THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009
Is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Ethical?
How can it be ethical to allow someone to die for their country as long as they do not disclose that they are gay?
So, if someone serves in the military, honorably, and no one knows this person is gay, it's fine, they can risk their life. But if a civilian comes forward and says, "hey, he's gay, I know so." Well, then that person must be removed from service. Simply because we know? Not because of conduct. Not because someone saw something. Simply because we know.
Don't ask, don't tell is not an ethical policy. It's blatant discrimination. Our military has more fools in it than gays. Look at the damage they do.
President Obama needs to show some character on this issue. He doesn't need to hide behind Congress.
Come on Mr. President, show some political courage. Issue the order. No more discrimination. Sexual misconduct on base or on duty? Wrong. ...
posted by CHRIS REICH, THE ETHICS PROJECT October 15, 2009 20:38
I WANT YOUR COMMENTS! CLICK TO ADD YOUR
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2009
Is It Ethical to Celebrate China's Communist Takeover?
 The management of the Empire State Building in New York decided to throw a little party in celebration of 60 years of communist rule in China. 30,000 people were invited to attend the ceremonial red and yellow lighting of the historical building. Others were invited to stay home to avoid "complications". (source: BBC News) The communist regime is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. The Chinese government is a totalitarian cancer on the planet. Of course, we continue to export jobs to China and import finished goods from China. So why not throw them a party! My question for you is this: Was it ethical for the management of the Empire State Building to participate in the celebration of 60 years of communist rule of China? I say no. I say it's an abomination. The act sickened me. I was ashamed this story did not get more press and produce more ...
posted by CHRIS REICH, THE ETHICS PROJECT October 03, 2009 12:24
I WANT YOUR COMMENTS! CLICK TO ADD YOUR
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2009
Employee "Lack of Performance"?
Mark left this as a comment but I think it deserves to be opened as a full topic....let's discuss this.
______
OK, here's another business question for everyone.
Is it ethical to terminate an employee because of “performance” even
though no one has discussed with the employee their perceived lack of
performance? Even though that person’s manager has provided good
reviews and the employee appears to be meeting the expectations laid
out by the manager? The situation is that another “manager” in the
organization perceives “problems” with this individual and wants to
replace this person in the organization. The question raised a few days
ago was about whether to notify this person they are on a PIP
(performance improvement plan) or to simply terminate. No detail of the
“problems” exists (to date) and no one has attempted to counsel the
individual at risk.
posted by CHRIS REICH, THE ETHICS PROJECT September 20, 2009 15:29
I WANT YOUR COMMENTS! CLICK TO ADD YOUR
COMMENTS You had the answer on the first line. NO.
If someone is not intentionally (meaning this can be corrected) failing to perform, they need to be made aware of the problem. In my opinion, they need to be made clearly and specifically aware of their failure and then the company has some responsibility to work with that person---training or discipline as necessary for a reasonable period of time.
When a person applies for a job, the employer knows a lot more about the job requirements that the the person being considered---therefore, the company has an ethical responsibility to put the right person, as far as they can tell, in the right job.
I find the current disdain for labor very inappropriate. The auto makers are forever blaming the workers for what is really the poor performance of management. And when crunch time comes who takes the cut? Labor. And it stinks.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 20, 2009
Is It Ethical to Grant Hero Status to a Mass Killer? No
Lockerbie bomber freed, returns to cheers in Libya
By TAREK EL-TABLAWY, Associated Press Writer Tarek El-tablawy, Associated Press Writer
TRIPOLI,
Libya – The only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing returned home
Thursday to a cheering crowd after his release from a Scottish prison —
an outrage to many relatives of the 270 people who perished when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded.
President Barack Obama
said the Scottish decision to free terminally ill Abdel Baset
al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was a mistake and said he should be
under house arrest. Obama warned Libya not to give him a hero's welcome.
