"Ethics in the News" - Subgroup 5 (Thursdays)

Subgroup 5, please post your ethics news blogs in this thread. Thanks!

Internationally, especially in third world and developing countries, ethical "shadow casting" seems to be often the norm. The book mentions the dilemma of whether to accommodate local politician in the usual custom of bribing them for certain approvals to get a project done. While that would be an example of toxic leadership by engaging in a unethical illegal or criminal act, a USA today article recently looked at a situation where a different type of ethical breech is being combated, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/14/vietnam-bears-park-animals/1703917/. This article highlights an example of toxic leadership by promoting cronyism, and the abuse of power. In this case, in a total lack of compassion, a previously approved bear sanctuary that was funded by international support is being forced to halt expansion and relocate by the military under the unexplained auspices of military need. Below this totalitarian power play is the information that one of the nation's Ministers has a daughter with interests in using the area for eco-tourism and entertainment. The sanctuary personnel are exhibiting courageous fellowship by already having the courage to serve (at the sanctuary) and have now found the courage to challenge by reporting this to the international press, which is now bringing pressure to the Vietnamese government to explain this request for relocation.

http://news.msn.com/world/update-irish-doctors-seek-new-abortion-law-after-a-death

Governement leaders in Ireland are receiving a good deal of feedback from doctors this week after a 31-year old dentist died from complications of a miscarriage. An abortion to save the life of the dentist was not performed because the doctors assigned to the case were afraid of possible repercussions under Irish law.

Were the doctors acting unethical in hiding behind the law? They did have an opportunity to show the courage to challenge in the face of what they feel to be an unjust law. Looking at it another way, the doctors could have chosen to exercise act utilitarianism as opposed to following rule utilitarianism. Further endangering the mother to avoid the possibility of legal problems was not a very altruistic act. (5)

Today I heard news of a boys basketball coach in Canton who was arrested on 6 felony charges for reasons including placing cameras in the lockerroom. This man is an unfortunate perfect example of TOXIC LEADERSHIP. He has LEFT HIS FOLLOWERS WORSE OFF and VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS. By ENGAGING IN THIS CRIMINAL ACT, he has negatively affected not only his basketball team, but an entire school and community as well. I have no doubt that his EVIL will come out eventually as the bos that were recorded will no doubt have side effects and repercussions from their dealings with this coach.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_stark/Police-identify-24-basketball-players-on-video-allegedly-recorded-by-Jackson-High-School-coach

We all have read about Rajat Gupta who previously was the in a role of a positional leader in McKinsey & Company. He was sentenced to two years in prison on charges of leaking broadroom secrets( clearly displaying all attributes of a toxic leader- lack of integrity, misleading followers and Violating human rights. He has also displayed bad leadership of being corrupt and evil against his company and personally to his family.

I read an article detailing that Peterus' current priority is to mend the relationship with his "furious" wife Holly. Petreus should take a page out of our textbook and practice the important virtues of humility, reverence, and optimism on his long road back into the light with his family. He should hope that his wife shows him compassion and does not exercise her courage to leave.

Now I am off to spend the rest of the day with my family, as I do not want to stray into the shadow of misplaced loyalties by focusing on an MBA class during my Thanksgiving holiday.

One item that has appeared for a few days this week in the news has been the issue of ethical use of animals in movies, specifically highlighted in current accusations against New Zealand Hobbit director Peter Jackson. Reports indicate that animal wranglers that were employed by the movie production were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their animals resulting in the death of more than a few of different species including at least two horse deaths. The main outrage here is that the deaths seem quite needless and could have been easily avoided, secondarily that Jackson and his team did not react to the animal deaths which are essentially tied to the movie. The ethical issue here has at least two very prominent parts; Is the safety of animals in a person's stewardship an ethical responsibility (Does altruism extend to animals? Does the attribute of toxic leadership violating human rightsalso apply to animal rights? Is this a type of atrocity?), and is the movie/director/studio responsible for the actions of a third party that they employ. Public opinion seems to be squarely in the yes column for both. Animal safety and stewardship has now become so important in westernized countries that there are often laws in place to protect them and punish those that are negligent, irresponsible or flattly cruel. On the question of Jackson and the movie's responsibility to the animals' safety, generally the industry has rules that say there is a responsibility to use ethical and responsible animal handlers and the production is somewhat responsible. This is starkly illustrated by the cancellation of HBOs horse racing series Luck due to multiple horse deaths regardless of the fact that the horses died in activities that are not risky or irresponsible and were generally considered accidents. Did Jackson and the Hobbit crew look at the potential effects of this lack of action, as Nash's 12 questions may have highlighted?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/ex-official-is-charged-after-deaths-at-coal-mine.html?ref=us&_r=0

A former president and a superintendent of the Green Valley Coal Company will plead guilty to felony fraud charges following their corrupt behavior in covering up his company's failures to maintain minimum safety standards in their coal mines. In one such instance, the superintendent disabled a methane detection monitor in his mine to fool safety inspectors. These behaviors show that the leaders of this company shared an insular view toward the workers of the mines, and did not take their obligations seriously. Perhaps if they had instead shared a better ethical perspective and possessed the courage to assume the responsibilities of their jobs, the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion that killed 29 of its workers could have been avoided.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/29/showbiz/lindsay-lohan-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

So again Ms.Lohan is arrested for misbehaving in public. As a celebrity, be it in any field one has to take a UTILITARIAN approach due to the large majority of people following you. Lohan's run into the law can be related ENGAGING IN UNETHICAL, ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL ACTS. MISLEADING FOLLOWERS (fans and business clients). Her being in the news for all the wrong reasons leads to FAILURE TO NURTURE FOLLOWERS or be a role model. Her CALLOUS AND CORRUPT nature is surely not going to help and she needs to look at moving away and creating a ENACTIVE STRATEGY AND MODELLING THE WAY for younger people.

