Friday, December 2, 2011

Topics for Review Final Exam



Find the topics for review on Chapter 6, 10, 11 here.

Here is the link for your textbook.

Good luck!

If you want to make observations or ask questions, you can help each other. I will try to access the site from Japan. If not, you can help each other (my student assistants!)

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

When is it ethical to photoshop images? (Post for comment)


Photo manipulation has been around almost as long as photography itself, but as digital imaging hardware and software has both advanced and come down in price, the practice of digital image manipulation has become much more commonplace and faked photos are becoming harder to detect. In fact, digital photo manipulation -commonly referred to as 'photoshopping'- has recently become a popular pastime, and many consider this photographic fakery to be a new art form. But when it works its way into photojournalism and the media, the issue of ethics comes to the forefront.

How far can we take digital image manipulation and still maintain journalistic integrity?

The idea of the right hand side photo is to make the subject appear more sinister. Times Magazine admitted having manipulated the picture
A recent New York Times article explores the issue:
(...) feminist legislators in France, Britain and Norway say, and they want digitally altered photos to be labeled. In June, the American Medical Association adopted a policy on body image and advertising that urged advertisers and others to “discourage the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image.”
Take the case above, where GQ magazine featured a digitally slimmed photo of actress Kate Winslet. Upon seen the cover, Winslet complained that the retouching was “excessive.” “I don’t look like that and more importantly I don’t desire to look like that. I can tell you that they’ve reduced the size of my legs by about a third,” said Winslet.
When does it become ethically problematic to manipulate (enhance) images in Photoshop? Publicists as well as journalists should understand that digital manipulation is not solely an aesthetic issue. There are issues of veracity at stake, like the image below:

The photo above shows a digital composite of a British soldier in Basra, gesturing to Iraqi civilians urging them to seek cover. The photo was published on the front page of the Los Angeles Times shortly after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Brian Walski, a staff photographer for the Los Angeles Times and a 30-year veteran of the news business, was fired after his editors discovered that he had combined two of his photographs to “improve” the composition.
This photographer has two images. One may think, what's wrong with blending the two to create one that is more telling? After all he took both photos. Well, the problem is that the photo shown above is not real. In fact, with digital processing, there is almost no limit to what can be done to an image, and many things are done to images with the best intentions.

The question is, when does the pursuit of aesthetics violate our ethics? Changes can be made to images that are undetectable, so much so that there is now discussion that photographs will no longer be allowed as evidence in courts of law.

This is not to say that we should get rid of Photoshop, a valuable design tool. The problem is what to do with the tool, how to use it wisely.

What do you think?

I will close this comment this Sunday @ 11pm.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Scandal in Penn State!


Our story starts here: Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, once considered Joe Paterno's (photo above) heir apparent, was charged with sexually assaulting eight boys over a 15-year period. Among the allegations was a 2002 incident in which a graduate assistant for the team said he saw Sandusky assault a boy in the shower at the Nittany Lions' practice center.

Update: Two Penn State officials surrendered Monday on charges that they failed to report suspected child-sexual abuse by a former coach and committed perjury in their related grand jury testimony.
The pair are accused of failing to alert police to complaints that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky had sexually abused eight boys. They are also charged with lying to a state grand jury investigating the former defensive coordinator. Schultz, 62, and Curley, 57, are innocent and will seek to have the charges dismissed, their lawyers said. Curley's lawyer, Caroline Roberto, called the case weak while Schultz's lawyer, Tom Farrell, said the men did what they were supposed to do by informing their superiors of the accusations.
Why did they not report the complaints?  

How about Paterno? The NYTimes reports the fate of the famous coach
The Board of Trustees has yet to determine the precise timing of Mr. Paterno’s exit, but it is clear that the man who has more victories than any other coach at college football’s top level and who made Penn State a prestigious national brand will not coach another season. Discussions about how to manage his departure have begun, according to the two people. The board is scheduled to meet on Friday, and Gov. Tom Corbett will attend.
What's the problem with Paterno? He told his boss about the complaints -as he should have. But there is this perception:  
Mr. Paterno has been widely criticized for failing to involve the police when he learned of the 2002 incident involving the young boy. Additionally, two top university officials — Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, the athletic director — were charged with perjury and failure to report to the authorities what they knew of the allegations, as required by state law.
In other words, though Paterno has not been charged in the matter, it is his failure to report to the authorities what he knew about the 2002 incident has become a flashpoint, stirring anger on the board and an outpouring of public criticism about his handling of the matter.

Who is responsible in this affair? The management? Sandusky?  Are Schultz and Curley responsible of wrongdoing? Should Paterno be terminated? If so, why? Go ahead!

I'm closing this post next Tuesday, November 15, at 11pm. 

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Autopsies, body parts & whistle blowers

Check out this news on NPR. Apparently the e Air Force mortuary that receives America's war dead and prepares them for burial lost portions of human remains twice in 2009, prompting the Air Force to discipline three senior officials for "gross mismanagement."
A year-long Air Force investigation reviewed 14 sets of allegations of improper handling of war remains as reported by three whistleblower workers at Dover Air Force Base, Del. That is where all war dead are received from foreign battlefields to be identified, autopsied and prepared for transfer to their families.
What is it?
In addition to the two cases of lost body pieces, the Air Force reviewed allegations that mortuary officials acted improperly in sawing off an arm bone that protruded from the body of a Marine in a way that prevented his body from being placed in his uniform for viewing before burial. The Marine's family had requested seeing him in his uniform but was not consulted about or told of the decision to remove the bone.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Why is education important?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Topics for review (Chapters 9 & 10)

Chapter 9

Assumption of risk and to refuse dangerous work, p. 486 
Legitimate and Illegitimate influence, p. 476, 477
Drug testing, (4-point issues),  p. 484
Hawthorne effect, p. 494
Informed consent, p. 479
Job satisfaction
Management styles, p. 489
Maternity leave, p. 481
OSHA, p. 4
off-the-job-conduct,
Personality tests, p. 482
Polygraph Tests (assumptions), 3 point evaluation for taking them, p. 480, 481

Chapter 10

Abuse of official position, p. 542
Bribes, p. 546
Gifts and entertainment, p. 550 (look at the 6-point criteria for gifts)
Company loyalty, p. 538
Conflict of interest, p. 539
Grease payment
Insider trade, p. 542
Kickbacks, p. 546
Proprietary data, p. 544
Self-interest
Trade secrets: 3 arguments for legally protecting trade secrets, p. 544, 545
U.S. vs O'Hagan, p. 543
Whistle blowing: (5 factors to consider), p. 555, 556
_______
Here is the link for your textbook.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

PHI 2604 Chapter 10

1. Elucidate “conflict of interest” in the workplace.
2. Come up with one example of a conflict of interest you’ve recently witnessed.
3. What constitute “insider trading”?
4. How about downloading music or videos one doesn’t pay for? What’s a trade secret?
5. Define “bribe.”
6. Define “kickback.”Comment the case of some American executives at Honda.
7. Go over the seven rules on “gifts.”
8. Define “whistle blowing.”
9. Is self-interest more important than the interests of the public?

Goldman Sachs an example of fraud

The fraudulent practices of Wall Street exposed:
A new lawsuit accuses Goldman Sachs of purposely unloading $93 million in mortgage-backed securities it knew to be junk onto a client, then betting against those same securities in the lead-up to the financial crisis. Basis Yield Alpha Fund, an Australian hedge fund, filed the lawsuit against Goldman Sachs on Thursday, asking for more than $1 billion in damages. The lawsuit alleges that Goldman Sachs overcharged for two sets of mortgage-backed securities that it sold to Basis; lied about the securities' expected performance; did not provide timely, accurate information about the securities' true value; and failed to disclose that the firm was actively betting against the securities at the time of the transaction -- all which the hedge fund says contributed to its collapse.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

What is Occupy Miami all about?

What is Ocupy Miami all about? Pedro Santana, a young member of the movement speaks.

What do you think?

Monday, October 24, 2011

Should we thank corporations for the air we breathe?


The above illustration, which is getting wide circulation in market-oriented blogs is posted by a John Hinderaker. Each arrow points to a distinctive well-known brand product. The illustration has the pedagogic aim of exhibiting the protesters' bad faith, which consists of wearing products made by the corporations they criticize. Hinderaker relishes the following platitude:
I've always wondered: where do people who don't like corporations work? Do they seriously want to turn the clock back by centuries –it would take some research to figure to how many– to a world in which the only forms of business organization are sole proprietorships and partnerships? And who do they think designs, manufactures and distributes the products they use? Elves? 
Hinderaker confounds "work," an essential productive human activity with "wage-labor," an economic category, as if the former was a sufficient condition of the latter. A more perverse conclusion of his argument is that since we're all consumers, we are forced to accept -even justify- corporative excess as a blessing. We should fall on our knees & thank Gap for the opportunity to purchase a pair of jeans at fair market price!

Additionally, we should be grateful for Gap's being-there, as it were, for as long it exists people will hold jobs. Is Hinderaker referring to those in the production-line in China or Indonesia, making $7 for a 12-hour day, or America's retail, where being a manager earns you $7.50 an hour without commission? In Hinderaker's bureaucratic paradise, people hold jobs not because they are competent at doing something. Rather, work becomes an undeserved gift bestowed on individuals by a corporate superstructure.  

Hinderaker's corporate genuflection is not surprising, but he distorts the real aim of this movement, which is not to denounce corporations for just being corporations, which is vapid, but to denounce corporate excess, i.e., unethical corporate-friendly legislation, unfair corporate tax breaks, irresponsible corporate deregulation and its dramatic aftermath: lack of opportunities, unemployment, the crumbling of American manufacturing and organized labor, urban blight, etc, etc.

(Hypothetically speaking, I don't have to thank Gap for the jeans I paid for, nor wearing Gap jeans renders me impotent to denounce Gap's unethical corporate practices).

 Occupying what?

To "occupy" may show a group's determination to seize possession of, and/or maintain control over a place. This is not done by force. It's a right enacted by the force of consensus. To put it simply: There is the real, public space where protesters camp (Zucotti Park, Miami's Government Center, etc), and there is an ideal space of freedom. One needs the other. "To camp" in the physical space happens because one already dwells in this ideal space. "To occupy" is to do both. Occupy Wall Street or Occupy Miami protesters redefine the rules of dwelling: 1- They now live "outside" for the sake of all of us. 2- Their place takes over and opposes Wall Street's "center." 3-  Their "occupation" makes for a primal political happening. What is it?

Wall Street is the center of the 1% that rules the remaining 99%. This brutal gap exposes financial capitalism's unfairness. Acting as a gate of capital flowmation into the periphery, Wall Street's inflowence visibly erodes region, place and borders. The "occupying" movement counters this engineering kinematics of globalization with a "political place," which reclaims what's rightfully theirs, ours. This interconnectedness between material and symbolic brings forth possible new couplings:

We've dwelt in the wrong place for too long!

I'm closing this post this post on Thursday, October 27.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Homework Chapter 9

1. Define: Legitimate and illegitimate influence.
2. What is "informed consent."
3. Why do companies use polygraph tests? Mention the three most common assumptions.
4. What's the purpose of personality tests?
5. How do companies monitor employees on the job?
6. Define "assumption of risk" and "right to refuse dangerous work."
7. What's a "Hawthorne effect"?
8. What's OHA

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Link to "Moral Issues in Business"

This is the link to your texbook. It contains flashcards, quizzes, etc. Play with it.

Chapter 8: Homework

1- Why do corporations use screening?
2- Explain the difference between "job description" and "job specification."
3- What does "test reliability" mean?
4- In "qualification" vs "seniority", which, you think should take precedence?
5- Define: (a) inbreeding, (b) nepotism, (c) termination, (d) position elimination, (e) layoff.
6- Go over the 7-point guideline to help minimize the chance of unfair wages and salaries.
7- Briefly describe the history of the Union Movement.
8. In light of the developments in Wisconsin Why is collective bargaining important?
9- Explain (a) Direct strike, (b) Sympathetic strike, (c) Boycott and campaigns.

Check out this link on Testing Job Applicants
Job satisfaction: oxymoron?

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Can capitalism be moral?



"One can make a decent profit and still respect people," you may say. How about corporations? Is dumping toxic trash to underdeveloped countries moral? Some say Sodom and Gomorrah are here on earth. Was not BP's oil spill in the Golf of Mexico preventable? 

Which brings us to the next question: Should corporations treat the environment as persons? Obviously, they should. Why? Because the environment is our milieu: it's bigger and encompassing, the total of earth, vegetation and animals and thus, it directly includes us. In fact one can say that the environment is much more than a means to an end because it was here before us! So, corporations have responsibilities towards the environment, which is exactly Kant's idea of reversibility now between business ---> life. If profit is gained by deceit, manipulation, or by pollution, that's wrong (you wouldn't like anyone dumping trash on your backyard).

Some say that capitalism is just a tool to use, and that's independent from morality. You do your business and that's it. The problem is that capitalism today is everywhere! We live in a global society, corporations have an amazing power (think of Wal Mart). For example, recently the Supreme Court has redefined that when it comes to political contributions, a corporation counts as much as a single person! In addition to economic influence, corporations now are legally entitled to buy political influence!

Wasn't Ayn Rand the one that exulted the virtues of Homo Economicus? There needs to be a balance. Remember the prudent egoist? I'd assume that's the kind of egoist that Rand defends. But what if everybody is running for easy profits and you feel pushed by the system? Imagine a man that walks in an office with his wife. He has saved 30,000 for years for a down-payment. You are a mortgage representative, and you need to sell a mortgage and your boss is a borderline sociopath. This is your chance! The problem is that you have to lie and that is going to cost this man his 30,000 savings. Would you sell this man this toxic mortgage just to reap a profit? Why not approach the issue from the view point of Homo Reciprocans?

Thus this chapter reading of E. F. Schumacher's Buddhist Economics. Schumacher makes three important points, 1- work needs to be creative: 
(...) there are two types of mechanization which must be clearly distinguished: one that enhances a man’s skill and power and one that turns the work of man over to a mechanical slave, leaving man in a position of having to serve the slave.
2- real needs are not fake needs:
(...) since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. Thus, if the purpose of clothing is a certain amount of temperature comfort and an attractive appearance, the task is to attain this purpose with the smallest possible effort, that is, with the smallest annual destruction of cloth and with the help of designs that involve the smallest possible input of toil.
and 3- local instead of global.
From the point of view of Buddhist economics, therefore, production from local resources for local needs is the most rational way of economic life, while dependence on imports from afar and the consequent need to produce for export to unknown and distant peoples is highly uneconomic and justifiable only in exceptional cases and on a small scale. Just as the modern economist would admit that a high rate of consumption of transport services between a man’s home and his place of work signifies a misfortune and not a high standard of life, so the Buddhist would hold that to satisfy human wants from faraway sources rather than from sources nearby signifies failure rather than success.
So, do you think we can use capitalism and still be moral?

I'll close this post next Wednesday  Sep. 28 at 11pm.

Monday, September 19, 2011

How to spot a "bad" co-worker

5 signs that you're pushing your co-workers over the limit:

What is sexting?

The potential risks of sexting in the New York Times
One day last winter Margarite posed naked before her bathroom mirror, held up her cellphone and took a picture. Then she sent the full-length frontal photo to Isaiah, her new boyfriend. An interesting Both were in eighth grade. They broke up soon after. A few weeks later, Isaiah forwarded the photo to another eighth-grade girl, once a friend of Margarite’s. Around 11 o’clock at night, that girl slapped a text message on it. “Ho Alert!” she typed. “If you think this girl is a whore, then text this to all your friends.” Then she clicked open the long list of contacts on her phone and pressed “send.” In less than 24 hours, the effect was as if Margarite, 14, had sauntered naked down the hallways of the four middle schools in this racially and economically diverse suburb of the state capital, Olympia. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of students had received her photo and forwarded it.
Sexting has an entry in Wikipedia!

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Justice is fairness

Remember what we were talking about last class?  As of 2007, in the USA, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). Is that fair?

Monday, September 12, 2011

PHI 2604 TOPICS FOR QUIZ #1

Chapter 1
1. Moral vs. non-moral standards standards: Human behavior of fundamental consequence for human welfare.
2. Morality and etiquette (codes of polite behavior in society).
3. Morality and Law (not everything that is legal is moral (slavery was legal and is not moral).
4. Are there moral standards? Where do they come from? Click here for more information,
5. Ethical relativism, Cultural Relativism. Relativism is the view that the rightness (or wrongness) of an action is relative to the individual, culture, perspective, etc. Regarding cultural relativism, there's a difference between "deep" (moral behavior) and "superficial" (fashion, etiquette, etc) cultural values. Actually, most cultures share similar fundamental values (such as killing your own, stealing from the group, adultery, respecting the elders, incest, etc).
7. Critiques: (a) Ethical relativism is logically contradictory (a view cannot be right and wrong at the same time), (b) Ethical relativism makes moral disagreements impossible
8. Defensible Moral Judgments. MJ = Moral norms + facts (what this means is that we'd like our moral judgements to be defensible. We want to be able to give reasons for why we believe what we believe.

Chapter 2
1. Consequentialist and non-Consequentialist Theories. Consequentialism is the theory that the moral rightness of an action is in function of its results. Is the consequences are good, the action is good. Non-consequentialists look at the form of the action, i.e, killing is wrong independently of the results.
2. Egoism is a consequentialist moral theory. It equates morality with self-interest.  Misconceptions about Egoism (that an egoist cannot be a moral person); Psychological Egoism;
2a. Problems with Egoism (3 arguments). Psychological egoism is not a sound theory. Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all because it can ignore blatant wrongs.
3. Utilitarianism; (Six points about Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism is the view that an action is right if it brings the greatest happiness for the greatest majority of people.
4. Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism (3 arguments). p. 65, 66.
5. Kantian Ethics: Good Will, The Categorical Imperative; An action is right if it is universal and reversible.
Kant's second Formulation: Treat people as ends never as means to an end.
6. Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics (2 arguments): The theory doesn't allow for exceptions and it avoids sentiments.
7. W.D. Ross’s Prima Facie Duties (you must know all and in the said hierarchy): An action is right if if falls under the highest ranked duty in a given situation. Remember the different duties studied in class: justice, fidelity, reparation, gratitude, beneficence, non-maleficence, self-improvement.
8. Rule Utilitarianism: The view that what makes an action right is that it falls under a rule, which if followed would bring the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.

Chapter 3
Comparative table of justice, equality and rights (positive and negative), and how each fairs in the possible distribution arrangements studied in class (Communism, Liberalism and Libertarianism).


You must bring the 48 TSM scantron to the exam. It is for sale at the bookstore. 

Friday, September 2, 2011

Human Trafficking and moral imperatives


A recent article in the NYTimes shows how human trafficking has become a problem of global problem.
If 200 years ago slavery showed a ruthless side of humanity, it seems that today the problem returns, only now, the trade is not in the open, but hidden, fed by drugs, deception, even kidnapping. How could anyone deceive a young girl knowing she will end up in a brothel in a European capital with no passport, beaten, drugged & exploited?

