Archive for the ‘Business Ethics’ Category

Philosophy of Phantasy Phootball

Black Friday

Black FridayGiven the title of this blog, I suppose it would be more appropriate to write about Cyber Monday, but in discussing business ethics, I suppose that Black Friday is apropos.  The day after Thanksgiving is historically and traditionally cited as the biggest shopping day of the year for many businesses  . . . and their corresponding pre-Christmas sales are being pushed back farther and farther  each year,  interrupting many family meals. While this fact alone may be a moral issue per se, it is interesting to note how obsessed our nation has become with getting a good deal (even though these discounts  ultimately may not be a bargain at the end of the day). The truth is that this national “holiday” represents an event filled with high volume traffic and some shoppers and employees risk harm (and even their earthly demise) in order to save some money.

Categories: Business Ethics Tags:

Adeline’s True Age

Lionsgate have released a trailer for The Age of Adeline . The film ...After miraculously remaining 29 years old for nearly eight decades, Adaline Bowman (Blake Lively) has lived a solitary existence, never allowing herself to get close to anyone who might reveal her secret. But a chance encounter with charismatic philanthropist Ellis Jones (Michiel Huisman) reignites her passion for life and romance. When a weekend with his parents (Harrison Ford) threatens to uncover reality, Adaline makes a decision that will change her life forever. This Kantian decision, to tell the truth always, irrespective of the consequences, ironically sets her free from the bondage and chains of time.

Yellow is the New Black!

Fresh Off The Boat [FOB] is the latest TV series attempt to diversify and reach out (i.e., market a specific product to a particular target audience) to a sliver of America’s racial/ethnic spectrum while still appealing to the dominant white base.  On one hand, a problem is that this show, like so many preceding it (e.g. Bonanza to Native Americans, and Sanford & Son to African Americans) remained successful because each resonated with  the apparent stereotypes it tried so hard to break down. On the other hand, these nuances limited each television series from advancing beyond beneficial boundaries of a true color-blind sitcom (cf. The Cosby Show).

Yet, while FOB is a necessary move toward cracking “the banana barrier,” this sitcom is a required first step in achieving Asian-American assimilation and acceptance.  Before reaching these final two resting points, a tenuous and shaky middle ground like FOB remains adequate for its intended purpose.

XLIX Ethics

With all this hoopla and outcry over the last few moments of the Superbowl, a casual observer could be led to believe that something (even of moral or ethical import) went seriously wrong.  Talk radio was abuzz assigning blame and finger pointing to the now-infamous “call” ( the Seattle Seahawks’ final offensive play was overanalyzed myriad ways. As a lifelong Hawks fan, it’s easy to look at the wrong end of a 28-24 Superbowl result, and cry “foul.” We wish to blame officials, coaches, coordinators, and/or other players or appeal to the zebra suits or a higher power for assistance in overturning the results. But the decision wasn’t a moral move, and definitely not an ethical one–even though it seems as if something went drastically awry.   The play could be described at best as unwise, and at worst foolish. Even the coaches and players ultimately assumed personal responsibility (see Russell Wilson’s and Kam Chancellor’s response in particular:…/seahawks-players-react-to-super…

I’m sad (and probably tasted a small portion of what it felt to be a Green Bay Packers devotee a couple weeks ag0 in the NFC Championship; but the Seattle Seahawks will be back in the big game again. Or at least they ought to be . . .  See y’all in San Francisco next year. But when the emotions die down, we will realize that we failed to capitalize on a good play call against a goal line defense (designed to stuff the run (Marshawn), and Malcolm Butler made a mad play (deserving the MVP keys of that truck).  Congratulations to the New England Patriots for winning one of the greatest championships in recent memory. It was a classic battle  truly deserving of the term Super Bowl.