How much of our ethics system is based on regionality? Are the accepted ethics of a culture geographic? Are the ethics of a rural Alabama town the same as the bustling streets of Miami, or the politically charged environment of DC? Generally, local laws/statutes seem to help define regional ethics, and recently there has been a battleflag raised in the liberal and quirky city of San Francisco where a local community leader is proposing a ban on nudity. In most communities around the US there are already local laws in effect that ban or heavily limit nudity, but "Frisco", its large gay community, hippie history and sexually exhibitionist enclaves has seemingly prided themselves on fighting against traditional conservative values. The idea of communitarianism looks to the betterment of the community as the guide of ethics, but in an area where there are multiple and strikingly different communities, how do you justify suppressing one to appease the other(s)? Is this bad leadership by rigidity or setting constituents against one another? Is this poor group savvy in not accurately interpreting the wants of the community? Did the process of authentic leadership fail in the awareness aspect, since many community members have come out against the proposal strongly, but the support, while volumous, is only lukewarm in intensity?

After the news came out about David Sern, commissioner of the NBA, handing down a fine to the San Antonio spurs for not playing star players in a "marquee" matchup with The Miami Heat one is left to doubt his intentions. He is BUILDING A TOTALITARIAN REGIME with such a move because many believe who a team plays is up to the team. Stern may have had UTILITARIAN intentions by trying to preserve the importance of making these marquee games as marketable as can be, but by over-stepping his bounds and handing down such a fine, he is also STIFLING CRITICISM and CALLOUS by not looking at the fact that the players that did not play had been on the road for a long stretch of games and they were older veterans who might need some extra rest or risk getting injured and missing an extended amount of games. When it is all said and done, this display of SELFISHNESS may not have a long-term impact on the league, but this decision sure doesn't pass my "smell test."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bob-costas-advocates-gun-control-sunday-night-football-164208209--nfl.html

This week during a nationally televised sports event, announcer/commenter Bob Costas made a political statement while on air. I’m sure that Bob felt that this is courage to participate in transformation, but this has started a storm of comments about whether or not this is appropriate for the venue. Costas has made editorial comments before, but this time he commented on a very volatile subject; gun control. Costas’s comments were related to the recent murder/suicide committed by Jovan Belcher, and relied heavily on a column written by Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports. The comments were very pro-gun control, and arguably somewhat flawed in logic. While some may see this as an exhibition of servant leadership in trying to find an elevating purpose, it ignores the authentic leadership aspect of balanced processing, which required attempts to remain objective. Regardless of any personal stance on gun control, I don’t see why he should be allowed to make political comments in that capacity. The Constitution of the United States protects Bob’s right to speak and let his opinion be known, but the network (NBC) is not required to allow him to use the Sunday Night Football program as his personal forum. His comments would be more welcome on the Daily Show or Bill Maher, possibly even a sports commentary show like BDSSP (Best Damn Sports Show Period), but not during the airing of the actual game. Many of the complaints against Bob are not specifically about his comments, but when and where he chose to present them. Most viewers of sports often choose to watch as a form of escapism or withdrawl. They are escaping the media barrage of politics and news, but here they were confronted with a political editorial unexpectedly and it was in most cases likely unwelcomed. Bob may be flawed in his moral reasoning in deciding if it is his duty, if it is responsible, or it is ethical to use his position to preach. Should Costas be fired as some have called for? I don’t believe so, but I do think that he should be sanctioned in some way. This establishes that sports events are not political soapboxes, and allows the network to distance itself from Costas’s personal opinions. I am all for expression, political or otherwise, but in the proper venue.

New legislation is being passed in Ohio that outlines specific rules and procedures for football coaches to follow when dealing with potential concussions among their players. It is essential for there to be legislation in effect regarding football concussions because the sport's callous and rigid "tough guy" views are leaving its followers worse off. The culture of a football team encourages players to ignore pain and subverts their courage to challenge the coach when they feel they are too hurt to be playing. Recent medical research is beginning to break down the insular view that football players and coaches tend to hold, that they are tough enough to overcome repetitive concussive trauma, and that is a very good thing for future youth football players.

Most of the former players who are at risk of long-term effects of concussions from playing are not veterans of the NFL or Division I college football programs, but of football programs on the local level, programs which for years have operated with little or no oversight as to the neurological safety of the kids playing on the field.

With the official campaign finance statements from this years election coming in above the $2 Billion mark, I find it begging some ethical considerations. With the fiscal cliff looming on the horizon, how can we as a country spend so much money in such a short period of time. I almost feel like no matter who you preferred, this amount of spending garners questions of whether they have LEFT THE COUNTRY WORSE OFF. Similarly, much of thos money was spent on negative advertising which can be categorized as ENCOURAGING FOLLOWERS TO HATE OR DESTROY OTHERS. Do our politicians show the level of MORAL CHARACTER that such high ranking public officials should display? Matters like this make me wonder if politicians see themselves as I fell they should - as servant leaders. All too often, these figures do not demonstrate the STEWADRSHIP or OBLIGATION that we elect them to do.