Recently in What Would You Do? Category

In an interview with The Atlantic, investigative journalist Jason Berry discusses the parallels and differences in the way the Catholic Church and Penn State responded to allegations of sexual abuse. See the interview here - What the Catholic Church Can Teach Us About the Penn State Scandal

In this interview Jason Berry raises a number of key themes for ethical deliberation in an institutional context:

1)  1. The relationship between knowledge of ethics and ethical practice.

a.     How can highly educated people who have received training or instruction in ethical thinking fail to act in accordance with this knowledge?

b.     What factors can wedge between knowledge and practice to create a situation where knowing the right thing doesn't lead to doing the right thing?

c.      Is there something intrinsic to institutions such as a Church, University or Company, that create the conditions in which ethical practice is determined by the institution rather than what is considered right beyond the institutional boundaries?

2)   2. The value of leadership

a.     Leadership is valued in the sporting arena, boardroom and ER. In these situations the leader leads towards victory, profit and success. These are valuable goals in society, but what of ethical leadership?

b.     Does ethical leadership lead toward a goal? If so what is it?

c.      If the goals of doing the right thing conflict with the goals of success or profit how are these reconciled - which yields?

3) 3.  The role of cultural sensibilities

a.     How do cultural sensibilities, as sources of identity and meaning, shape ethics?

b.     If these cultural sensibilities are criticized or dislodged what impact can this have on ethical deliberation?

c.      What is place of the individual within the culture? Is it possible to stand up for what is right and remain loyal to that culture?

Jason Berry addresses a range of ethical issues for the individual and institution. What aspect of Berry's perspective did you find helpful in thinking through the ethics of what occurred at Penn State? Where there parts that you thought were unhelpful or misguided? - we would like to discuss your thoughts and ideas.

Seventeen food and agribusiness companies launched a plan for a new vision for agriculture at The World Economic Forum last Friday. The plan involves a 20-20-20 strategy for the next decade: 20% increase in production, 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and 20% decrease in rural poverty.

Those all sound like good things to do, right? If we can commit to increasing production and improving the plight of the poor, while simultaneously reducing the harmful effects of food production, we would seem to be taking an important step in the right direction.

Penn State's Bryan McDonald, contributor to our Bioethics blog and author of the recent book "Food Security: Addressing Challenges from Malnutrition, Food Safety and Environmental Change", is hopeful that these targets will provide helpful benchmarks for assessing the strategy and making modifications to it over time. Others, however, including author of "Diet for a Hot Planet" and co-founder of the Small Planet Institute, Anna Lappé, are expressing concern that the New Vision will serve to increase market domination and further threaten food sovereignty.

What do you think about this new plan? How do you go about weighing the benefits it promises against the harms that implementing it could cause?

What are some of the factors that might be motivating food and agribusinesses to adopt these goals? Does it matter why they are doing it as long as they are good goals to pursue? Why or why not?

What factors might be motivating those who express concerns about the plan? How important are these in deciding whether or not we, too, should be worried about its outcomes?

If you had to decide whether or not food and agribusinesses would follow this roadmap, what would you do? 

 

On our Climate Ethics blog one can find several posts arguing that national and international discussions of what ought to be done in response to climate change need to be oriented by ethical or moral considerations. The 'oughts' that stem from considerations of political expediency and economic self-interest, whatever their appeal to certain influential sectors of our society, cannot provide conclusive answers to the questions about social justice and responsibility for harm to others that are raised by a critical look at our patterns of consumption.     

Articles like this one from yesterday's New York Times suggest a very different strategy. Apparently, we can hope to influence behaviors in certain communities only if we, first, leave out any reference to climate change and, then, appeal to things like religious duties and economic advantages.

Imagine that you are hired by Green Energy Inc. to consult on a strategy for getting people in your community to switch to cleaner, more sustainable, forms of energy.  What would you do? Would you stress issues of social justice and personal responsibility, or opt instead to appeal to religious duties and self-interest?  Why?

Imagine that each strategy was capable of bringing about the same amount of positive change.  Would it matter at all what it was that motivated people to make these changes?    

The tragic suicide of a Rutgers student whose private life was broadcast over the Web once again raises important ethical questions about boundaries.

 

Does the ubiquity and instant nature of these technologies make it difficult for people to judge the consequences of their actions? Or does the false sense of anonymity provided by staying behind a screen make it easy for people to say and do things they would never do in a face-to-face context?

 

Was this an unthinking prank? Were they more aware of the spectacle of broadcasting a private scene than the anguish their lack of empathy would cause? Did the two students who broadcast the information have trouble distinguishing what is public and private information? Was this online bullying motivated by homophobia? They were all from the same high school and it is not clear what led the two students to broadcast and Twitter about Clementi.

Does the fact that death was the consequence of this invasion of privacy alter how we perceive the actions of the two students?

 

Teasing, bullying and spreading damaging gossip have been intransigent issues for schools.  However, the ability to do so online with photos and videos changes the scope of the issue.  The Internet now makes it possible for the whole world to access such information. There was a time when a person could go to 'a new world' where no one knew who you were and start life with a relatively clean slate. Today, anyone could Google and find information about you; there is no forgetting or escaping in this digital age. 

 

So, how can we train ourselves to be more alert to consequences of our actions online?  