“Up” in the Air with Nail Houses

After a beautiful life and marriage cut short by his wife’s premature passing, Up (2009) depicts an elderly gentleman’s quest to fulfill his childhood “cross-my-heart” sweetheart promise to move to Paradise Falls in South America. Enter Russell: a young boy who is one “Be kind to the elderly” act away from earning his final badge toward becoming a Wilderness Explorer. Karl Frederickson has to continually choose between fulfilling personal desires and including Russell on his quest. Frederickson winds up discovering that the adventure doesn’t lie in the destination but in the journey. Frederickson’s nail house, which was so important to him at the beginning of the movie primarily because of its memories, gets appropriately left behind in his finding that life is never too late for new experiences. The fifth amendment of the United States Constitution generally protects private property from governmental seizure without “just compensation.” However, eminent domain (compulsory seizure for civil use, public safety, or economic development) allows the transfer of private property for the public interest in exchange for fair market value. Eminent domain represents a skirmish between individual property rights, public property, the common good, and private economic development.

The Constitution has traditionally been quite clear about public use, just compensation, and due process as prerequisites for eminent domain. But during contemporary times, Costco is a “public use”; just compensation is getting pennies on the dollar., and cities have offered owners nothing for their land, doing them “favors” to take it off their hands. So this is the world that we have come to. And how just did we get UP there?

Elysium: Immigration and the Ethics of Inequality

In the 22nd century, the privileged few live on a luxurious, disease-free, space habitat called Elysium (2013) while the masses reside within a planet Earth rampant with socioeconomic inequality.  At the same time, an alliance between big business (military-weapons supplier Armadyne)  and totalitarian government fosters exploitative workplace conditions.

Should everyone have access to the benefits/privileges of Elysium?  The film advances a populist ideal that everyone ought to have the freedom and right to live in Elysium (inside a world devoid of death, disease, or war, without borders nor boundaries). But is this position correct? Illegal immigration is obviously against the law but perhaps we need to look toward ethics to give us reasons why it is wrong. Making a distinction between universal human rights and the privileges/ responsibilities of citizenship (that belong with membership in particular groups, territories, and countries) might help, – e.g., consider the American right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness that goes along with the obligation to follow U.S. law.

Do Not Shadow [DNS] provides patients a respectful environment

imageAs a university professor,  I actively promote effective teaching methodologies.   But a recent multi-month stroke recovery through various medical facilities, where physicians, nurses, and therapists would ask if I minded students “tagging along” during their rounds has given me pause. For the most part, I assented without hesitation. Hands-on teaching and training represent an efficient and effective transfer of medical knowledge between generations of medical practitioners. But . . . for the sake of patient privacy and personal respect, should persons with certain mental illnesses and brain injuries be placed on an automatic, paternalistic “Do not Shadow” [DNS] List as opposed to a default, informed consent alternative? For instance, maintaining personal hygiene is an integral component of medical practice, but repeated bathing and toileting for training purposes seems superfluous and can diminish an authoritative/professional relationship between observed and observer. This issue first surfaced when a former student of mine accompanied my OT shower. I did not mind her observing my other therapeutic activities, like playing chess or testing limits of my visual field, but the public bath left me later feeling vulnerable, exposed, and slightly embarrassed. I don’t blame the rehabilitation facility as they did request my general consent. What wasn’t caught was that I previously was a professor at the same school as this prospective intern. The specific academic connection would have been difficult for anyone to catch as the student no longer attended the same university.

Reasons against forming and conforming to a “Do Not Shadow” [DNS] list for training purposes are manifold:  Shouldn’t informed consent be sufficient for patient autonomy and enough to preserve privacy? What brain injuries would we leave on and off such a list? And is the latter unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient? Shall mentoring/teaching value or individualrights take priority? Or  respect ultimately a relatively trivial matter compared to excellent training and efficient care?

Categories: Business Ethics, Medical Ethics Tags:

Nail Houses (Part I)

Categories: Business Ethics Tags:

The Maquiladora Option [Part II]

Our guest again for Monday Morning is Ms. Jennifer Walton—President of uniform and apparel maker GOT Mfg. A previous post highlighted a recent interview on international labor courtesy of Skype; the current post consists of Ms. Walton’s responses to subsequent student questions during a business ethics course.

Business Ethics Student [BES]:

Ms. Jennifer Walton [JW]:

Categories: Business Ethics Tags: