Blog 9.3 Man Gets Jail Time For Picking Up Trash Too early

A garbage man in Georgia was just sentenced to 30 days in jail for picking up trash too early.

 

Many cities and counties have an ordinance regarding trash pickup times, but the rules are seldom ever enforced. When a city does decide to enforce it, the official usually fines the garbage companies. In the case of Kevin McGill in Sandy Springs, Ga., the District Attorney (DA) went after the trash collector. The DA claimed that fining the company has not been working so he felt that jail time would. Apparently, the judge overseeing the case approved.

                I personally cannot believe that they would actually jail a man for this. So many criminals are let go on much greater charges. The jails and prisons complain constantly about being over filled and over taxed. Yet, a man that picks up garbage an hour or two early goes to jail. This is completely preposterous to me.

                The community that Mr. McGill was picking up the trash in was a neighborhood of very well-to-do persons. I have a feeling that this is why the issue was even acknowledged. I am very sure, that a trash man picking up trash before 7AM in a middle class or poor neighborhood would not even get noticed.

                I do not think this kind justice is in any way a benefit to the community. This is defiantly not Utilitarianism. This is a simple case of the rich getting special treatment, AGAIN.

 

 

Referemces:

 

Rosenstand, N., (2003) chapter 5 (pp. 231-218)

 

The Tribune Media Wire (Mar2015) Retrieved from:

http://pix11.com/2015/03/10/garbage-man-jailed-for-picking-up-trash-too-early/

 

The city of Euclid  (Ordinance #186-1969 – Passed 9/2/69). Retrieved from:

http://www.cityofeuclid.com/community/service/RefuseCollection

 

Shackelford, T., ( Jan 2015) Public Works / Sanitation Coordinator http://www.valdostacity.com/Index.aspx?page=185

Blog 8.3 Should Religious Groups Be Exempted From Local, State, or Federal Laws?

Amish men and women stop cutting their hair and beards as soon as they are married. It is a sign of their religious devotion and that they are following their biblical interpretations. Cutting it off would be shameful, and a disgrace.
 In February 2015 an Amish Leader went back to court to ask that his sentenced be lightened. His reasoning for this is that the Constitution demands freedom of religion, and separation of the church and state. He claims that his actions were religion based and the courts cannot interfere with religious activities.
Originally in October 2011, several Amish men were arrested and charged with burglary and kidnapping. The men (along with several others) were accused of breaking and entering other Amish homes. While in these homes the intruders they cut off wen’s beards and women’s hair with scissors and horse trimmers. In many of the cases, the attackers were immediate family. In one, a son cut off his own parent’s beard.
The judge said that the legal system cannot interfere in religious activities, but they can charge someone with breaking into homes and assaulting the occupants.  
Reports stated that the elder Mullet had previously been reprimanded by the Pennsylvania bishops. Over 300 bishops assembled and together they condemned Mullet’s for his poor leadership. Mullet responded by yelling at the bishops, telling them to go to hell. Then he thumbed his nose at them. Investigations found that after the chastising, Mullet and his followers had moved away from their original community. It was believed that the attackers were a group that was ostracized in the main community. 
In their new community, the people continued to follow Mullet faithfully. They also started recruiting more followers. The community steadily grew for years. Mullet, apparently, encouraged his followers to shun the practices of any other Amish communal.
The Amish leadership had stated that they have been watching Mullet for years, but could do nothing until this blatant attack. Two of the attacks were even against bishops.
Supposedly, Mullet ordered the attacks. The investigation turned up a “hit list” where several people had not yet been attacked. The authorities stated that this “war” could keep going and even esculate into worse crimes.
Even though Mullet did not do any of the actual breaking in or hair cutting, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The others received one to five years.
According to Jones (1998), "Students often had difficulty using APA style, especially when it was their first time" (p. 199).
According to Rosenstand, N. (2013) chapter 1 “Religion is the key to the moral values of the members of the community”(p.17). What moral values are being taught here?
Do you think he should not have been charged? Do you think he should not have been charged so harshly? Do you think that these types of action should be considered completely religious and the law should not interfere at all?
According to Rosenstand, N., (2013) chapter 1, “Philosophy teaches that one must exam the issue without solely relying on the word of authority” (p. 17)
I think the law did exactly what it should have.  Mr. Mullet was a very influential leader. He convinced his groups that they were the only ones following the Lord “correctly”. He was so persuasive that he persuaded them to assault other Amish. He is a very dangerous religious zealot. He and his people cannot commit crimes and use their religion to hide behind them.
 