Despite the warning, thousands of young men were on hand at a Tripoli airport
where al-Megrahi's plane touched down. Some threw flower petals as he
stepped from the plane. He wore a a dark suit and a burgundy tie and
appeared visibly tired.
He was accompanied ...
posted by CHRIS REICH, THE ETHICS PROJECT August 20, 2009 21:23
I WANT YOUR COMMENTS! CLICK TO ADD YOUR
COMMENTS I think it’s sad that this “martyr for the faith” returned home to cheers. Non-Muslims see this and think “I told you so, they are all murderers.” I didn’t follow the trial in the news at the time but trust that if an international court found the man guilty, they likely proved the point. If Islam is truly peaceful, then why don’t we see other men of that faith speaking out against the violence? I’ll grant the Christian church has a history of violence in the dark/middle ages and that it was wrong. Why can’t the Islamic leaders see a path forward with Christians and Jews that’s peaceful? I see what’s happened with Israel and wonder why the Palestinian people can’t be happy until they get all of Israel. They already have half of what was established in 1948 and most of where they lived before is in modern-day Jordon. Why not ask Jordon to contribute land too?
SUNDAY, AUGUST 16, 2009
Business Question
Ok, I'll admit it. The first couple posts were somewhat political. But they are still questions of ethics, not politics. I hope you will enter into discussion on those topics---from an ethical viewpoint because those issues are important. They are important enough to spark division.
Now it's time for a business question.
You are the manager of a medium sized company which produces a food product. Because of the economy, business has been very, very slow. So slow, the business might not make it through the recession.
One day you are out checking the plant and make a terrible discovery. One of the machines is leaking oil into the vat where your food product is mixed before baking. It's not just a drop, it's a steady drip of machine oil. You taste some finished product but are unable to detect any flavor difference in the product. You have no idea how long ...
posted by CHRIS REICH, THE ETHICS PROJECT August 16, 2009 16:24
I WANT YOUR COMMENTS! CLICK TO ADD YOUR
COMMENTS Seems to me that this was a humanitarian gesture. I understand why you don't agree with the decision, but calling it unethical? I think it was ethical to let him return to his homeland to die.
Al
Do we report the oil leak and take the consequences, yes.
First, order the line down to repair the problem and get rid of the product know or suspected to be tainted. Then be honest with the proper agencies that come calling. Even on a good day, people dream up lawsuits, so it’s a reasonable fear that someone will file a suit, be ready for it. Take a page from the Tylenol problems from some years ago. They didn’t know how things got contaminated or where, but they took immediate steps which cost a large amount of money. Next they changed the packaging to prevent future problems and spawned a major change in the industry (for the benefit of everyone, though I’ll grant some extra expense along the way.) You can’t assume that it’s not hurting anyone just because you haven’t seen a complaint. Would you want to eat the hamburger that just fell on the floor when you were not looking? Naturally you’re thinking “no.” The floor was recently mopped so it’s relatively clean, is that a justification to serve it?
I’d also be up front with the 26 employees. Here’s what happened and what we’re doing about it. The very real risks of economic failure are in front of us, but it’s the right thing to do. What if the employees are also customers of the tainted product? How would they feel? I’m confident that some will grumble and say they wished everyone kept quiet, but they are the same ones that would holler if their child was made ill by the tainted product.
If we stop doing the right thing, the whole society suffers. Not only that, poor ethical choices have a way of catching up to you. It might get by for a while like Enron or WorldCom, but they eventually got cought.
Mark,
That was a brilliant essay on exactly what I believe would be the proper handling---I especially like that you would gather the employees and be very upfront with them.
OK, now what do you do with the employee who runs to the media with "I have more stories about the company that clearly show this recent event is a pattern---and always covered up"
Though the employee is only trying to gain a moment of fame, still it makes it very hard to disprove a cover-up---after all, it's all covered up, right?
So what do you do with the employee?
Chris
[] [] [2] [] [] 6 - 10 of 12 |