A632.5.4.RB_HowProtectedAreYourProtectedValues_LouBeldotti

A632.5.4.RB

How Protected are Your Protected Values?

            I have always processed values that were passed on by how I was raised, who I associated with, and my own internal monologue.  I honestly never gave consideration that maybe some of these values were protected.  However, now that I think about it, I do, indeed, hold some values more sacred than others.

            According to Hoch et al (2001, pg. 251), “People often draw a line in the sand to create values that are protected from trade-offs.  These protected values (PVs) are considered absolute and inviolable.  Many of these values concern natural resources, such as species and pristine ecosystems, and health issues such as feeding the hungry and protecting children’s welfare.  People with these PVs do not think these values should be sacrificed for any compensating benefit, no matter how small the sacrifice or how large the benefit.  In other words, the values should be protected from the trade-offs.”  So, after reading this I had to ask, “Were my values created?”  I am going to say that they were developed.

            So, what are my protected values?  I had to do some deep thinking to really come up with the answer.  First, I am a veteran and patriot.  I served in the U.S. Army for a little over 27 years.  Because of this, my first two protected values are the love and respect for the American flag and my love of this country.  No one…I mean no one shows disrespect for that lovely red, white, and blue piece of fabric.  If they do, they have to deal with me.  To illustrate this, allow me to tell you a story.  In 2009, my major command was doing a mass-reenlistment on the steps of the National Archive in Washington, DC.  After the ceremony, two Soldiers were retiring the US Colors (ceremonial American Flag) and they allowed it to almost touch the ground.  I was across the street taking pictures when I observed this.  I took flight and crossed the street in a matter of seconds “dressing down” these to young knuckleheads verbally.  Since I was a very senior Soldier, they looked as though they were going to defecate in their pants.  I explained to them the importance of taking great care of the flag and to never…ever…ever…let it touch the ground.  I’m pretty sure my message was received loud and clear. 

            I also value family.  I use the same zeal, as I do with the flag, when dealing with those that wish to offend my loved ones.   I actually even apply this to my closest friend.  Offend them…offend me. 

            So, the pros of my passion only enhance my love of country, flag, family and friends.  The cons are the fact that I’ll split your lip if you disrespect the flag, my country, my family, and friends.  This could, in fact, cause me to get in trouble with the law or potentially get my butt kicked.  That’s the chance that I am more than willing to take. 

            Since I feel so strongly about these things, a step far beyond the bounds of decision-making and go into the realm of instinct. 

            Until this exercise, I had really never given thought to these protected values or my reaction.  However, even though I now see this, I will not change a thing.

Reference

Hoch, S.J., & Kunreuther, H. C., with Gunther, R.E. (2001). Wharton on decision making. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

A632.2.3.RB_HowToMakeChoosingEasier_LouBeldotti

A632.2.3.RB

Sheena Iyengar: How to Make Choosing Easier

            In her video, Sheena Iyengar (2011) indicates that choice overload has the biggest effect on making decisions or choices.  I would have to completely agree.  It is always a conundrum when I go to stores such as Sam’s Club or World Market.  So many choices.  So many, choice, so little time!  Don’t get me wrong, I like choices.  However, I often spend hours in these stores and often buy very little.  But other times I come out spending entirely too much money.  When I go to these places I must bring my wife to keep me in check.  You see, I am an impulse buyer.

            As I see it, more is not better.  “More” often causes confusion.  I often have a hard time items that offer too many choices unless I know exactly what I want.  Things like jeans and canned tomatoes use to drive me nuts.  However, I now only by a certain brand and style of jeans and a certain brand of canned tomatoes regardless of the amount of choices around me.  According to Iyengar (2001), “Less is more”. She informs the viewer that too many choices cause the following: 

       

·         You are more likely to delay choosing.

·         You make worse choices.

·         You choose things that make you less satisfied.

            I get it.  Like I said earlier, I may come out of the store without anything or less than I intended, I may be caused to impulse buy, and I sometimes have “buyer’s remorse”.

            Iyengar (2001) then discusses for techniques to mitigate choice overload.  She first states that choices should be “cut”.  I believe that this applies more to the retailer but can be applied to the consumer.  The retailer should offer less choices. In Iyengar’s researcher, she describes improved sales and profits.  As a consumer, I should already have my mind set on what I want.  Just like the jeans and canned tomatoes. 

