The role of government in enforcing moral values through law

¶ … law should be used as a tool for shaping a shared moral climate? Why or why not? Should moral values be written into the law and enforced? Can you think of any examples where a change in the law seemed to improve the moral climate of society?

In general, I would say that the government should stay away from enforcing a moral climate in the sense that there has to be the question asked whether someone is harmed or not. However, "harm" is a very loaded term when it comes to some topics and this includes some things that are entirely legal. For example, adultery is assailed as a wrong thing to do. It can obviously break up relationships/marriages and any kids in the mix can be greatly impacted. However, while such tawdry details may (or may not) matter when a divorce or child custody hearing is done, it is almost never a criminal matter. This is despite the fact that most people are religious and feel adultery is wrong. However, many people draw a line when it comes to things that are religious in nature (although one can make an argument against adultery and for making it illegal without invoking religion) but it is commonly held that the government should stay out of such matters. The United States government in particular is held by Supreme Court precedent to keep the law and its enforcement as non-religious as possible. The recent gay marriage decision is just one example of this. On the other hand, murder ends a life and should absolutely be part of the moral climate created by the law. The loss of life is the differing factor between murder and adultery and the law treats it differently for that reason. There is nothing wrong with asserting that certainly lifestyle choices are wrong such as having kids out of wedlock, having kids while a teenager and so forth and one could make that case without religion. However, many people scream that even when it is not invoked.

LS312 UNIT 2 DISCUSSION

Read "An Open Letter to Walt Disney" from the National Labor Committee to Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

National Labor Committee. (1996). An open letter to Walt Disney. Retrieved from http://www.globallabourrights.org/alerts/an-appeal-to-walt-disney-company

Decision Impacts on Stakeholder

If you worked for Disney, would you feel ethically compelled to blow the whistle on the situation in the letter? Why or why not? What theory of moral reasoning would you use to persuade the CEO to change? What, if anything, would you have advised Disney to do differently?

I would absolutely blow the whistle if there was clear evidence that sweatshops, child labor or anything else like that was going on. It may or may not be legal in that country but it is not acceptable for an American company (or any foreign company operating in the same) to allow this to happen from a moral standpoint because it is taking advantage of people with no voice or power in the name of money. It may bump up profits but the human and ethical costs involved are entirely too high. I would advise Disney to either make the wages higher in Haiti or use a different country. Wherever the factories are and whomever owns them, they should be run ethically and not in a sweatshop or authoritarian manner.

LS312 UNIT 3 DISCUSSION

First read the transcript of the NPR story on workplace cheating.

Download and read the "LS312_Unit3_ShirkingWork.pdf" file from Doc Sharing.

Examine the following four areas of workplace privacy according to the guidelines listed below:

Drug testing

Email privacy

Telephone conversation privacy

Personal privacy

Workplace Privacy

What promotes the differing views managers and employees have on privacy issues? What should a company have access to regarding an employee's personal life, and what is not reasonable? What kind of control should a company have of an employee's off-the-job behavior?

There is indeed the dichotomous relationship between the employer typically feeling that they have every right to monitor what happens on their property or what discourse occurs on their systems. Employees would argue that anything personal should not be monitored and that the monitoring in general is "Big Brother." It is reasonable for a company to know if they are employing a felon or someone who is engaging in improper behavior such as badmouthing their company and so forth. Employers should have little to any control over an employee's personal life but they do have every right to react to things that they can prove happened, like the badmouthing example just mentioned. The one caveat to that would be jobs like police officers and nurses who can be called to work at any time in some situations. Indeed, one should not drink alcohol if they're on-call, for example. Other than that, the employer should not be privy to personal and private details but they do have the right to monitor their network and phone systems. Employees who have a problem with that should keep their private matters private by using their own phone or computer.

LS312 UNIT 4 DISCUSSION

According to sociologists, what is society's image of a good mother? A good father? How do those images impact how parents who chose to balance their work life with family (i.e., work part-time) are viewed? What type of legislation or market solution do you think would solve wage gaps due to work-life balance decisions?

If one goes by the "traditional" gender roles, a "good mom" is one that is a stay-at-home mom or one that works very little (at least when the child is not in school yet) and the father's job is typically to be held to being the breadwinner. These images have an impact because working moms and stay-at-home dads are often mocked and insulted for their "bad choices." As for wage gaps due to personal family decisions, just about any intervention in the free market is typically less than wise. There are impacts to both men and women when they take time off to raise a family. Unfortunately, women are more highly impacted because they are much more often the people making such choices.

LS312 UNIT 5 DISCUSSION

OSHA has been seen as both a positive and a negative influence on business and employees. Start by reading OSHA's mission statement.

Retrieved from http://www.osha.gov/.

Go to About OSHA.

Explore the information and links on that page.

Locate some articles about OSHA written by Ralph Nader.

How does Mr. Nader feel about OSHA and their mission? Are they succeeding?

His general assessment is that OSHA is not getting the funding and powers it needs to do its job and he asserts that this has been the case for more than thirty years.

Do you think Mr. Nader's reasoning is correct?

Generally, the author of this response would agree. At the same time, OSHA should be a public servant and not an agency that wastes the time and resources of companies with silly sanctions. If employee safety is truly an issue, it should be dealt with.

What do you think workplace safety would be like without OSHA?

It would be a mixed bag. Some firms would do the right thing even without an agency overseeing them but there are certainly many others that would actively exploit the absence of an overseeing body that regulates safety.