Last spring Penn State students Lindsay Stork and Stacy Zanca submitted a short film to the Rock Ethics Institutes' first annual Ethics Film/Video Competition. Provocatively entitled 'Under the Influence', the film employed striking visual technique in encouraging viewers to consider the potentially disastrous consequences of actions that many of us engage in every day, and to which seemingly few of us give much real thought.  Sadly, charges recently brought against a Houtzdale man both remind us that the issue addressed in the film is a very real one and force us to consider the harm that our otherwise seemingly innocent actions may cause to others as well as to ourselves.

Take a look at Lindsay and Stacy's film.  What ethical questions do you think it raises and why?  What, if anything, are the specifically ethical differences between the scenario presented there and the events leading to the felony homicide charges brought against the Houtzdale man?  What about between this real-life case and the similar case in Gwinnett County, GA, where the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor?

How many of you have texted while driving?
 
If you have without causing harm to yourself or others, does that mean there is an ethically important difference between you and the people charged in these cases?

 

Imagine that you're riding on an Amtrak train from Chicago to New York City in the middle of the night.  Shortly after the train crosses into New York State, several armed Border Patrol agents board the train, roust selected passengers out of their sleep, interrogate them, and cart a number of them off the train at the next stop.  What would you do?

Thanks to, friend of the Rock, Vicki Fong for calling this book review from the New York Times to my attention.  Rebecca Skloot's decade-long commitment to uncovering the details of "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" and her natural writing talents have apparently provided us with a compelling story that raises a whole host of serious ethical questions:  questions about medical testing and informed consent, about the ethically dubious background assumptions that are often operative in scientific communities, about the debts that may be owed to the descendants of unwilling (and otherwise largely forgotten) participants in the scientific process.

If you were a student working in a lab that was doing important work with HeLa cells, and you discovered this book, what would you do?

If a therapy developed and tested through the use of HeLa cells allowed you, or a loved one, to survive a life-threatening illness, and you discovered this book, what would you do?

If you were a descendant of Henrietta Lacks, and you could not afford health insurance or health care, what would you do?      

According to an article in Friday's New York Times, President Obama may be changing his mind about holding the trial of 9/11 attacks mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, just blocks away from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.  The President sees having the trial in Manhattan as an opportunity to provide a poignant demonstration of American justice in action; however, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come to see it as disruptive and costly, and several U.S. Senators have argued that having the trial in New York would provide terrorists with a highly visible platform to celebrate their deeds and to recruit others to their ranks.  If you were charged with determining where to hold this trial, what would you do?

Would you agree that it provides us with an opportunity that we should not miss to show the world our commitment to the rule of law, even (or perhaps especially) in cases where some  be more interested in revenge than in justice?

Would you think, instead, that it would be exactly the kind of world-wide spectacle that those who seek to undermine our system would want?

Would you ignore the question of which side would benefit most from the spectacle and focus, rather, on the concrete disruptions and the real costs of providing the kind of security that would be needed to protect those who live and work in Manhattan during the trial?

Would you claim that we are dealing with enemy combatants and should hold a military tribunal rather than a civil trial?

Which, if any, of these factors seems most important for the decision concerning where justice ought to be served in this case?  What would you do?     

What would you do if you were a university administrator faced with two options for providing heat for your campus? On the one hand, you can adopt a plan that uses alternative energy (e.g., wind or solar) to generate the heat. On the other hand, you can upgrade an existing coal-fired plant to do so. Assume that the alternative energy route is significantly more expensive than the coal route, but that the coal option produces far greater greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than alternative energy.

The coal option has the advantage of being relatively cheap. However, it has the disadvantages of producing significant pollution and contributing to climate change, which seriously threatens the well-being of persons and ecosystems around the world. The alternative energy option has the advantage of not contributing to climate change. However, it has the disadvantage of being relatively expensive. Nonetheless, a choice must be made. Which option would you choose?

Administrators at Penn State currently face a similar choice. At present, the coal-fired plant on Burrowes Road provides most of the heat for the University Park campus. The university plans to upgrade the plant in the near future but has not decided whether to use coal, natural gas, alternative energy, or some other fuel source. For more information, see this article on upgrading the Burrowes coal-fired plant, as well as our other blog posts below.

Imagine hearing that someone you love... someone for whom you feel responsible... someone who has been entrusted to your care... is very ill.  You are told that it is not completely clear how quickly, or how completely, she will recover even if aggressive treatment begins immediately.  Some doctors suggest that there is no time to waste in responding; it is a situation that should have been addressed long ago.  Other doctors say they cannot even be certain that she is sick and suggest it is probably best to proceed as if nothing were wrong while waiting for the results of further tests.  What would you do?

Many people think this situation is analogous to the one we are in with respect to the Earth.  We have a responsibility (to ourselves, to the millions of impoverished people around the globe, and, according to some at least, to God) to preserve and protect the environments on which our lives and the lives of future generations depend.  This responsibility has been neglected to such an extent that we cannot be sure how many threatened ecosystems, species, and cultures could still be saved even if everyone began to act responsibly right now.  Still, many people seem unwilling to take action...

So, what would you do if you were in this position with a loved one? Would you sit by calmly and hope that everything works itself out? Or would you begin doing everything you could immediately?  If you did nothing and she died, would you find comfort in being able to say that you couldn't have been certain she was actually sick? If you began treatment immediately, and it turned out she was not as sick as some had thought, would you feel your efforts had been wasted? 

Now, does what you would do in the case of a loved one have any bearing on what you think you should do, or even on what you will do, in response to the claims you are hearing about global climate change?

(Thanks are due to the Rev. Canon Sally Bingham for suggesting this analogy during her recent talk at the conference Stewardship or Sacrifice? Religion and the Ethics of Climate Change)