References:


SEEWER, J., (Feb 2015). Ohio Amish leader in prison for beard cuttings seeks release.   Associated Press.
Retrieved from:
http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-amish-leader-prison-beard-cuttings-seeks-release-181527587.htmll
 
TRIP GABRIEL, T.,  (Feb 2013) Amish Sect Leader Sentenced to 15 Years in Hair-Cutting Attacks .The New York Times   Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/amish-sect-leader-gets-15-years-in-beard-cutting-attacks.html?_r=0
 
WELSH-HUGGINS, A., (Dec 2011)   Amish Beard-Cutting: Leader Of Eastern Ohio Group Calls Attack A Religious Matter. The Huffington Post . Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/amish-beard-cutting-attack-ohio_n_1004321.html

Blog 7.3 Should Tanking Be Allowed In Any Sports?

Today, sports are about money. The more you win, the more fan base you have, and the more money you make. When a team losses, or is in the lowest ranking spots players, coaches, and everyone else involved with the team loses money. Plus, coaches often do not last long with their team. The managers and owners will fire the coaches and try to get someone “better”.

 “Tanking” is when a team purposely loses games to help advance them later. A team may want to lose to another simply to shift who they may play later. It tends to be most prominent in basketball, but can be found in all sports.

Most sports fans and officials frown on Tanking. When a team intentionally lowers their playing abilities, it is considered unethical, dishonest, and downright cheating. Others feel that it is nothing more than a strategic move to get their team in better standings later.

Tanking has gone beyond the professional teams. Recently in the news, two girls high school basketball teams were caught losing on purpose. They did it to avoid playing the top ranked team during the play offs.  Both teams were suspended and fined.

So, should Tanking be considered a tactical maneuver, or cheating? “What is Good? What is evil? Nietzsche says that depends on your perspective. Rosenstand, N., (2013) Chapter 10 (p. 497)

I think that it is unethical. I also feel that it is teaching our youth that you can be rewarded for cheating. I mean, aren’t high school sports supposed to be teaching teamwork, good sportsmanship, integrity, ethics, morals, and values?

Most negative role models are thought to be teaching ethical and moral lessons. As described in Rosenstand, N., (2013) chapter 10, Box 10.2 (p. 479) The Boy Who Cried Wolf, Adan and Eve have undesirable characters, but the lesson learned are “good “. Tanking teaches just the opposite. It encourages teams to manipulate the system and get compensation for doing it.

References:

ABC News, 2 Prep Girls Teams Caught Tanking, Banned From Postseason (Feb 2015)     Retrieved from:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/prep-girls-teams-caught-tanking-banned-postseason-29174239
 

Deeks, M., What actually is tanking, and which NBA teams actually do it? (Jan 2014)  Retrieved from:

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/10/5266770/nba-draft-lottery-tanking-gm
 

Rosenstrand, N. (2013) The Moral of the Story, pp. 497, 479

Ethical Stories in the News 6 Corrupt Scientists

Scientists are studying stem cells in hopes to be able to grow them artificially. If stem cells can be produced they can be used to replace old or diseased cells, increase the understanding of diseases, and to develop new treatments for illnesses. If stem cells could be produced easily and cheaply, it would be a huge break for the medical community. This makes the pressures to find the answers on how to produce the stem cells astronomical.

Many scientists desperately want to be the one to discover something new that they give into the temptation to falsely claim they have done it. Quite often these researchers get away with it. The problem is so wide spread; affecting the validity of scientist all over the world.

Trying to prove how wide spread this epidemic is, the head of cancer research “Glenn Begley” took 53 new and innovative experiments and attempted to reproduce the documented findings. After many attempts, he could only prove 6. Then the Bayer Company did a test of 67 of these “groundbreaking” researches. Sadly, they could only prove about 15 of them.

Recently in the news a Chinese scientist was caught fabricating her studies and results on stem cells. Professor Obokata published two articles claiming that she could change everyday body cells into embryonic cells, and do it in a very simple way. Her techniques were supposed to be much quicker and less damaging to the cells than any previous methods.

Professor Obolata claimed that after using her easy methodology, the old cells become similar to stem cells. This allows the cells to become young again and grown into any type of cell in the body. It also was supposed to get better cell results than previous practices, doing less damage to the cells, or cause them to turn cancerous.

Yet, within just days, her theories were disproven and she was publically disgraced.

I believe Professor Obolata made these false claims for several reasons:

1.       She was very young, as researchers go.

2.       She is a female in a very male dominate culture.

3.       Pressure from the scientific community to perform.

4.       Her appetite and desires overruled her reasoning and morals.

As explained in chapter 8, Rosenstand (2013), (pp. 408-410), Plato explains how an individual needs to use his/ her reasoning to guide their willpower. Using both the reasoning and willpower one could control his / her appetites (desires).