            Her next technique is “concretization”.  Make concrete decisions by have knowledge of the consequences associated with the choice.  As described in the first technique, I already have my mind solidly set on certain products.  An organization can also use this technique by only offering its employees certain benefits and not an endless buffet of options.  Things like retirement plans and health/dental options cost the company less and doesn’t confuse the employee. 

            Her next technique is categorization.  She informs the viewer that we can handle more categories than choices.  I am pretty sure that is why almost all grocery stores are organized in categories.  Just look at the aisle marques and you’ll understand.  Everything fresh or perishable is on the outer walls like the bakery, produce, and meats while everything else is aligned in aisles in the middle.  I am such a frequent food shopper that I can navigate a grocery store with my eyes closed.  I know the categories of the aisles…condiments…spices…pasta, rice, beans, and sauces and so on. 

            Her final technique is condition for complexity.  She informs the viewer that we can handle a lot more information than we think.  I agree.  Information is one thing but choices are another.  I would add that as consumers, we must have our choices in mind before making these decision by doing research.  The decision to buy a car, furniture, health insurance and more.  Our minds can handle the information, we just need to be ready to narrow down the choices.

           

Reference

Iyengar, S. (2011). How to making choosing easier. TED. [VIDEO FILE]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose

A632.4.4.RB_DeceptionInNegotiations_LouBeldotti

A632.4.4.RB

Deception in Negotiations

“Can you detect a lie?  One study found that 28 percent of negotiators lied about a common interest issues during negotiations, while another study found that 100 percent of negotiators either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue.” (Hoch et al, pg. 187, 2001)

            I have experience in this.  In the early 90s, I moonlit as a car salesman and from 1994 – 2003, I served as an US Army Recruiter.  Let me be honest, a sales person does what he or she has to close the deal.  Is lying required?  No.  Is omitting information wrong?  From my experiences I’m going to go with a “no”.  If you didn’t ask me, I didn’t volunteer the information.

            In car sales, the product spoke for itself.  During delivery, all the bells and whistles need to be described to the buyer.  The negotiation happened during the sale and it was actually the Sales Manager and Finance person that gave the bottom line.  It was up to the salesperson to close the deal.  Tactics like telling the customer that the price was only valid “today” or throwing in free oil changes usually closed the deal.  Other layers of persuasion would be added if the customer wanted to “walk”.

            Recruiting was a bit different.  In the old days, we would seek a dominant buying motive (DBM), by using TEAMS.  Training…was the applicant looking for a skill?, Education…was the applicant looking for money for college?, Adventure…was the applicant looking for a thrill like jumping out of a plane?, Money…was the applicant looking for a guaranteed pay check?, or Service to Country…was the applicant just interested in serving his or her country or carrying on a family tradition? 

            Omission of information is common practice in negotiations.  Sadly, so is lying.  However, a skilled negotiator can detect lies very easily.

            So, in this blog, I am asked to reflect on deceptions in negotiations and describe four ways to reduce your vulnerability to deception during negotiations, relate an example of a recent negotiation in which I was misled and one in which I may have overstated a claim. In the case of the overstatement, how far would I have gone, or did I actually go, to leverage your position?

            So how does one reduce his or her vulnerability to deception during negotiations?  Here are my thoughts.

            1.  Don’t be gullible and believe everything you hear.  Vet, vet, vet!

            2.  Do your research.  Know who you are dealing with.

            3.  Sleep on it.  Never say yes until you are absolutely sure.  This pisses sales people off. 

            4.  Take “no” for an answer.  Give “no” for an answer. Don’t be afraid of “NO”.

            My wife and I have had three opportunities to say no in the past year and a half.  We have had someone try to sell us a water softener, another try to convince us into solar panels, and a third try to sell us another water softener.  The first water softener person was very convincing.  We actually said “yes” but after the agreement, we exercised our “buyers right to rescind” after sleeping on it because the sale was made in our home.  The solar panel guys visited us over a year ago.  He then made contact again and we invited him out to our home.  His sales pitch made sense but we said “no” because of the cost.  Finally, the next water softener sales person made sense and we have been enjoying the product for several months.  The company threw in ten years of soaps, lotions, and potions.  We saw this as a win-win although the price was higher than me being a similar device at Lowes or Home Depot and installing it myself.

            Since I work in secondary education, I really don’t have many opportunities to overstate my product.  Secondary education is compulsory to age 16 in most states.  Kids have to go to school.  However, kids do not need to pick my elective.  I tell them how great my program is and they and their parents make their choice.  I need to keep my numbers up to 10% of the student population or 150 Cadets per year, whichever is lesser.  Sometimes I have to sell the program. 

Reference

Hoch, S.J., Kunreuther, H.C., with Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

A632.1.4.RB_Multistage Decision-Making_Lou Beldotti

A632.1.4.RB

Multistage Decision-Making

            How about the graphic above?!  To me, it reads like stereo instructions.  Is decision-making really a mathematical equation?  I’m going to say…no.  However, there is something definitely very analytical about decision making.

            For this blog, I have been challenged with the following:  Hoch, Chapter 3 discusses the power of everyday reasoning in multistage decision-making. The text discusses the way that researchers solve multistage problems through the application of formulas (dynamic programming models) that provide the most significant chances of success. Critically think about your own decision-making process and reflect on the process you use in relation to the decision making process recommendations outlined in the article. How would you apply optimal dynamic decision analysis to predict the future impact of today's decision? Additionally, would the conclusions reached on pages 57 of the text improve your decision-making? How and why?

            According to Hoch, et al (2001), “Optimal dynamic programming solutions are based on two foundational assumptions about problem solving that, if violated, would likely lead to the poor performance of any intuitive solution:

1.      Complete forward planning.  When maximizing total utility over a horizon, decision makers are assumed to look ahead to all future periods and anticipate all possible choices and outcomes.

2.      Optimal learning.  Decisions are assumed to fully utilize past information to update current beliefs and future predictions

            Sounds like I need to be an actuary.  Not really.  However, to properly solve problems, I need to be as analytical and logical as Mr. Spock from “Star Trek” and as astute and observant as Sean from “Psych”.

            I’m a forward thinker.  I am always thing five steps ahead.  Maybe more.  Just ask my wife.  When a decision is required I fire up the old gray matter.  If I do “this” what will the potential outcome(s) be?  If I need to get a drink from the fridge, I honestly think about the steps that are required to fulfill that need.  My first inclination is to ask my wife.  However, if she is doing something else, I certainly can’t ask my dogs so I have to do it myself.  I actually think about the glass, how much ice is in the freezer, and my beverage of choice and its location.  Silly.  I am often called anal which is a derivative of analytical.  This goes for about everything I do.  I actually think about all the things that can go wrong in my decisions and how to avoid them or overcome them.  Again, ask the Missus. 

            I have learned from my mistakes.  I once used a razor blade to open a paint container.  I no longer do that.  I’ll show you the scar.  I once ate too much.  I once left a candle burning and fell asleep.  I once backed out of the garage with my car door open.  I once touched a hot stove.  There are a lot of “onces”.  Have I done these things twice?  Nope.  However, there are things that I have done over and over again being met with the same results.  What causes this?  Myopia.  According to Hoch (2001, pg. 46), “What drives our tendency toward shortsightedness?  The most obvious culprits, of course, are cognitive limitations”.  The lights are on but no one is home.  It reminds of Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

            Ok, so let us continue to delve into the science of decision making.  Decisions are sometimes emotional.  Who hasn’t heard of the husband or wife doing something outside of the norm because of emotion(s)?  I mean there are people who have stolen and even killed because of emotions.  So how do we bridle and harness these emotions?  “The first step to using our approach to emotion-laden decisions is simply to recognize that emotions have an impact on decisions.  Neglecting these considerations may be costly (Hoch, 2001).”  I say, be cognitive of your emotions. 

            Look gentle reader, think critically, think analytically, and be aware of your emotions.  Do not base your decisions on feelings, gut, or emotions.  However, a mathematical equation is not necessary.   Think, damn it.  Think!