Today, millions of people move away from home to work for little or no money, often under abusive conditions. Since 1994, has been working against the practice. Confronting issues like illegal mining in South America and the forced prostitution of women from the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and North Africa, the the International Organization for Migration has conceived awareness campaigns tailored to particular countries and cultures. Here are just three examples amongst many:

Vietnam: Many Vietnamese women and girls are trafficked through Dong Tham, An Giang, and Kien Giang to Cambodia for sexual exploitation. In 2004, Cambodian police estimated that more than 50,000 girls were in brothels through Cambodia, many of whom were Vietnamese.

Philippines: Philippine men, women, and girls were trafficked for labor  and sexual exploitation to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, South Africa, North America, and Europe. The government and NGO estimates on the number of women trafficked range from 300,000 to 400,000 and the number of children trafficked range from 60,000 to 100,000.

China: Chinese women and children are trafficked for sexual and labor exploitation in Malaysia, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Europe, Canada, Japan, Italy, Burma, Singapore, South Africa, and Taiwan. Many Chinese are recruited by false promises of employment and are later coerced into prostitution or forced labor. Children are sometimes recruited by traffickers who promise their parents that their children can send remittances back home.

The common denominator of human trafficking is that people are lured into this trap by the promise of a better future. 

The issue has ramifications for our own backyard. This article in the New Times exposes how a 15 year old girl is abducted to work as a prostitute in Miami (check out the list of 9 individuals arrested which were involved in the ring). Take this is a bizarre story, a former Miami Beach police officer and his friend arrested for drugging women and then filming them in sex acts. Here is another story.

In light of the theories we've studied in Chapter 2, which is in your opinion the best moral theories that can deal with this problem? Egoism, Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative?

I'll close this post next week, Thursday, @ 11pm.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Topics for Final Exam

Chapter 10: : Moral Choices Facing Employees 

1- Company Loyalty, Conflict of interest. p. 539.
2- Abuse of Official Position. p. 541.
3- Insider Trading (conflicting perspectives) p. 544.
4- Proprietary Data.
5- Trade Secrets, Economic Espionage Act of 1996. p. 545.
6- Bribes and Kickback (What's the FCPA?).
 7- Gifts and Entertainment: 7-point suggestion. p. 551.
8- Conflicting Obligations. Take a look at the two points in favor of moral deliberation that the book suggests (when weighing moral decisions), p. 553.
9- Whistle Blowing. When is it justified? p. 556.

Chapter 11: Job Discrimination

1- Difference between statistical and attitudinal evidence. pp. 610-612.
2- A brief historic summary of Affirmative Action (Brown vs. Board of Education, Civil Rights of 1964). The Supreme Court's position. Bakke v. Regents of the University of California. pp. 615-617.
3 Arguments in favor and against Affirmative Action.
4- Comparable worth p. 623.
5- Sexual Harassment: quid pro quo harassment, hostile work-environment harassment. Sexual favoritism. p. 627. Dealing with sexual harassment 4-point advice for potential victims.

I'm leaving this post open in case you have questions.

Topics for the Final Exam (chapters 6, 10 & 11)

Chapter 6

Caveat emptor: Literally, "let the buyer beware," an outdated doctrine now dismissed in most legal policy, it was no longer the guiding principle as the concept of due care spread.

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Car: The landmark 1916 case that expanded the liability of manufacturers for injuries caused by defective products. Previously, injured consumers could recover damages only from the retailer of the defective product—that is, from the party with whom they had actually done business.

Ambiguity (in advertising): The confusion and deception that results when advertisements can be understood in two or more ways, misleading consumers and allowing them to assume inaccurate claims or attributes about a product.

Concealment of facts (in advertising): The suppression of information that is unflattering to a product; the process by which advertisers fail to mention certain issues, or distract consumers’ attention away from certain information, the knowledge of which would probably make their product less desirable.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): An agency created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public “against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products.’’ A five-member commission sets standards for products, bans products presenting undue risk of injury, and makes policy for the entire consumer-product marketing process from manufacture to final sale.

Consumer sovereignty The idea that consumers should and do control the market through their purchases.

Exaggeration (in advertising): The process by which advertisers can mislead their audience by making claims unsupported by evidence.

Express warranties: Those claims that sellers explicitly state; this may include assertions about the product’s character, assurances of product durability, and other statements on warranty cards, labels, wrappers, and packages, or in the advertising of the product (e.g., that a product is “shrinkproof’’ or will require no maintenance for two years).

Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The government organization created in 1914 as an antitrust weapon, though its mandate was expanded to include protecting consumers against deceptive advertising and fraudulent commercial practices. Although not the only regulatory body monitoring advertisements, its efforts have spared Americans the most blatant abuses of advertising.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA): An agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responsible for the safety regulation of most types of foods, dietary supplements, drugs, vaccines, biological medical products, blood products, medical devices, radiation-emitting devices, veterinary products, and cosmetics.

Horizontal price fixing: The unethical and illegal agreement among competitors to adhere to a set price schedule, not to cut prices below a certain minimum, or to restrict price advertising or the terms of sales, discounts, or rebates. This eliminates open and fair price competition and is against the law.

Implied warranties: Those claims, implicit in any sale, that a product is fit for its ordinary, intended use.

Legal paternalism: The idea that the law may justifiably be used to restrict the freedom of individuals for their own good; refers to those laws that attempt to prevent people from running risks that affect only themselves.

Merchantability: Also called the "implied warranty of merchantability," the law that makes it implicit in any sale that a product is fit for its ordinary, intended use. This is not a promise that the product will be perfect, but that it will be of passable quality or suitable for the ordinary purpose for which it is used.

Price fixing: A violation of the business "rules of the game" in which certain price levels are decided upon among competitors, thereby suppressing open and fair price competition. (See horizontal price fixing and vertical price fixing.)

Price gouging: A seller’s exploitation, by raising prices substantially, during a short-term situation in which buyers have few purchase options for a much-needed product.
psychological appeal (in advertising) A persuasive effort aimed primarily at emotion, not reason; potentially the advertising technique of greatest moral concern.

Puffery: The supposedly harmless use of lavish superlatives and subjective praise in advertisements, sometimes innocuous and sometimes misleading, but permitted by law on the grounds that such claims do not deceive people.

Reasonable-consumer standard: A standard which, if used by the FTC, would prohibit only advertising claims that would deceive reasonable people, thereby failing to protect people who are more gullible, less intelligent, or less perceptive or aware regarding the marketplace.

Strict product liability: A doctrine that holds that the manufacturer of a product has legal responsibilities to compensate the user of that product for injuries suffered because the product’s defective condition made it unreasonably dangerous, even though the manufacturer has not been negligent in permitting that defect to occur.

Subliminal advertising: Advertising that communicates at a level beneath conscious awareness, where, some psychologists claim, the vast reservoir of human motivation primarily resides.

Vertical price fixing: The unethical and sometimes illegal agreement among manufacturers and retailers—as opposed to direct competitors—to set certain prices on certain goods, thereby eliminating open and fair price competition. This was unquestionably against the law until 2007, when courts were advised to rule on a case-by-case basis.

Warranties: All factual affirmations or statements about the goods being sold, as dictated by the Uniform Commercial code of 1968. (See express warranties and implied warranties.)
weasel words Language used to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement, alluding to vague claims while aiding and abetting ambiguity.

Chapter 10

Abuse of official position: The use of one’s employment situation for personal gain, often raising moral concerns and ethical questions due to the likelihood that one is violating one’s obligations to the firm or organization. Examples range from misusing expense accounts to billing the company for unnecessary travel, from using subordinates for non-organization-related work to abusing a position to enhance one’s own financial leverage and holdings.

Bribes: Remuneration (money, gifts, entertainment, or preferential treatment) for the performance of an act that is inconsistent with the work contract or the nature of the work one has been hired to perform; often the exchange of money for violating job responsibilities or for failing to report irregularities. (See kickbacks.)

Business gifts and entertainment: Familiar parts (or perks) of the business world, given to clients and business associates, including meals, tickets, hotel stays, etc. as well as goods and services; both categories can raise conflict-of-interest problems and even border on bribery. The parameters are more strictly regulated for federal and state jobs, but less defined in the business world.

Company loyalty: An important value that may include employees' sacrifices for the organization above and beyond their job descriptions. It is a two-way street, however, and most employees believe it is up to the company to earn and retain their loyalty. Although some deny that employees owe loyalty to the company, most people find company loyalty a coherent and legitimate principle.

Conflict of interest: The situation that arises when employees at any level have special or private interests that are substantial enough to interfere with their job duties (i.e., when their personal interests lead them, or might reasonably be expected to lead them, to make decisions or to act in ways that are detrimental to their employer’s interests).
Economic Espionage Act The law against the theft of trade secrets, usually involving confidential company procedures or product formulas, passed in 1996 (and upheld by most states as a federal crime).

Grease payment: A type of corruption in which additional payments are sometimes considered necessary to ensure that the recipients carry out their normal job duties. These are not prohibited by the FCPA when paid to employees of foreign governments who have primarily clerical or ministerial responsibilities. However, the act makes no distinction between such sanctioned bribery and extortion.

Insider trading: Abusing one’s official position through the buying or selling of stocks (or other financial securities) on the basis of privileged or otherwise internal information that has not yet been made public and is likely to affect the price of the stock.
kickbacks The types of bribery that involve percentage payments to people who are able to influence or control a source of income.

OECD Anti-Bribery: Convention Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti-Bribery Convention, a formal treaty of 1997 that outlawed bribing public officials in foreign business transactions and set up reviewing and monitoring mechanisms.
Thirty-seven countries, including all the world’s industrialized nations, have passed domestic legislation implementing the OECD standards.

Proprietary data: Internally generated data or documents that contain technical or other types of information controlled by a firm to safeguard its competitive edge.
prudential reasons Based on the word "prudence," refers in business ethics to considerations of self-interest, reasons that are opposed to “moral” considerations of the interests of others and the demands of morality. If prudential concerns outweigh moral ones, then employees may do what is in their own best interest. If moral reasons override prudential ones, then workers should honor their obligations to others. Some theorists believe that prudential concerns at times do outweigh moral ones.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act Legislation: passed in 2002 that marked an important advance in assistance to employees who blow the whistle; provided new legal protection for employees who reported possible securities fraud, making it unlawful for companies to “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against” such employees.

Self-interest: Actions that best satisfy one's own interests and desires; for many employees, protecting themselves or safeguarding their jobs forms this primary factor in deciding whether to put third-party interests above those of the firm. Concern with self-interest in cases that pit loyalty to the company against other obligations is altogether understandable and even warranted.

Supererogatory actions: Highly moral or charitable actions, often "beyond the call of duty," that are considered good to do, but not required to do in order to be moral. Many moral philosophers draw a related distinction between actions that are morally required as opposed to actions that are supererogatory.

Trade secrets: "Any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information" used in one's business that "provides an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it," according to the standard legal definition. Unlike patents and copyrights, they do not have to be declared or registered in any way, but they also do not have the same protection as patented or copyrighted information.

Whistle-blowing: The informing of the public by an employee (past or present) regarding the potentially illegal or immoral actions of an employer or an organization; often involves reporting of procedures or policies that are harmful, violate human rights, or pose hazards to workers or the public.

Chapter 11

Bakke case: The 1978 U.S. Supreme Court’s first major ruling on affirmative action. It involved a 5-to-4 decision that rejected explicit racial criteria such as setting rigid quotas and excluding nonpreferred groups from competition.

Brown v. Board of Education: The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped launch the civil rights movement, holding that racially segregated schooling is unconstitutional; it conclusively overturned the older legal doctrine that “separate but equal’’ facilities were legally permissible. In this way the Court found that the very idea of separating the races inherently led to unequal treatment.

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Legislation of 1964 (later amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972) that prohibits all forms of discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII, the most important section of the act, prohibits discrimination in employment.

Comparable worth: The doctrine that holds women and men should be paid on the same scale not only for doing the same or equivalent jobs, but also for doing different jobs involving equal skill, effort, and responsibility.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: (EEOC) The agency of the U.S. government that enforces the federal employment discrimination laws, including guidelines for affirmative action, standards for balanced representation within the workplace of races and genders, and definitions of sexual harassment.

Hostile-work-environment harassment: A broad and pervasive type of sexual harassment. Behaviors, words, or visual images of a sexual nature that are distressing to workers (almost always, but not exclusively, women) and that interfere with their ability to perform on the job, even when they are not attempts to pressure workers for sexual favors. (See sexual harassment.)

Job discrimination: Procedures and policies that lead to adverse decisions regarding an employee or a job applicant based on his or her membership in a certain group; by legal definition, it occurs when (1) an employment decision in some way harms or disadvantages an employee or a job applicant; (2) the decision is based on the person’s membership in a certain group, rather than on individual merit; and (3) the decision rests on prejudice, false stereotypes, or the assumption that the group in question is in some way inferior and thus does not deserve equal treatment.

