Tuesday, January 27, 2015

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:


By Jennifer SmithGlobe Correspondent  January 24, 2015  The Boston Globe



Jack Sullivan   Jan 22, 2015

Friday, January 23, 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:




Thursday, January 22, 2015

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.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

Thursday, January 15, 2015

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