Reference

Hoch, S. J., Kunrreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (2001).  Wharton on making decisions.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

A634.9.4.RB_AReflectionofOurLearning_LouBeldotti

A634.9.4.RB

A Reflection of Our Learning

            This has been the third ethics course that I have taken since pursuing higher education and I must say it has been my favorite.  The previous took courses were more in tune with business but ethics is ethics.

            LaFollete’s (2007) text was very informative.  Everything I read evoked great thought on my part.  It gave me great drive to do addition research. In Part Four: Autonomy, Responsibility, and Risk, LaFollette discusses the death penalty in chapter 11.  What I read truly motivated me to do more research on the Death Penalty.  This was my findings:

RESEARCH

            The Colonies of America from 1608 until 1776 and the United States from 1776 until 2002 have executed 15,269 citizens according to a 32 year study conducted by M. Watt Espy, Jr. and John Ortiz Smykla (Espy & Smykla, 2016).  According to the US Department of Justice (USDOJ), there have been 1,188 executions carried out in the United States from 1977 to 2009 (USDOJ, 2010).

            There have been many methods of execution of the past 400 years.  Some would be considered very inhumane.  The methods have been:

• Asphyxiation – Gas chamber
• Bludgeoned/Broken on a wheel
• Burned
• Electrocuted
• Gibbeted
• Hanged
• Lethal injection
• Pressing
• Shot – Firing squad

(Espy and Smykla, 2016)

            I believe that most would say that being bludgeoned to death, burned, gibbeted, and crushed to death under heavy weight (pressing) are indeed cruel and unusual means of execution.  During my research, I discovered there was only one recorded execution by pressing.  According to Heather Snyder (Snyder, 2001), Giles Corey was executed by pressing in Essex County, Massachusetts on September 18, 1692, accused of witchcraft.   The death penalty is controversial enough – image if these execution methods were still in use today?

            Upon further investigation, I also discovered that execution was most widely used from 1930 – 1939, lethal injection is the most common method used, 20 – 29 is the age range of the majority of executions, there has been 365 females between 1608 and 2002, and there have been 14,753 males executed in that same time frame (Espy & Smykla, 2016).

            I believe the most controversial topic regarding the death penalty if the race of the person executed.  Those against capital punishment make the argument that most people executed are minorities.  Below is the execution demographic of those executed from 1608 – 2002:

Asian               Black               Hispanic                      Native American                     White

147                  7353                    349                                     362                               6344

            Separately, it would seem that white (41.5%) and black (48.2%) people are the largest groups who are executed.  However, when the term minority is used it usually encompasses all persons considered to be a minority.  With the above mentioned examples, it would appear that 8211 (53.8%) minorities were executed and 6344 (41.5%) white were executed. 

            Now let’s look at executions from 1977 to 2009:

Asian               Black               Hispanic                      Native American                     White

   6                   411                     91                                        8                                    672

            Collectively, 516 (43.4%) minorities were executed during this time while 672 (56.6%) white were executed.  There is twenty-two years of overlap but the indication here is that being a minority has nothing to do with who is executed.  I submit that what truly affects these numbers is socio-economics.  I’d elaborate but think that this discussion is for another time (USDOJ, 2010)

            According to the 2010 US Census, there were 223,745,538 white people living in the US while there were 107,013,359 minority people living in the US.  Based on data from 1997 to 2009, less than one percent (0.00048218) of minorities were executed based on their demographic and less than one percent (0.00030034) white were executed based on their demographic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

            But why do people commit capital crimes?  Are the responsible for their crimes if they are young, have learning disabilities, and have diminished mental capacities? What is our responsibility as a society?  Do we consider their upbringing (socio-economics)?  Should the punishment fit the crime?  Who should be put to death and why? 

            A recent case in the state of Florida actually answers many of these questions.  Markeith Lloyd has been charged with the murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Sade Dixon (the un-born child died also) on December 13, 2016 and then murders Orlando Police Department Lieutenant Debra Clayton just 27 days later on January 9, 2017.  In a strange twist, State Attorney, Aramis Ayala, made a public statement stating that she would not be seeking the death penalty in Lloyd’s case.  Her publicly stated reasoning is, "I have given this issue extensive, painstaking thought and consideration.  What has become abundantly clear through this process is that while I currently do have discretion to pursue death sentences, I have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of this community or in the best interests of justice. After careful review and consideration of the new statute, under my administration I will not be seeking the death penalty." (Cordieiro, 2017).  This caused public outrage and Governor Rick Scott removed her from the case and asked for her recusal.  I believe that her statement is based on personal conviction and has nothing to do with justice.

            Lloyd was found fit to stand trial and even requested to represent himself.  He is of an age to be aware of right and wrong.  He does come from an oppressed upbringing.  Being a supporter of capital punishment, he should be put to death.  His crimes were so heinous and done in cold blood that this is the correct course of action.  It isn’t up to the prosecutor to determine his punishment but up to a jury of his peers.

            The next lesson that spoke volumes to me is found in Part Three: Life and Death.  In chapter 9, LaFollette discusses Slippery Slope Arguments.  According to LaFollette (2007, pg. 130), “The moral roads on which we travel are slippery.  Our individual and collective actions inevitably affect others, ourselves, and our institutions.  They shape the people we become and the kind of world we inhabit.  They increase or decrease the likelihood, however slight, that certain futures will occur.  Sometimes those consequences are positive, a giant leap for moral humankind.  Other times they are detrimental or morally regressive.”  Essentially, if you do that then this will happen.  So basically, don’t do that.

            Until I did some research for this discussion, I thought that the term slippery slope stood on its own with a general understanding.  However, according to Logically Fallacious (2017), Slippery Slope is “also known as absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, domino fallacy.”  If someone had used one of these terms previous to this knowledge, I probably would have had no idea what they were talking about.

            I, for one, do my best to avoid the slippery slope.  However, I see it affect students, every day.  I have kids who violate dress code, attendance, and tardiness habitually.  Once they get into a rhythm, they continue to slide until they reach a point that they are suspended or their grades suffer.  I talk to them until I am blue in the face but they just don’t get it. 

            Finally, Part Six: The Demands on Morality, chapter 18, Egoism: Psychology and Moral really got my brain to bubbling.   According to Stephen O. Sullivan and Philip A. Pecorino (2002), “Ethical egoism is a normative theory.  As previously indicated, it recommends, favors, praises a certain type of action or motivation, and decries another type of motivation. It has two versions: individual ethical egoism and universal ethical egoism. In the first version one ought to look out for one's own interests. I ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this also contributes to my own interests.  In the second version, everybody ought to act in their own best interest, and they ought to be concerned about others only to the extent that this also contributes to their own interests.”  I believe that egoism goes hand and hand with narcissism.  Self-absorption is another descriptive term for the egotist.  Egoism has no position in the workplace.  It becomes a hindrance and a distraction.  

            Over the course of my 27-year Army career, I met many egotistical people.  These people were so self-centered and self-absorbed.  Always talking about themselves and what they could do for the organization.  When I was promoted to Sergeant First Class and put in-charge of a Recruiting Station I placed a sign on my desk and it read…“Check your ego at the door”.   However, my Recruiters did not always do this.  An example of how ego would get in the way of ethical decision is when a Recruiter is a “Super Star” but suddenly starts failing.  Now the Recruiter starts cutting corners, omitting disqualifying information, and fabricating things to get his or her numbers up to continue appearing as a Super Star.  A tangled web.  A tangled web, indeed.

            In LaFollette’s text (2007, pg. 272), egoism is regarded two ways.  Psychological egoism and ethical egoism.  LaFollette states that psychological egoism “seems to fit ordinary observations about what motivates people…If we reflect on our own lives and the lives of our friends, we are no different.  Doing what we want often makes us happy, while we are usually dissatisfied if we cannot do what we want”.  I see this often and find it to be very selfish.  Not just selfish but juvenile.  I can equate this to children on the playground.  Billy wants to play on the teeter totter but Susy wants to play on the swings.  Billy throws a tantrum to get his way. 

            Although not the polar opposite, ethical egoists are different from their psychological egoist brethren.  According to LaFollette (2007, pg. 281), “An ethical egoist is not an immoralist.  The immoralist says there is no such thing as morality.  Such a view is untenable, for, according to the theory, others would not act wrongly if they killed or assaulted her…The ethical egoist is not vulnerable to such quick dismissals.  She claims there is one moral standard: namely, that each of us should act in ways that maximize our own self-interest.”  It is not wrong if it is important to the individual.  As long as it betters what they wish to attain.  This is similar to the race car driver that notices that his opponent has a bubble in his tire.  The bubble can cause a blow-out and multiple wrecks on the track but gives the ethical egoist an advantage if this happens.  The ethical egoist knows that his opponent probably will not be hurt so it is worth the risk.

            Finally, from my Army experience, I do believe that “rank has its privileges”.  Leaders have climbed the corporate ladder and should receive benefits that others do not.  When I worked for Northrop Grumman, I had a private inner office.  However, my director had a much bigger private outer office with windows.  She had earned her position and was entitled to her office.  This motivated me to want the same thing.  I’m sure that if I hadn’t been laid off, I would have had that window office by now.  I guess I am a bit of an egoist.

References

Espy, M. W. and Smykla, J. O. (2016, December 9). US Executions from 1608 – 2002. Retrieved from http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004087

US Department of Justice (USDOJ) US Bureau of Justice Statistics (USBJS) , "Capital Punishment, 2009 - Statistical Tables - Number of Persons Executed by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Method, 1977-2009," Dec. 2, 2010

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Snyder, H. (2001, Spring). Giles Corey. Retrieved from http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/people?group.num=&mbio.num=mb6

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011, March). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Cordiero, M. (2017, March 13). State Attorney Aramis Ayala won't pursue the death penalty during her term. Retrieved from http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/03/16/state-attorney-aramis-ayala-wont-pursue-the-death-penalty-during-her-term

Logically Fallacious. (2017). Slippery Slope. Retrieved from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery_Slope

Sullivan, S. O. and Pecorino, P. A. (2002). Ethical egoism.  Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_5_Teleological_Theories_Egoism/Ethical_Egoism.htm

A634.8.3.RB_GunControl:WhatistheAnswer?_LouBeldotti

A634.8.3.RB

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

            After spending almost three decades in the U.S. Army I am very pro-gun.  I believe that every American has a right to bear arms.  Don’t get me wrong, there should some restrictions.  Convicted felons, violent offenders, committers of domestic violence, and those who have mental incapacitations should not be allowed to possess a firearm.   

            According to LaFollette (2007, pg. 180), “Most defenders of private gun ownership claim we have a moral right – as well as a constitutional one – and that this is not an ordinary right, but a fundamental one…What makes a right fundamental?  A fundamental right is a non-derivative right protecting a fundamental interest.”

            So, is bearing arms a fundamental right?  I would conclude that it is.  The Constitution of the United States grants us this right.  The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).  However, it is my opinion that it needs to be coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment to really understand it.  The Fourteenth Amendment states, in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). 

            There are those that would disagree with a citizen’s right to bear arms regardless of constitutional right.  They believe that certain types of firearms should not be owned by private citizens at all.  They often refer to these firearms as assault rifles and long guns.  The wish to restrict magazine size absolutely restrict semi-automatic firearms.  Their argument is fueled by mass shootings that have occurred in the United States.  Their rational is by restricting these items will decrease violent crimes and murder.  They believe that is guns that do harm.  According to LaFollette (2007, pg. 183), “We must be careful when we say that guns cause harm.  Guns kill people because agents use them to kill people (or misuse them in ways that cause people to be killed).  As the National Rifle Association (NRA) puts it: ‘Guns don’t kill people, people do’.” Moreover, according to ProCon.org (2016), “The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment… Largely, the current public gun control debate in the United States occurs after a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between Jan. 2000 and July 2014. Proponents of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws, background checks, and more protections against the mentally ill buying guns. Opponents of more gun laws accuse proponents of using a tragedy to further a lost cause, stating that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew Research Center survey found 52% of Americans believe the right to own guns should be protected while 46% believe gun ownership should be controlled, a switch from 1993 when 34% wanted gun rights protected and 57% wanted gun ownership controlled.”  My argument is that the ordinary citizen is not the one using guns to cause harm.  The 22% of Americans that own guns do so legally.  They use these guns for recreation (shooting practice), hunting, and for defense.  They take gun safety classes and secure their guns properly at home by having locked gun safes, trigger locks and keeping the ammunition in a separate place. 

            So what is the answer? I would say we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  However, even with gun control, criminals are still able to obtain guns…mostly through illegal channels.  Pro-gun individuals would argue more than just this fact.  According to “The Crux” (2017), there are ten best arguments against gun control and they are:

10. There’s still murder in countries where handguns are banned.

9. Limiting assault rifles limits your Second Amendment rights. 

8. The Second Amendment is not intended for just ordinary home defense.

7. Armed civilians help take out the bad guys. 

6. Shooters will get access to a gun, even with strict gun laws in place. 

5. Gun rights will protect you from a police state.

4. Rampage shooters like soft targets.

3. Prohibition didn’t stop alcohol… gun control won’t stop guns. 

2. Laws don’t apply to criminals.

1. The world isn’t perfect…

References

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Second Amendment.  Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

ProCon.org. (2016, February 18). Background of the Issue: "Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?” Retrieved from http://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006436

“The Crux”. (2017). If you believe in "gun control," this is probably not for you... Retrieved from http://thecrux.com/ten-powerful-arguments-against-gun-control/

A634.7.4.RB_EthicsandBehaviors_LouBeldotti

A634.7.4.RB

Ethics and Behaviors

            I work in a public school.  There are approximately 3000 students that attend my school.  Each child brings with him or her all of the diseases and illness known to man.  There is no escaping becoming ill a few times over the course of a nine month school year.  I became ill just a few days ago.  It started as an annoying cough and runny nose about seven days ago.  I just kept trying to hang.  When I went to bed on Wednesday, I knew that I was “officially” sick.  However, I went to work on Thursday and tried to tough it out.  By the end of the day, I was done.  Friday, I awoke to a full blown virus.  I could not tough it out this time.  In retrospect, when I first started having symptoms, I should have not gone to work.  I should have went to the doctor.  I honestly did not consider the fact that I could get others sick.  It was my obligation to be at work.  Missing work is something that I consider immoral.  It’s as if I am cheating.  In Dr. Bruce Weinstein’s video (2012), Weinstein asks the audience if they woke with the flu would they chose to go to work or stay home and rest?  Do you want to get others sick?  Maybe you’ll just socialize with those that you don’t like.

 

            So, did I go the right way or the wrong way by going to work knowing that I was sick?  Again, I felt the obligation to be at work.  It was only when the illness got the best of me that I chose not to go.  I had not considered any other consequences. 

            I’m sure that this could be true for many.  Consequences are not always considered but when they are realized, some do things to hide the “wrong doing”.  Chuck Gallagher (2013) gives an example of this in his video.  He decides to take his wife to Ruth’s Chris for dinner.  However, he discovers that he has spent more money than he should have.  To hide this from his wife, he does not retain the itemized bill for the meal but just the receipt with the total cost.  I believe that this gives the ability to “not remember” what cost so much.

            People often do things to intentionally inflate their egos while others do things because it seems right without considering consequences.  Several years ago I became acquainted with a Command Sergeant Major (CSM) who was at the top of his game.  He had just recently completed a command position at the European Regional Medical Command and was selected to be the Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s next CSM.  His tenure was cut short however.  It seemed that this CSM was a true egoist.  He had adorned himself with medals, ribbons, and badges that he had never earned.  This had gone unnoticed for years.  However it finally caught up to him when he was asked to be a guest speaker at an Army school graduation.  He submitted his biographical summary (Bio) to the school so it could be placed in the graduation program.  Unbeknownst to him, someone who knew him well saw the Bio and questioned a few of his claimed awards and decorations.  It finally caught up to him.  He was relieved of duty and reduced to the rank of Staff Sergeant, confined for six months and forced to retire.  This punishment sounds harsh but it was very lenient.  The convening Courts Martial Authority took into consideration this CSM’s family.  Ultimately he could have face up to 25 years confinement, reduction to Private and a dishonorable discharge.  This would have meant that he would have served all of those years for nothing.  Sadly, he had never considered the consequences until it was too late.  This occurred over seven years ago.  I tried to do a little research to see what had become of him but netted zero results.  He has managed to go off the radar.

   

References

Weinstein, B. (2012, August 24). Keynote Speech Excerpts from The Ethics Guy. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ

Gallagher, C. (2013, January 27). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares Straight Talk about Ethics! [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE