texas is that someone that has worked hard and is more qualified for a position may lose an opportunity solely because a company is required to hire a certain percentage of minorities. That means that those that are best qualified for a position may not be the one selected for the position which harms both the candidate and the organization (LaFollette, 2007).

Another powerful ethical argument against affirmative action is that it in and of itself racism. We pretty much all agree that discriminating against minorities based solely on the color of their skin was wrong and is now expressly forbidden. “Affirmative action, they claim, is wrong for the same reason: these programs discriminate against whites simply because of their race. Two wrongs do not make a right” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 87-88).

We can see arguments for and against affirmative action. As I previously stated, the ethical arguments both for and against are true for those individuals. It is ethical because it provides opportunities to those that would otherwise be overlooked and ensures diversity. However, it is at the same time unethical because it hurts candidates and organizations by removing the ability to fill positions with the best qualified applicants and it is in itself racism. So what is the solution?

There is a term that I absolutely hate and that is “white privilege”. As the son of a Baptist minister, my family was poor. I spend the majority of my childhood in Section 8 housing. Many of my friends grew up in trailer parks. This is really no different from the housing projects. I worked hard to get to where I am today. My friend, Martin, on the other hand, is black. He grew up in a very wealthy home and had every opportunity provided to him. When he was in high school, he was learning how to sail and was a member of his school’s yacht team. He attended Yale and is now a hedge fund manager here in NYC. Clearly he had opportunities that I didn’t have. This supports something that I often say – privilege exists but it knows no color. There is no white privilege but these opportunities are more prevalent amongst the white population. I have a few ideas that can equalize the playing field, though. Now remember what I said before – I don’t want to make this about politics. However, what I am going to say may seem a bit political. Right now, our education funding is based primarily on property taxes. For example, my sister lives in a very affluent neighborhood north of Dallas. The schools that her sons attend are very well funded. They have small class sizes, amazing arts programs, the best equipment, and a full staff. Compare that to the schools we attended growing up which had overcrowded classrooms, secondhand equipment, and were just falling apart. Out of the two kinds of schools described, who is going to have the better opportunities? My opinion is that we have to even the playing field. It is a very socialist view of it, I know, but I believe that the solution lies with equal funding across the board for schools based on the population of the school. There is no reason that a public school in the Bronx should have less funding than a public school in TriBeCa but that is exactly what we have! The cycle perpetuates itself. By leveling the playing field, we can eliminate the need for affirmative action altogether. I want to make it clear, though, that equality only means equal opportunities and not equal results. In my opinion, that is the best approach. However, until there truly are equal opportunities, I believe that affirmative action is needed to ensure that we break the cycle.

Chrisman, R. (2013). Affirmative Action. The Black Scholar, 43(3), 71-71

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding Affirmative Action. Annual

Review of Psychology, 57(1), 585-611. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Walden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

LGBT Rights in the Workplace: The ENDA Debate Continues. (2013). Congressional Digest,

92(10), 1

A634.3.4.RB_LeeDarrell - The Harder They Fall

In early 2012, my brother-in-law was diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, a rare and terminal form of brain cancer. Fortunately, he was very financially wise and had adequate life insurance. We had a family conversation (“we” being the extended family) urging my sister to not make any emotional decisions with the finances immediately after his passing. Though she was going to be a widow with two young boys, she was going to be a millionaire and the temptation would exist to lavishly spend that money. Instead, my mother urged and convinced her to just sit on the money for at least six months without spending a dime of it. There was enough in savings to maintain their lifestyle for about a year so six months should be reasonable.

As tragic as the loss of a family member (especially a spouse) is, the lavish spending of life insurance is a common tale. Of course, lavish spending isn’t limited to just insurance claims. I am sure that we have all heard the stories about how people win the lottery and are broke and miserable and their lives are ruined within just a few years or perhaps someone inherits a trust fund and everything spirals out of control. My friend, Chris Wilkins, recently mentioned something about this in a conversation. He works in wealth management and he loves using these stories of ruin to encourage new clients to just let him manage their new wealth so that it will still be there when they are ready for the responsibility.