Professor Obolata was so badly caught up in her own desires and pressure from the scientific community that her reasoning, decision making, and willpower were clouded. Thus, allowing her desire, to be the first to make a discovery, to rule her actions.

When I read this article, I was completely taken aback. I could not believe how the community that searches for “truth” could be so corrupt. What a shame.

References:

 

Rasko J., & Power C., What pushes scientists to lie? The disturbing but familiar story of Haruko Obokata (2015) , retrieved from:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/18/haruko-obokata-stap-cells-controversy-scientists-lie

Rosenstrand, N. (2013) The Moral of the Story, pp. 408-410

Mayo Clinic, Stem Cell Transplant (2013), retrieved from:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/stem-cell-transplant/in-depth/stem-cells/art-20048117

Ethical News 5.4 Capital Punishment for Certain Murderers

This article discusses a proposed bill that would allow Michigan to use the death penalty for those criminals convicted of murdering police officers.  

In 1846 Michigan banned capital punishment. This legislation would set a unique precedence in legal punishment. Not only would it put capital punish back into the law books, but it would discriminate which murders could be considered for the death penalty.

I think this case fits into this week’s assigned reading of chapter seven in our class text very well. Do we have the right to take a person’s life? Would an individual that murders a police officer still be considered a “person”?  According to Rosenstrand, (2013), "genetically as well as legally, serial killers are still persons, and the very fact that we choose to hold them accountable in court is proof of that" (p. 324).

I also believe one must consider the question of equality and of equal rights with this type of law. I am not so sure that I feel a murderer of a child is less of a person, or holds a smaller amount of responsibility than a murderer of a police officer.  Does the killing of law enforcement officers constitute different punishment than killing anyone else? The discussion in Rosenstrand, (2013), "Treat equal equally and unequals unequally" (p. 339) explains how treating people differently may keep the treatment as fundamentally equal.

The kind of punishment discussed here is several of the five punishments listed in our class text. Rosenstrand, (2013) (pp. 357-359). If people believed that could be put to death for killing a police officer that would be a “deterrence”. Capital punishment would also permanently “incapacitate” the criminal, and could be considered as “retribution” for the crime committed.   

 

References:

Oosting, J., (February 06, 2015). Michigan Live. Death Penalty for Cop Killers. Retrieved from:

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/02/death_penalty_for_cop_killers.html

Rosenstrand, N. (2013) The Moral of the Story, pp. 324, 339, 357-359

Ethical News 4.3 Donation Limits

A third-grade teacher at UP Academy Dorchester won an essay contest. The essay began with the teacher explaining that she worked in a school that educated many underprivileged children. When the teacher won first prize she donated the $150,000 to the school that she worked in.

Soon afterwards the local media got ahold of the story and the teacher received nationwide praises for her actions. She was quickly invited on the Ellen DeGeneres Show where Ellen donated even more to the school. Ms. DeGeneres gave each teacher a $500 Target gift card to purchase school supplies for their classrooms. She also gave backpacks filled with school supplies that were worth about $100 each, to many of the students. She also gave a $25,000 check directly to the teacher.

The problem arose when someone realized that the state’s ethic laws limit gift giving to public employees. The law states that each public employee is limited to a $50 cap on gifts. This made nearly all of the monitorial gifts illegal to give and receive.   

The state does allow for teachers to receive gifts up to $150 for classroom supplies, but the regulations state that the donation must be anonymous. The rules also have a clause that allows teachers to accept any denomination of gift cards as long as the teacher shows receipts of purchase to prove the money was used for classroom expenses. These exceptions were put into place as acknowledgement that teachers often buy these items with their own finances.

David Giannotti, chief of the public education and communications division at the State Ethics Commission made a public statement that pointed out that if a prize is given out as the product of a random drawing, such as a door prize, the employee could keep it even if it is over the $50 limit. However, a gift given to someone because they are a public employees it is against the policies, but that gift can be given to the public body (school).   

The founder and CEO of Up Education Network, Scott Given said in a report he is contented the gifts conform with ethics laws. He spoke very positively about the teacher and her actions.

The reason for these laws is to keep any public employee from using their position for personal financial gain. In this case I believe the initial award that the teacher gave to the school, the backpacks and materials given to the students, and the gift cards for classroom supplies were all completely innocent and not for personal gain. The $25,000 given directly to the teacher from Ellen was directly for personal advancements, but it was given as a goodwill gesture not profit.

