A634.9.5.RB_DiazBrian

Throughout this term, this course has challenged us to look inside of ourselves, the way we perceive others, and how morality, ethics, and values affect leadership.  We have taken a look at the effects cultural issues have on us our organizations, and society as a whole.   We have defined ethics, explored moral behavior, and the relationship between relativism and morality along the way.  The three topics that stood out to me most and grabbed my attention were: ethics in technology, living morally, and ethics in society.

Technology is an organizational necessity.  We use technology to communicate, collect data, prepare reports, in marketing campaigns, to increase productivity, and to network.  One aspect of technology I do not believe we covered was the effect of technology on job displacement in the workplace.  As technology expands and we look for “easier” ways to develop and manufacture products, we are increasingly relying on automation which replaces jobs previously performed by humans.  “The use of information technology might require less deployment of man power and this has created ethical dilemmas by forcing some companies to reduce their workforce. Other companies give their employees more roles than required, thus, increasing work pressure. Forcing employees out of their jobs or giving them more work without added benefits is unethical” (Williams & Media, n.d.).  Do companies have a moral obligation to keep members of their community employed?  Is it immoral to lay people off in order to save money and maximize profits?  Robots do not need breaks, they do not call out sick, and are not watching the clock in order to leave at 5 for the day.  One does not need to look any further than the city of Detroit to see the effects that technology has had on a once thriving community before technology took over.

Living a moral life is something this course has really challenged me to reflect on and consider in my everyday life.  LaFollette (2007) wrote “The primary aim of moral thinking is to help us be less cruel, more caring, fairer, and more just – in short, to make this a morally better place” (Location 3218).  We have the ability to make the encounters we have with others pleasant.  We have the ability to genuinely show that we care about the well-being of others.  Each of us can a make a difference if we think more about the consequences of our actions.  When I was younger I just did things to do them.  No thought, no consideration how my actions would be received or how they may affect others.  Luckily for me I have come to a point in my life where I take the time to weight out my options before I make a decision.  I have become unselfish.  Do I still make mistakes?  Absolutely.  How else can I learn if I do not fail in my life?  Experiences are learning opportunities.  It is up to me to decide whether I want to live a moral, just life.  I would like to be remembered as thoughtful, caring, and unselfish.  I want to be able to share the lessons I have learned and pass those along in an effort to make the world just a little better.  If we do not attempt to make contributions or to help others along the way, what type of leaders will we be?

There are many hot topic ethical issues we face in this country.  Some of those issues are: pro-life vs. pro-choice, gun laws, the death penalty, and assisted suicide.  Each issue has its own unique “side of the coin”.  Factors that influence what side of these issues we are on can be: our principles, our perspectives, our values, and context.  Each of these help to form how we choose.  On the issue of abortion, some might identify as pro-life based on their religious beliefs.  Some might say that a woman’s body is her own and she has the right to choose what is in her best interest.  Who is right?  Should there be bans on certain types of weapons or would such restriction go against our constitutional rights?  These debates have been going on for decades.  Does government have the right to tell us what to do or should we be free to make our own decisions?  Government says we have the right to bear arms but is it fair to cherry pick what aspects of government intrudes on our freedoms and which ones we agree with?   LaFollette (2007) wrote “Humans are notoriously bad at judging risk.  Often we are unaware of, or are inattentive to, the seriousness of risks” (Location 2864).  It is important to remember to weigh the risks associated with ethical decision making.  It is equally important to remember (and respect) that others will have different views and values than myself.  It is what makes us unique and we should not try to impose our ideals on others.

I have enjoyed this course.  It has reminded me to take pause and to reflect.  It has reminded me that the decisions I make don’t just affect me, they affect those around me as well.  We are all different however we all have to live together.  By being considerate, kind, and thoughtful we all have the ability to leave a positive influence on the lives of those we touch on a daily basis.  And indirectly, we have the ability to influence and help others we have never even met through our ideals and values.

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

Williams, R., & Media, D. (n.d.). Ethical Dilemma in the Use of Information Technology. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/ethical-dilemma-use-information-technology-18366.html

A634.8.3.RB_DiazBrian

Gun rights in this country is a hotly debated issue.  Our constitution affords citizens the right to bear arms.  “The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’” (“Second Amendment” n.d.).  I support the right of people to own guns but there should be restrictions on the types of weapons we are allowed to possess.  There have been some high profile mass shootings in the last past years such as Sandy Hook Elementary and the Aurora movie theatre shooting  that have questioned the right to own automatic guns as well as some of the ammunition these weapons use (e.g. bullet piercing bullets).  “Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm” (Almasy, 2012).  Gun rights advocates will argue that limiting certain types of weapons and ammunition would begin a slippery slope and would infringe upon their constitutional rights.  At what point do we weigh the benefits versus the costs of allowing these type of weapons to be available to the public?  When will logic be applied to this issue? 

 

I agree that we should be able to own guns however, I do not believe that homeowners need AK-47’s or an M16’s to protect their homes or property.  LaFollette (2007) wrote “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control, but to decide who can own guns, under what conditions” (Location 2775).  This argument has come under a microscope because of recent shootings where the perpetrator was determined to suffer from mental illness.  Those with mental deficiencies do not have the capacity to distinguish between right or wrong and cannot be held to the same standard as a person with normal mental competency.  

Guns kill people.  Point blank.  Yes, there are many uses for guns such as hunting, target practice, competitive shooting competitions, and personal safety.  However the fact remains that if you point a gun at another human being and you pull the trigger, you have the ability to take that person’s life.  You make the decision to place your finger on that trigger and whether or not to pull it.  While the majority of gun owners are responsible, there are those that use guns for violent acts such as robbery, car jackings, and sexual assaults.  There needs to be stricter processes in place in order for people to own guns.  The laws need to change to reflect society today, not society in 1776.  Austin (2014) wrote “there is a correlation between restrictive laws and lower homicide rates with and without firearms, both within the United States and internationally. Moreover, a recent study published in the Southern Medical Journal found that the presence of a gun in a home is twelve times more likely to lead to the death of a member of the household or a visitor than an intruder” (para. 5).   

Gun rights advocates will argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  It can be said that someone can kill another person with a pair of scissors.  Does that mean we should outlaw scissors?  Advocates also propose that if citizens do not have the right to carry guns then what if someone tries to rob a store or a shooting incident takes place in public?  An armed civilian could help neutralize the situation.  Advocates will argue that criminals will always find a way to get a hold of guns and we should be armed to protect ourselves from these people.

 

 In 2013 there were a total of 11, 208 firearm homicides (CDC, 2015).  With tougher laws and gun restrictions I think as a society we have an opportunity to decrease this number.  Unfortunately guns are an issue of politics.  They make money and gun manufacturers have lots of it.  With money comes influence.  How many more Sandy Hook’s do there need to be before common sense is applied to gun rights.  I think it’s time that we really take a look at how guns affect us as a society.  While they serve a purpose that purpose needs to be redefined.

Almasy, S. (2012). Newtown shooter's guns: What we know - CNN.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/

Assault or Homicide. (2015). Retrieved May from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Austin, M. (2014). We Need Stricter Gun Laws. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ethics-everyone/201402/we-need-stricter-gun-laws

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

Second Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

A634.7.4.RB_DiazBrian

My favorite time of the year as a graduate advisor is graduation.  I get the opportunity to meet my students face to face, many for the first time.  Seldomly do I get to meet my students prior to graduation since we are an online distance learning institution.  Graduation is held on the Daytona Beach campus.  My office is located just off of the campus.  Several departments within the Worldwide campus are located on the main campus while a few such as online advising, financial aid, and veteran’s affairs are located off-site.  We are all considered “one campus” however we are not treated as such by our leadership.

Attendance at graduation is mandatory for the advising teams.  All academic advisors are mandated to volunteer graduation morning.  Some duties include handing out cap and gowns, manning information tables, or assisting in the ceremony itself.  As advisors, we are exempt employees so there is no compensation for working on our own personal time (graduation is held on a Saturday).  This has caused a dilemma with employees because some departments that reside on the Daytona Beach campus give their employees a flex day (or extra personal leave day) for participating in the graduation ceremony.  This sends a mixed message.  Is it ethical or moral for one group to be incentivized while another is not?  In this year’s ceremony there were a large number of advisors who did not either have students graduating or had a specific task to perform.   They basically came to graduation, sat through the event, and left once it was over just because it was mandatory.    

It is unfair for one group to be treated differently from another at a university that states “We accept responsibility for our actions. When we see a problem, we do not pass it off, we do not complain, we act. We involve others as appropriate to achieve our goals. We prize dedicated, committed, caring, conscientious, and creative individuals who strive for excellence in the performance of their duties and responsibilities” (“Culture” 2015).  As staff members it is unfortunate that there is not a system in place that rewards all of the individuals that make graduation memorable.  When brought up to our leadership department we are told that “it’s only one day out of the year” and “we cannot control how other departments operate”.  To me, this seems to be a way to brush off the fact that this practice is unfair.  LaFollette (2007) wrote “Considerable practical distance remains between those who think more acts, in more circumstances, fall outside the purview of morality and those who think there are few such actions.  Those who hold the latter position are more inclined to think morality legitimately expects a great deal of us” (Location 3962).  For an organization whose culture is based on integrity, honesty, and trust, I would think that someone in a position of leadership would look to right this wrong.

I take great pride in my organization and the work that I accomplish.  For me, there is no greater reward than serving others.  Aside from the fact that we do not receive compensation for participating in the graduation ceremonies, I enjoy graduation.  It is the day we honor and respect those who have sacrificed, dedicated themselves, and persevered to accomplish a great feat.  However, not everyone who serves in my position espouses the same values.  For example, there is one individual that has not participated in any of the graduation ceremonies since I have worked at ERAU.  Since the day is so hectic, to be honest I had not noticed until this year (when it was mentioned to me) that this individual is exempt from having to attend graduation ceremonies.  I was told this person (whom I am friends with on FB) has a doctor’s note which excuses her from attending because she has a medical condition which does not permit her to be around large crowds.  Sounds legit right?  I mean if you cannot be around large groups of people due to severe anxiety then that is understandable.  Here is the kicker.  This person is an annual ticket holder at Disney.  Not only does she attend Disney World with no issue (several times a month), she constantly posts pictures of her and her family at theme parks across central Florida on a regular basis.  I wish I was that sick...

Knowing this has made me question this employee’s morality.  LaFollette (2007) wrote “Morality’s aim is to guide people’s behavior.  If someone cannot guide her behavior by moral considerations, then it is senseless to require her to do so” (Location 4033-4039).  It is frustrating to know that some people will take advantage of the system.  It is equally frustrating when leadership will not hear what you have to say and fight for their employees.  It diminishes the hard work being done by others and fuels resentment.  If our culture truly intends to do what it says, this organization should take a hard look at its processes for graduation.  An event that should be joyous and celebrated is causing its staff to become bitter and unhappy. 

Culture - Embry-Riddle Human Resources. (2015). Retrieved from http://careers.erau.edu/culture/

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