Do you think managers and company owners would still be safety conscious because it is the ethical thing to do?

Some would ... perhaps even many of them. All of them? Absolutely not.

How do you think you would feel as a manager if an OSHA inspector showed up unannounced?

If I was the person enforcing the safety at the firm, I would not be worried because best practices would be in full effect. Any employees not following the rules would be warned or terminated as they present a risk to themselves, to others and/or the firm in general in terms of liability and safety.

PP504 UNIT 5 DISCUSSION

Indiana Jones

This unit has largely been about performing research and organizing that research so that you can easily access and utilize the information you have obtained.

In the 1989 film, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the renowned archaeologist Indiana Jones must use his father's diary, which contains his lifelong study and research, to locate the Holy Grail before it falls into the wrong hands. Indiana rescues his father, relieved that he no longer needs to use the diary to find the grail. Click on the link below to see what Jones' father (played by Sean Connery) says about his research.

Source (2009), Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade [Web video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMeesE4Nlhg

Considering the type of research you might perform in your future public sector career that could have tremendous consequences if unrecoverable, what types of measures would you undertake to ensure your research can be authenticated and duplicated? Can you think of any circumstances under which you would not want your research to be readily available for examination or authentication?

I would put the research out there for public consumption and review along with all of the sources and data that were consulted or created to come to those conclusions. I would also explain what I did to test and verify my theory so that others could do it on their own so as to verify its legitimacy. As for situations where that might not be prudent, anything that could be used for nefarious purposes should be concealed. For example, how to make bombs or how to convert an assault rifle from semi-automatic to automatic would be just a few things that should not be published.

PP504 UNIT 6 DISCUSSION

Giving Numbers Meaning

A Beautiful Mind

In this unit, you will be working with interpretation of numerical data in a narrative format. In this film clip, John Forbes Nash, Nobel Prize winner and mathematician, (and the subject of the biographical film "A Beautiful Mind"), explains game theory and the Nash Equilibrium.

Source: (2007). John Nash, a Nobel laureate in Economics [Web video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_9wzIOoDE

In this clip from the film "A Beautiful Mind," director Ron Howard illustrated the Nash Equilibrium in a scene.

Source: (2011). Governing Dynamics: Ignore the Blond - A Beautiful Mind [Web video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CemLiSI5ox8

Which of the explanations did you prefer? Why? Do you think the film illustration of a Nash Equilibrium is accurate or oversimplified? Under what circumstances do you think simplifying complex numerical data/statistics is advisable in the public sector.

Overall, the "Ignore the Blond" spiel is the best presented but it does falter a bit in that the variables involved are just a bit more complex than Crowe's character would indicate. However, his overall logic about the situation is fairly solid and it is explained in a very relatable way. This is not to say that Nash was off-base ... quite the contrary. However, reaching a broader swath of audience takes a particular approach. As far as simplifying statistics and such in the public sector, revealing data results and such to the public about things like global warming, the weather in general and natural disasters (just to name a few things) would be situations where giving them the full and complete raw data would be impossible. Even if it were, it would confuse a lot of people.

PP504 UNIT 7 DISCUSSION

The Beauty of Argument

Take a look at this clip from the 2005 film "Thank You for Smoking." In this film, Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart, is a lobbyist for tobacco companies. His son has asked for assistance with his homework.

Source: (2009), Thank You for Smoking Best Scene [Web video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3V0JJqnqo

In this second clip from the same movie, Nick Naylor, tobacco lobbyist, teaches his son how to argue an issue.

Source: (2007). Nick Naylor - Ice Cream [Web video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/-watch?v=zLS-npemQYQ&feature=related

The Nick Naylor character advocates a number of strategies for making arguments. Do you think those arguments were effective? Under what circumstances would you utilize those strategies?

Naylor's words about arguments and questions were quite poignant and spot-on. Those arguments were absolutely effective. For example, his talk with his son about his essay question was a great one because he challenged the question on its face, which obviously had an ideological bent and position behind it. Naylor was a bit snarky and anti-American for much of his screed but he made his point. One would assume he would position himself in the opposite way if the question was "Why is American the worst country in the world." "

Topic 2: Who Are You Trying to Persuade?

In the prior film clip, Naylor advocates trying to persuade "them" instead of his opponent. In this final scene from the film "Thank You for Smoking" tobacco lobbyists Nick Naylor testifies before a Senate investigative committee that has been called to determine whether cigarette packages should be labeled with a skull and cross bones.

Source: (2008). Thank You for Smoking Clip [Web video].

Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elD1IBevvWM

Does the Nick Naylor character utilize the same forms of arguments he previously advocated? What about the Senate Committee? What strategies are they using to gain their points? Do you think there are any problems with the way the Senate Committee conducts the public discourse?

He does shift quite a bit in that he turns the attention to different things. For example, as a way to deflect about cigarettes being bad, he points to the fact that cheese can clog arteries and fatten people. He is also asked whether he would let his son smoke. Again, he deflects and says that it would be illegal. When the question shifts to what would happen if his son was 18, he admits he would buy him one. The questioning of the committee was a little unseemly because the questions were made personally. It is a textbook case of a Senator or other person in government using strident or even incendiary questions. Going after someone's family or the feelings for the same is below the belt and should never happen. The Senator should have stuck to the facts, the studies and so forth and not been such a crass person. Their strategy is to use "gotcha" questions and/or to get the person to say something controversial so as to discredit them. The admission by Naylor that he would give his son a cigarette would surely be used against them both in that committee and outside of it.