There is cover story titled “The Harder They Fall” (Kramer, 2003) featured in the Harvard Business Review that reminded me of situations like these. The article isn’t about windfall gains but rather about business professionals that have risen to the top and then engage in unethical acts in the pursuit of money and power. Several examples, both real and hypothetical, were used to illustrate how the quest for increased success can blur our ethical decision-making processes as well as advice given to avoid this. In these stories, the thirst for more resulted in tragedies such as broken families and public humiliation. But why does being at the top bring about so much temptation? Perhaps it is because “being there was a lot more fun than getting there” (Kramer, 2003, p. 63). Furthermore, “the pleasures that accompany power and prominence are particularly distorting for the person experiencing them for the first time” (p. 63). That is how this goes hand-in-hand with those in windfall gain situations.

This week in our class, we have been discussing ethical relativity. As I was reflecting on this article, I tried to view it through that lens. Is it possible for someone at “the top” to perform acts that others may consider to be unethical yet still actually be ethical? Based on what I have learned about ethical relativity, the answer is yes, it surely is. Boiling it down to its basic elements, ethical relativity means that different people can have different ethical values. Morality, however, is constant (LaFollette, 2007). As an example, the act of cheating is wrong but what we consider cheating may actual vary from situation to situation based on the individual. As a sci-fi lover, the best was I can relate to this is to think of the Star Trek story of Cpatain Kirk when he cheated at Starfleet Academy by altering the computer program to allow him to win. He didn’t view it as cheating but rather as his duty to find a winning solution. Others, however, did view it as cheating. All involved agreed that cheating is wrong but due to ethical relativity they didn’t all classify it as cheating. Now let me relate that to the quest for more power.

Is it wrong to want more power and to do things that you may not have otherwise done to get it? The answer it – it depends. The other night, I was at my American Legion Change of Command meeting. One of the new officers is very influential with the NYPD and used to be the commandant for the aviation element. We were all sitting out on the balcony having cocktails and he wanted to show off a little, I guess, and called in a fly-by from a helicopter. It was quite a site to see this helicopter flying over Central Park at 200’! Was it unethical for him to call that in? Was it an abuse of power? This is where ethical relativity comes in to play. If he had done that just to impress a potential client or to woo a woman, yes, that would have been wrong. However, his motivation was to bring credit and recognition to the American Legion post. The exact same act based on the motivation can be ethical or unethical. We can only know for sure through self-evaluation. “This puts a burden on each of us to carefully and critically evaluate inherited moral wisdom, as well as our own actions. And it demands that we govern our behavior by what we find” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 66-67).

I live pretty close to Columbia University so most of my local coffee shops and bars are patronized by Columbia students. In fact, there are a couple of MBA students sitting next to me now as I write this (I’m in a coffee shop now, not a bar!). I have spoken with this duo before and they are both excited to be at Columbia because of the prominence of the school and the fact that an average MBA has a starting salary somewhere around the $140K mark. Most of us would probably say that it is wrong to just chase a salary. It is very self-serving and as these stories have highlighted can lead to demise. “Does the human being pursue his own interest? The answer is yes, but that same human being also pursues multiple interests. Some of these are contradictory to the person's own interests, some are above individual interest, and some relate to the good of the society, the environment, and fellow humans” (Reilly & Kyj, 1990, para. 3). It is okay to be a little self-serving sometimes if there is a greater good being served. It is okay to enjoy the luxuries and glamour of success. It is even okay to chase the success. However, when the motivation shifts from serving a greater good to only serving the self, that is when the actions may become indefensible. As Kramer (2003) states, when people get to the top, sometimes “they get distracted by all the temptations – and often abandon the practices that helped them capture the crown” (p. 63-64). When are at the top, must remember why we wanted to be there in the first place and how we got there. If we only wanted to be in the spotlight, there is a good chance that we will make compromises that will have extreme consequences.

Kramer, R.M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Walden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Reilly, B. J., & Kyj, M. J. (1990). Ethical Business and the Ethical Person. Greenwich: Elsevier

Inc. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(05)80174-0

A634.2.4.RB_LeeDarrell - Theories of Ethics

I absolutely love to debate. To me, it is invigorating. I admit that I often like to play devil’s advocate and will argue against someone just for the sake of being argumentative. I have found that this serves two primary purposes. First, it helps both my “opponent” and me find a logical basis for our claims. Second, it is entertaining. This is especially true when it comes to political debates. I am an independent centerist so it is easy for me to argue politics with those both on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. One thing that I have found about my politically motivated friends, though, is that we can always seem to have logical (though often heated) discussions. When dealing with ethics, “we find that most people share enough moral beliefs to make rational discussion of particular ethical issues possible, even when they deeply disagree over them” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 22).  

There are two primary theories about the moral foundation for our ethical decision-making process. “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). Consequentialism, therefore, is results driven. Consider the example of how the KGB secured the release of three envoys in Beirut in 1986 (Houston Chronicle, 1986). When the envoys were kidnapped, instead of negotiating with the kidnappers, the KGB in turn kidnapped one of the relatives of one of the kidnappers, castrated him, shot him in the head, then send the removed body part to the kidnappers. By kidnapping, mutilating, and murdering an innocent family member, further atrocities were averted. Consequentialism could be described as the ends justifying the means. Deontology, on the other hand, could be described more as the principle of the matter. I remember several years ago I was visiting my sister in Charlotte, NC. I don’t recall the exact situation but I remember that we went somewhere to eat and I was overcharged a little for my food because they rang it up as something else but then corrected it to at least deliver my correct food. I started to raise a bit of a stink about it but the way that the company worked would have meant that a correction would have resulted in an employee being written up… over a few cents. I’ll tell you, though, I was a bit of a hot head and I was sticking to my guns. It was the principle of the thing! How DARE they overcharge me and not be willing to correct it? (Fortunately, my sister intervened and calmed me down. Also, I have learned how to pick and choose my battles a little more since then.)

Generally speaking, most people will align with one or the other of these theories. One is not better than the other. Like so many other things, they both have their advantages and disadvantages. Let’s look first at consequentialists – those that look at the overall results. First, consequentialists must consider which effects count and to what extent (LaFollette, 2007). The other day, I received a piece of mail in my mailbox that was intended for the reciprocal penthouse in my sister tower. I had to consider all of the consequences when deciding what to do with that but some were a little less significant and carried less weight than others. Some considerations were – how long will it take me to walk the mail to the other building? How much wear and tear will I put on the elevator? Will my dog get mad at me while I am gone? Will I have to acknowledge the concierge that I don’t particularly care for? Does it even matter if they get this piece of mail? Etc. (Deontology would say that none of these consequences matter and I should deliver the mail even if it is junk mail because it is the right thing to do but more to follow on that.) Clearly some of these consequences carry weight and some are irrelevant. In this particular case, it was from the IRS and appeared to be a tax refund check so yes, I carried it over. I probably would not have done the same had it been something that looked a little less important but the problem with consequentialism is that we are all unique. Where do we draw the line on what is important and what isn’t? I may put more weight on one criteria than my neighbor does. Therefore, there cannot be a consistent set of criteria for what is an acceptable consequence and what is not. “Practical ethical decisions, even life-or-death ones, come down to a cost-benefit analysis of one kind or another. If the benefits outweigh the costs-if the utilitarian calculation "maximizes happiness," then the act in question is at least allowed, if not a positive duty” (Oderberg, 1998, p. 32). If one is using consequentialism to perform a cost-benefit analysis but the variables are inconsistent from case to case or person to person, this theory can never definitively generate the “right” ethical solution.

On the other hand, deontology – the principle of the matter theory, as I have come to know it – is also flawed. However, it may have some advantages over consequentialism. “One, it reflects the way most of us acquired and developed our moral beliefs; two, its main competitor is subject to seemingly serious criticisms” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31) as I just pointed out. But just because it relies on our already mostly commonly established moral compass, that doesn’t make it a perfect theory. I like watching science fiction shows and I think of these robots that have their built-in codes of conduct that prevent them from (or compel them to) certain decisions that a human would find easy. “Oh, sorry. Can’t push the button and save the planet because it would cause me to squish a bug and I can’t kill things.” (Obviously that is not an actual quote.) But deontology, fortunately, is not a foundation that just completely dismisses all consequential consideration. Those consequences still count, but how does one weigh the “rules” here? And more important, what do we do when moral “rules” conflict with one another? How do we make the ethical choice? There are really four primary strategies/approaches to this rule paradox (LaFollette, 2007). First, claim that the rules never truly conflict because there is only one primary rule – to do what is ethical. If there is only one rule, there can be no conflict. Another strategy is to evaluate the conflicting rules and assume that they (the rules) themselves will specify what to do in a conflict. A third strategy is to apply a meta-rule that explains what to do when rules conflict. Lastly, the final strategy just relies on intuition to make the proper ethical choice. Immanuel Kant (LaFollette, 2007), an 18^th century German philosopher, subscribes to the first rule here. He claimed that the only true rule was to act on good will. However, good will is often hypothetical. For example, what if I told you that it was good for you to call your parents at least twice a month? This sounds like sage advice. However, it assumes that you want to talk to your parents and have a relationship with them. This might not be the best case for everybody. Likewise, if someone says that it is good to practice the piano for 45 minutes every day, it is hypothetical based on the idea that I want to play the piano. I am a lyric baritone, though, so that is not proper for me. Kant argues, though, that morality is never hypothetical. Furthermore – and this is where it is a little confusing since he claimed that there is only one rule of good will – if it does appear that there is a conflict, “Kant believed that a person only had one operative duty at any given time, so when there is a conflict between two duties one duty must have a ‘stronger ground of obligation’ than the other” (White, 2009, p. 304). So the bottom line – Kant’s view of deontology is that we can only do one right thing at a time and, when there appears to be a conflict, we do the more important right thing.

Neither consequentialism nor deontology are perfect. Do we just look at the overall result and base our ethical decisions on that? If we did that, where do we draw the line? At what point do we say that serving the greater good is no longer worth it? Not to get political here but is seems that is one of the tenets of Communism which is a primarily failed concept. With deontology, at what point do we budge from our principles to serve the greater good? To me, the answer seems as easy as my political stance. The answer is not on either “side” but rather somewhere right in the middle.

KGB castrated leader's relative to win envoys' release - report: 3 STAR edition. (1986, January 7). Houston Chronicle (Pre-1997, Fulltext)

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Oderberg, D. S. (1998). Academia's "doctor death?". The Human Life Review, 24(4), 31.

White, M. D. (2009). In Defense of Deontology and Kant: A Reply to Van Staveren. Review of Political Economy, 21(2), 299-307. doi:10.1080/09538250902834103

A634.1.5.RB_LeeDarrell - The Train Dilemma

Here we are! Another new class meaning another new learning opportunity! I am really excited at this point because I am now over half way done with my degree. In theory, I have now read more articles and written more assignments than I have left to go. (Of course the reality is that I tend to research a lot more now than I did in the beginning just because I am extremely familiar with the methodology now but I tend to skim a lot more now than I did before so maybe it all evens out.)  In this new class, we are going to be studying ethics. There seem to be as many MBA students in this class as there are those of us on the leadership track so I am excited to get that management perspective. From what I have experienced thus far, it seems that those in managerial roles tend to focus a bit more on quantitative research so it will be interesting to see how this “touchy-feely stuff” is incorporated to the discussions.

The first blog for this class is definitely one of those touchy-feely subjects. As I stated above, we are studying the role of ethics in the decision-making process (the title of the class is “Leadership Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility”). We were given a scenario with which you are most likely familiar and asked to think about how we would apply ethical decision-making to determine the best solution. This is the train dilemma. There are actually three different scenarios so let’s just go through them one at a time. In each situation, I am supposed to put myself in the mindset of being a rail switch operator. Surely these scenarios wouldn’t apply if I worked for the MTA as the subways never work the way they are supposed to but maybe if I worked for Amtrak or something…

In the first scenario, there is a trail hurting down the tracks and I notice that there are five children on the tracks. I can throw the switch and send the train to another track where there is one child on the track. What will I do? Will I throw the switch? To answer this question, I have to do what we need to do with all ethics-based decisions and weigh the benefits and consequences of each action (or inaction). This particular case, I would imagine, would have most of us agreeing that the appropriate action is to pull the switch. It is better to save five lives than to save one life. I should add that I am taking these scenarios at face value. Let’s not get wrapped up in the axels with the details. We are not considering that one of the kids may be a future POTUS or will cure cancer or anything. I am just assuming that I have no idea who these kids are, what their status is, or what their potential is. However, due to my own beliefs (primarily religious), I believe that the most “despicable” human soul is as precious as the most saintly. I do believe that my religious beliefs tie into my ethical decision-making but really, I would imagine that we would all agree – it is far better to save the five lives and sacrifice the one. That is just a numbers game.

I am going to skip ahead to the third scenario and just make it the second scenario here. Let’s take that same situation. There are five kids playing on the track and the train is hurtling toward them. On the other track is a single child. I can throw the switch and let the train hit that child, but this time, that is my child on the track. What would I do? To answer this, I have to let you know that I really cannot relate to this situation. It is impossible for me to even properly frame it as I have no children of my own. I can only speculate how I would feel about my own child. I know that I would love that child more than I loved myself so the best that I can do is imagine that I was on the track myself. Yes, I would pull the switch and sacrifice myself because I know that those five children have equal value to my own self (or my own child) and their parents love them as I would love my own child. This is still measuring the value of five lives versus one. The situation is the same as the first. I would like to think that nothing would change. It may make the aftermath much harder to deal with but there is no disputing that the value of five lives outweighs the value of one life.

The final scenario is perhaps the hardest. This time, a train is hurtling toward the five children. There is an old man standing near the tracks. I can push him in front of the train and it will stop. Do I push him? Yes, I realize that this is an unrealistic scenario. How would that stop a train? Just go with it. (That statement was targeted at one reader of this blog in particular and I think that she knows who she is…) One of my friends pointed out that we don’t know what that man is accomplishing in this world and we don’t know anything about those kids. Would you sacrifice a philanthropist to save five gang members? Again, let’s not get wrapped up in the axel and just take this at face value. They can all be strangers with unlimited potential. The thing is that this isn’t just a case of five lives versus one life anymore. Previously, the action was throwing the switch. We were choosing the lesser of two terrible situations. We were choosing who the train killed, basically. This time, though, our options are to allow the train to kill five children or to kill someone ourselves. Do you see the difference? In the first two cases, we are mitigating the damage. In this case, we are actively killing someone. So let’s have some real talk here. Obviously it wasn’t with a train but I have encountered a situation before where I have had to make the decision to actually take a life or not. I don’t want to go into any more details than that but what I will tell you is that I deal with the ramifications of that every single day. I did what I had to do. So, would I push the old man to save five children? I would (quickly) weigh the benefits and consequences of both action and inaction. However, one thing that is so important to understand when dealing with ethics – inaction IS an action. Choosing to not act is in and of itself an action. This situation may seem different because it pushing a man in front of a train versus pulling a switch to divert a train. The results are the same, though. I think that is the thing about ethical decision-making that we must remember. The end results – the consequences – play into the ethics. That is all morally driven, too. We have to be so careful with this, though. This train of thought can be used to justify the most heinous of acts if we let it.