Is donating right or wrong?
Is accepting donations right or wrong?
Is how the donations are used a legitimate reason to accept donations?
Does it matter who is the actual donor?

Chapter four in our class text reviews the "Myself or Other" ethics. This chapter shows excellent examples of people putting others before themselves.

Chapter five in our class text discusses Utilitarianism and how one should make a ethical or moral decision by calculating how the most people would benefit and the least suffering would occur. I think this is exactly what everyone in this case that did the donating was actually attempting to do.

Chapter six says that if a moral or ethical decision is made by strictly adhering to rules or laws regardless of outcome is Kantian Deontology. I personally do not believe this is always the humanitarian thing to do. In this case the rules were initially followed, but later they were broken even though the intentions were good.
 

I think that if the teacher would have stayed on her path and just given it to the school none of this would probably even have been scrutinized like it has been.

References:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/24/generous-dorchester-teacher-cash-gifts-may-run-afoul-state-ethics-laws/bUhhrdsQQFDdc9YK23AWKJ/story.html

By Jennifer SmithGlobe Correspondent  January 24, 2015  The Boston Globe

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/01/mayor_walsh_backs_teacher_in_ethics_flap       Sunday, January 25, 2015  By:Lindsay Kalter

http://commonwealthmagazine.org/back-story/no-good-deed-goes-unpunished/

Jack Sullivan   Jan 22, 2015

Blog:3 Where Do Our Responsibilties Lie?

Many scientists claim that human beings have been on this earth for millions of years. Yet recent studies show that in the past 10,000 years the climate had not changes as much as it has in the last 60.



Many reports claim that since the early 1950s chemical fertilizers are being used eight times more now, urban population have grown about 700%, and the nitrogen levels in the oceans have multiplies at least by 400%. The same studies claim that these issues are not getting better and are actually increasing at alarming rates.



Humans activities have been looked at as the main cause in the environmental changes of late. The burning of fossil fuels and tropical forests have been big topics for several decades now. Over fishing of our lakes, rivers and especially our oceans is getting more and more attention in the last few years. Even over population is a issue in many areas.



Right now the biggest factor detrimentally changing our environment appears to be the degradation of land.  This lowering of land productivity and capacity to support life is caused by many different factors, but the human influence is probably the biggest cause. As populations grow so do the need to support it. Urbanization, deforestation, agriculture, and livestock production all play a part in destroying the land.



Many scientists, naturalists, and agriculturalists support these studies and there are some people that do not. Fox News reported that the environmental predictions of the past have been extremely over estimated and may not be happening at all as previously claimed. Maxim Lott (2015) wrote a report stating that the U.N. over estimated how much global warming there would be by now. He also wrote that the Pennsylvania State Government predicted that the world would be out of oil by 2015. One of the last items he wrote about was that the National Snow and Ice Artic Data Center had claimed that the Artic would be clear of all ice by the year 2020.



So many people claim that the environment is stable and self healing. Others claiming that humans are killing it. What are we supposed to believe? When do we as an advanced civilization make taking care of our planet a priority? Where do our responsibilities as individuals lie?

Chapter three in or class text talks about ethical, moral, and cultural differences that all play apart in making decisions to improve our communities, nations and the world.

I believe that we cannot fix our global environmental problems individually, but our daily actions came help. If all Americans cut their gas / oil use by even one tenth of their current use can make an impact. If all Americans cut their disposable waste products by that same one tenth it would cut down our dumping our toxins into the landfills, lakes, rivers and oceans.


The real problem is that this is not just an American issue it is a global one, but no one seems to know where to draw the line. Do we quit producing plastics, because they seriously damage the environment? If we do what would the effects be? No more water bottles, no more disposable diapers of course, but what about having no more medical supplies such as I.V. bags, syringes, air line tubing, and prosthetics.



Do we stop fishing the oceans? If we stop then how will the public react to having no seafood?
Do we quit cutting down trees and burning forests? If we do what would we have to give up?


This is a truly tough subject to try to fix, but I think we are not really trying very hard to do so. There is no yes or no answer, and not everyone will be happy with whatever is done, or not done.



References:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/humans-destorying-planet-earth

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/waste_oil_program/14096

http://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-and-what-you-can-do?utm_source=ggad&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=gr-GWYou&gclid=CjwKEAiA_4emBRCxi8_f2cWWjFcSJAB-v1qyNX_8tG7SF0TeoyZRySf6JntI7RCmr-n3EY1cNd4ckhoCoojw_wcB

Blog 2: Taking Hostages for Monetarial Gain

Taking Hostages for Monetarily Gain

In the last six months IS has publically murdered 3 Americans and two Britons. The IS group has openly and widely distributed the explicit videos of these prisoners being brutally beheaded. Currently, there is a story all over the news about IS militants taking Japanese hostages and demanding money from the Japanese government to get the hostages back safely.

This appears to be the first time IS has directly targeted Japanese citizens. Islamic militants have slaughtered Japanese citizens before. In 2013 10 Japanese were killed during an attack conducted in Algeria at a gas plant, but the Japanese people were not specifically targeted.

 Japan is not among the countries participating in the U.S.-led coalition battling insurgents in Syria and Iraq, but IS is claiming that the Japanese Regime has donated $200,000,000 to support non-military activities against the Islamic State. The IS states that they want the same amount recompensed to them for the hostages to be released safely. They have given the Japanese only 72 hours from the initial posting of the demands to comply with the demands.

Apparently, the men were warned not to go into the IS areas before they left Japan. The men went anyway.

So far, Japan refuses to pay, or to bend to terrorists. Japan’s Prime Minister Abe has also been publically demanding release the immediate release of the hostages. He has been cited saying “Using human lives to threaten others is an intolerable act,” he said. “I strongly demand the immediate release and the safety of the two Japanese.” On multiple televised news stations.
Often terrorists take hostages and make public demands is not necessarily for the money they demand, but for the publicity. In this case, I believe the extremists want to get the world to believe that Japan has been spending money to kill the IS’s women and children. They are using this tactic to acquire money and get the public to believe they have been wrongly treated. It also helps to justify their actions to their own troops.
Most public replies say that they Japanese should not to pay. Some ever say that the governments need to get together and completely destroy the Islamic State with every means possible to include atomic bombing of mass areas.
The question is whether or not to pay. What will happen if the pay is mad and what will happen if it is not?
I feel that even if they pay the hostages are not guaranteed to be treated well and returned. The payment of demands will inevitably encourage the terrorists to take more hostages in the future.
 If they do not pay IS has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the hostages will be brutally murdered,, but possible discourage the fanatics from taking more hostages in the future. That type of work would not be profitable.
I am glad that I am not the one that has to make this choice. I know that I would not pay the demands. I also know that I would have to live with knowing my decision would be the catalyst to these men’s death.

References:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/20/purported-isis-video-threatens-japanese-hostages-in-lieu-200m-ransom/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/20/isil-threatens-japanese-hostages/22034927/

http://nypost.com/2015/01/20/japans-prime-minister-islamic-state-threat-is-unforgivable/

http://www.voanews.com/content/islamic-state-militant-threatens-to-kill-japanese-hostages/2605615.html

BLOG 1: Ethical Issues in The News

Five detainees were released from Guantanamo.


      The Obama administration has released another five detainees from Guantanamo holding facility. All detainees were from Yemen. One was an actually personal guard for Osama Ben Laden.
      The Pentagon administration maintains that the men have been deemed eligible for release after great care has been taken to determine they are no longer a security risk.
     The Republican party is attempting to block any further releases of terrorist by using the most recent attacks on Paris. The Republicans argue that the France attacks have been financed by the Al Qaida in Yemen and the next 50 scheduled releases have more than 40 men from Yemen.
     The Republicans are arguing that 30% of all detainees return to their origins and the fighting there. The Obama administration claims that these numbers are not accurate. The administration claims that only 12% actually do return to terrorist activities and 17% are suspected to return.

    There are a lot of mixed feelings about these releases.  Public comments have both supported the releases and ridiculed them. Supporters assert that we cannot detain people without proper legal processing. Some even state that it is immoral and unethical and that the detainees basic and legal rights have been taken away. Protesters of the release have said that it is a necessity to detain people that present a clear threat to other people.

     Our class's text Rosenstand, N. (2013). The moral of the story. New York: McGraw-Hill.
discusses what is evil (pages 8-11) and Moral issues connected with religions (pages 15-17).  When discussing terrorism one must keep in mind what one culture feels as evil another culture may praise as acts of heroism.
   
    A person may also feel that laws are laws to be followed. In America you cannot arrest and hold people indefinitely without a conviction and sentencing. There is due process in every state. so, does these laws change when the incident involves terrorist? Can you keep them locked up forever?
  
    I do not like the idea of these people being free and able to commit atrocities. However, I have to believe that the administration has done everything morally and legally possible to prevent it. I do not think they can be held forever without good sound judgment.
  

References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/20/5-detainees-released-from-guantanamo-bay

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/world/middleeast/five-guantnamo-prisoners-are-released-to-kazakhstan.html?_r=0