Pink-collar occupations: Lower-paying jobs that tend to employ women (such as librarians, nurses, elementary school teachers, salesclerks, secretaries, bank tellers, and waitresses); those positions that generally pay less than traditionally male occupations (such as electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, shipping clerk, and truck driver).

Quid-pro-quo harassment: A form of sexual harassment that occurs when a supervisor makes an employee’s employment opportunities conditional on the employee’s entering into a sexual relationship with, or granting sexual favors to, the supervisor.

Sexual favoritism: Discrimination by a superior when that superior is engaged in sexual relations not with those discriminated against, but with one or more other employees.

Sexual harassment: Within the workplace, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (See hostile-work-environment harassment.)

Here is the link to your textbook.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Chapter 11 Homework

1- Define job discrimination.
2- As to evidence of job discrimination, comment the role of occupations.
3- Regarding Affirmative Action, comment (a) the legal context, (b) the Supreme Court's position.
4- In examining the arguments in favor and against Affirmative Action, pick your best in both instances and justify why.
5- What is sexual harassment?
6- Go over the textbook recommendation for dealing with sexual harassment.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Monday, March 28, 2011

Chapter 10: Homework

1- What is a conflict of interest?
2- What does abuse of official position mean?
3- Comment "insider trading," proprietary data and trade secrets.
4- What is a bribe... a kickback?
5- Talk about "grease payments" and the FCPA.
6- Comment the 7-point guidelines on gifts.
7- What is "whistle blowing" and what motivates whistle blowing?
8- Go over the 5-point guideline to justify whistle blowing. Mention the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Is factory farming ethical? (Post for comment)

Manure run-off from factory farms (is this not toxic waste?)

In this course we address "issues in the workplace." And in the case of factory farming, we certainly have a number of issues, first, toward animals, such as overcrowding, de-beaking, inhumane culling,* and then those health-related problems that may affect us in consuming these animal products ("intensive" growth production, with hormones and then antibiotics and pesticides to fight diseases).

So, what is factory farming? Read here, about ethical consequences of factory farming:

Factory farms hold large numbers of animals, typically cows, pigs, turkeys, or chickens, often indoors, typically at high densities. The aim of the operation is to produce as much meat, eggs, or milk at the lowest possible cost. Food is supplied in place, and a wide variety of artificial methods are employed to maintain animal health and improve production, such as the use of antimicrobial agents, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones. Physical restraints are used to control movement or actions regarded as undesirable. Breeding programs are used to produce animals more suited to the confined conditions and able to provide a consistent food product.
FACT

1- Food animals on factory farming facilities produce an enormous amount of waste. A dairy farm with 2,500 cows produces as much waste as a city of 411,000 people (60). 2- Food facts are that there are NO regulations for the treatment of animal waste from factory farming, which contains methane and nitrous oxide gases - both many times more toxic and warming than CO2. Liquid animal waste often spills over from holding lagoons into local soil and waterways. 3- Fish farming is called "aquafarming", and this squanders natural resources too - it can take 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce just 1 pound of farmed fish. Aquafarming operations pollute the environment with tons of fish feces, antibiotic-laden fish feed, and diseased fish carcasses.
The large concentration of animals, animal waste, and the potential for dead animals in a small space poses ethical issues. It is recognized that some techniques used to sustain intensive agriculture are cruel to animals. As awareness of the problems of intensive techniques has grown, there have been some efforts by governments and industry to remove inappropriate techniques (...) In the UK, the Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the government to act as an independent advisor on animal welfare in 1979. It expresses its policy as five freedoms: from hunger & thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; to express normal behavior; from fear and distress.

There are differences around the world as to which practices are accepted and there continue to be changes in regulations with animal welfare being a strong driver for increased regulation. For example, the EU is bringing in further regulation to set maximum stocking densities for meat chickens by 2010, where the UK Animal Welfare Minister commented, "The welfare of meat chickens is a major concern to people throughout the European Union. This agreement sends a strong message to the rest of the world that we care about animal welfare.”

For example, in the UK, de-beaking of chickens is deprecated, but it is recognized that it is a method of last resort, seen as better than allowing vicious fighting and ultimately cannibalism. Between 60 and 70 percent of six million breeding sows in the U.S. are confined during pregnancy, and for most of their adult lives, in 2 by 7 ft gestation crates. According to pork producers and many veterinarians, sows will fight if housed in pens. The largest pork producer in the U.S. said in January 2007 that it will phase out gestation crates by 2017. They are being phased out in the European Union, with a ban effective in 2013 after the fourth week of pregnancy. With the evolution of factory farming, there has been a growing awareness of the issues amongst the wider public, not least due to the efforts of animal rights and welfare campaigners.

For more information about ethical problems of factory farming, read here.
__________
Overcrowding: Egg laying hens in cage free operations are typically crowded by the thousands in large barns, with approximately one square foot of space allotted each bird. “Cage free” laying hens are not required to have access to the outdoors, and for “free range” and “free roaming” hens, access to the outdoors can be severely restricted and poorly designed. Under these labels, there are no limits on flock size and their outdoor area may be little more than a barren dirt lot that is difficult for them to access.
De-beaking: Virtually all hens slated for egg production have the ends of their beaks removed without anesthesia, causing both acute and chronic pain.
Inhumane culling: Commercial hatcheries supply hens to both factory farms and smaller egg farms, and the male chicks are unwanted and treated as a waste product. Common methods of killing and disposal include suffocation and being ground up alive. When egg laying hens’ productivity declines and they are no longer profitable to the egg industry, they are sent to slaughter or otherwise killed.

I'll close this post this Friday at 11pm.

Violence in the workplace


The horrible death of Yale student Annie Le brings up the question, how common is work violence?

Gossip in the workplace

How bad is gossip in the workplace?

The earlier studies found that once someone made a negative comment about a person who wasn’t there, the conversation would get meaner unless someone immediately defended the target. Otherwise, among both adults and teenagers, the insults would keep coming because there was so much social pressure to agree with the others.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Topics for Quiz #2

Chapter 6
(Most of these terms I'm getting from the Study Corner on p. 326 of the textbook)

McPherson vs Buick. Due care. Caveat Emptor. Strict Product Liability. Legal Paternalism.Government regulation vs. Self-regulation. 6-point guidelines for business responsibility. Merchantability. Warranties, express and implied. Price fixing. Price Gouging. Under the subtitle "labeling and packaging" take a look at words such as "recyclable", "fairly traded," "total carbs." "pure squeezed 100% orange juice," "sustainable," etc. Deceptive techniques in advertising: Ambiguity. Concealment of facts. Exaggeration. Psychological appeals.

Chapter 8
Job screening. Job description. Job specification. Americans with Disabilities Act. Test validity, test reliability. Dur Process. Promotion vs. seniority. Inbreeding. Nepotism. 7-point guideline for better wager. History of the Union Movement: AFL-CIO, Warner Act. Knights of Labor. Conditions for a justified strike. Direct Strike. Sympathetic Strike. Boycotts and Campaigns.

Chapter 9
Off-the-job conduct. Informed consent. Polygraph tests, 3-assumptions and 3 point for polygraph use. Personality tests. Monitoring employees on the job. 4-point on Drug Testing.Assumption of risk. Right to refuse dangerous work.  OSHA. Job Stress. Job Satisfaction. Hawthorne Effect.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Chapter 9: Homework

1- Define "legitimate" and "illegitimate influence."
2- What's "informed consent."
3- Describe the three most common assumptions about polygraph tests. What are the 3 points addressing moral concerns about polygraph tests.
4- About drug testing, explain the four remarks on page 484.
5- How does the text approach the issue of "day care" and "maternity leave"?
6- What's the Hawthorne effect?

Friday, March 4, 2011

Could you be fired for bad-mouthing your boss on facebook? (post for comment)


Yes. Read it here. I'd like you to write a post on this topic, which has to do with workers' rights vs. the interests of the corporation beyond the workplace. Who do you side with and why? Develop your argument. Go ahead!

I'll close this post next Friday, March 11 at 11pm.

Homework, Chapter 6

1. Why is MacPherson v. Buick Motors an important case concerning consumer protection?
2. Explain "due care" and "strict product liability."
3. Why is the 1972 Consumer Safety Act important?
4. Define "legal paternalism."
5. Being that as offering product safety either you regulate yourself or somebody else does, do you think self-regulation is better than government regulation? Explain.
6.Regarding the responsibility of business, go over the 6-point suggestion on pa. 302-303
7. Explain the following: (a) "manipulative pricing" (b) price fixing, (c) price gouging,
8. As we know, business ads can be deceptive. Give examples of the following: (a) concealment of facts, (b) exaggeration, (c) psychological appeals.
9. Should ads be directed at children? Which brings the next question, are children "consumers"?
   

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Friday, February 18, 2011

$6.5 million for hemorrhoid removals??


From Yahoo News:  Federal authorities charged more than 100 doctors, nurses and physical therapists in nine cities with Medicare fraud Thursday, part of a massive nationwide bust that snared more suspects than any other in history.

More than 700 law enforcement agents fanned out to arrest dozens of people accused of illegally billing Medicare more than $225 million. The arrests are the latest in a string of major busts in the past two years as authorities have struggled to pare the fraud that's believed to cost the government between $60 billion and $90 billion each year. Stopping Medicare's budget from hemorrhaging that money will be key to paying for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The idea behind Medicaid was to help eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It's a program intended to help the needy: funded by federal and states budgets. We taxpayers pay for the program. Fraud is a way to exploit the system, which in turn ends up making the system more difficult to support. 

Of course criminals don't stop for a second to think the social repercussions of their actions. That's a given. But then, they are not smart enough to make it more difficult for authorities to see it. Take the case of Dr.  Boris Sachakov from Brooklyn as an example: 
A Brooklyn, N.Y., proctologist was charged with billing $6.5 million for hemorrhoid removals, most of which he never performed. Dr. Boris Sachakov claimed he performed 10 hemorrhoid removals on one patient, which authorities said is not possible. An employee who answered at Sachakov's office declined comment Thursday. Sachakov had been arrested last year on charges related to a separate scam. Sachokov denied the charges.
This individual is a white-collar criminal and pretty bad at it. How could someone be so stupid to charge $6 million for hemorrhoid removals that were not performed? What can make someone so blind by greed that he can risk loosing everything? Money.

I'll close this post on Thursday, February 24 @ 11pm.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

How low can people fall to enrich themselves

Photo: New York Times

According to this New York Times article, a former Pennsylvania judge went on trial in federal court on Tuesday, charged with racketeering, bribery and extortion in what prosecutors say was a $2.8 million scheme to send juvenile delinquents to privately run prisons.

The case against the judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., who presided in Luzerne County, drew national attention for what legal experts say is a dangerous gap in the juvenile justice systems of many states — children appearing in court without lawyers. Mr. Ciavarella, now 60, sentenced thousands of young people, funneling them into two private detention centers prosecutors say were run by his friends who slipped him payments in a "cash for kids" scheme.
Professor Lawrence Tribe from Harvard sees it as a "Terrible lesson which highlights the dangers for juveniles who don't know their rights, haven't talked to a lawyer and are urged by overburdened courts to take a plea. Once that happens, future opportunities for the child are essentially gone." 

In court here on Tuesday, Gordon Zubrod, an assistant United States attorney, portrayed Mr. Ciavarella's actions over seven years as a plot to enrich himself. William Ruzzo, a lawyer for Mr. Ciavarella, denied the charges.
_________
Now, the charges against Ciavarella are bribery (i.e., an act implying money or gift given that changes the behavior of the recipient), and racketeering (i.e., a criminal demands money from a business in exchange for the service of "protection" against crimes that the racketeers themselves instigate if unpaid). 

The saddest part in all this is the price Ciavarella was willing to pay, that of sending probably innocent young man to jail.

I'll close this post Tuesday February 15 @ 11pm.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Homework, Chapter 3

1- In the context of Chapter 3 define:
a) justice, b) equality, c) rights (positive and negative)
2- Explain the utilitarian view of justice and its economic distribution.
3- Explain the Libertarian approach and its theory of distribution.
4- Explain the liberal approach and its economic distribution.

Monday, January 31, 2011

Egypt's revolution and its possible aftermath

The topic is the popular uprising in Egypt, going on its seventh day.

Egypt is not a monarchy (like Saudi Arabia, where incidentally women have no voting rights). Egypt is a –sort of- democracy: a perverse system that has kept the same government in power since 1981 (in the US we’ve had 5 presidents since!). How to fake an election? 1- Ban opposition parties (such as the Muslim Brothers),* 2- and rig results, which invariably -and overwhelmingly- end up supporting President Mubarak's Party. 3- Use "terror" as a weapon of dissuasion and conformity. Mubarak has used the terror card of Muslim fundamentalism as a political weapon to rule out opposition. The formula reads: "If I'm not in charge, there will be terror" (in fact, many governments balk at the possibility that Egypt’s crisis could descend into a sort of theocracy like Iran's).

Yet, the democratic argument is that sovereign people should build their own political future at the polls (meaning that voting is free and anonymous, something that does not happen in many cases).

Revolutions are great moments in history, but they're also highly unstable. So the question for many is, will this Egyptian revolution bring greater democracy to its people or would it replace Mubarak's dictatorship with a different kind of despotism?

What do you think? Go ahead!

__________
*A part of the ideology of the Muslim Brothers is establishing an Islamic State based on Shari'a law and the rejection of Western influence. In this case, religion and the State are inseparable, as is the case in Iran. Recently, the organization has taken steps to incorporate greater pluralism, but many people are still skeptical of the true intentions of the organization.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Post your comment here

I'll close the comments window next Tuesday, Jan. 25 at 11pm.

A former senior Swiss bank executive said on Monday that he had given the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, details of more than 2,000 prominent individuals and companies that he contends engaged in tax evasion and other possible criminal activity


This piece of news in the New York Times:
Rudolf M. Elmer, who ran the Caribbean operations of the Swiss bank Julius Baer for eight years until he was dismissed in 2002, refused to identify any of the individuals or companies, but he told reporters at a news conference that about 40 politicians and “pillars of society” were among them.
According to the article, "those named in the documents come from 'the U.S., Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia — from all over,' and include 'business people, politicians, people who have made their living in the arts and multinational conglomerates — from both sides of the Atlantic.'" 1

How should one react to this new development? Obviously, 1) Rudolf Elmer has committed the gravest of sins: to violate Switzerland's strict banking secrecy laws. 2) Wikileaks has gotten more oxygen: compromising data. Should we be interested? Well, Tax evasion is 3) an illegal practice and that those caught evading taxes are generally subject to criminal charges and substantial penalties.

Many people in the right of the political spectrum are bothered by Wikileaks constant noise. Advice: They should stick to their libertarian instincts and praise an organization that actually exposes government and corporate wrongdoing. A mature democracy depends on having an educated and informed electorate. There should be consensus that the actions of government and the state, as well as the competing political interests to exercise political power, should be underpinned by critical scrutiny and informed debate facilitated by the media.
  
Wikileaks is part of a new phenomenon that has to do with the disappearance of the traditional press as we know it. 2 However, that should not and will not contradict the basic assumption that there is no true democracy without a free press.  


Since 2007, Wikileaks has made public an impressive series of classified documents: the so-called Afghan War Diarya controversial video of an American Helicopter strike on Reuters journalists, the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate last November. The sheer amount of information and the manner in which it has been obtained has exceeded expectations.


Take note: something must be going on when Muammar Gaddafi, a dictator of Lybia for 40 years, calls Wikileaks "an evil organization." 3

What I'm talking about can be put in terms of a balance between liberal economy and morals. If democracy is, in the words of Lincoln in his Gettysburg address, "of the people, by the people, for the people," one can make a reasonable argument that it is in the best interest of the people to know when that covenant is broken, or put into risk.

Transparency and accountability are essential for the functioning of democracy. 


_____
1 The surprise here is that this case already has a history:  It started as a complaint filed in the Northern District of California by Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. (BJB) and its Cayman Islands unit against Wikileaks, its domain Wikileaks.org, and Dynadot, LLC, a domain registrar, claiming that the defendants unlawfully published confidential and counterfeit documents belonging to the bank. The plaintiffs sought the return of the documents in question, allegedly stolen from BJB by a disgruntled former employee, as well as the removal of those documents from defendants' Web sites. Wikileaks contended that the documents revealed illegal financial transactions and tax evasion by the bank, while BJB asserted that they contained confidential information belonging to the bank and its customers and that some of the documents had been altered. What happens next is that federal district court judge Jeffrey White granted the plaintiff relief in the form of a permanent injunction requiring Dynadot, based in San Mateo, California, to lock and disable the Wikileaks.org domain name on February 15, 2008. But the court's order met criticism on several grounds, including constitutional: The permanent injunction was widely condemned as excessive, particularly because the directive to Dynadot blocked an entire Web site on the basis of a dispute relating to a small portion of its content. Critics likened the order to the Pentagon Papers case in which the Supreme Court famously refused a request from the Justice Department to enjoin publication of articles based on documents illegally leaked from the Defense Department. 2Whatever the causes for such crisis, this is how Steve Coll for New America Foundation puts it:
The rate of destruction of professional journalism -and its output of independent reporting on American public institutions and on international affairs- is far outpacing the ability of new institutions to reproduce what is being lost, particularly in its civic functions. Secular and cyclical economic forces have suddenly combined to dismantle the business models that have for decades supported independent, public-minded reporting for large general audiences about local and state government, Congress, the executive branch, and international affairs. According to one organization that tracks newspaper job losses, the industry shed an estimated 15,970 jobs in 2008 and 8,484 through April of this year. The rapid and large-scale loss of independent reporting by many of these professionals, without any prospect of its replacement by new institutions in the foreseeable future, is an urgent matter of public interest.
3 By now we should be used to the "evil rhetoric."

Sunday, January 9, 2011

MWF 8am class: Post your comment here

I will close this post for comments on Saturday 15, @ 11pm.

Hyperbole, vitriol and bullets

In light of last night's shooting in Arizona, the issue on the table is freedom of expression. Much freedom is allowed when that it's used to distort and incite the masses. Giffords' shooting caused 6 lives, including Judge John Roll (on a Marchall protection plan) and a 9 year old girl.

We should learn that words and images have consequences:


I'm not saying Palin's "targets" caused Jared Lee to act. I simply point to a correlation between political rhetoric and people's beliefs. The vitriol, the constant use of guns together with the invocation of the Ur-Constitution1, which makes up for something as bizarre as this send-a-warrior-to-congress poster:

Is politics essentially a realm of hyperbole, distortions and vitriol? Predictably, gun rights' inflated language gets mixed with a bombastic and bellicose anti-government rhetoric:



In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill argues that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

There is a "liberal" interpretation of Mill. We should be free to express ourselves. The state should not interfere (in Liberalism the State is the bogeyman). Ideally, we should be educated enough to read between the lines and make up our minds. No one should do it for us. But as we know from the Lee Laughners and McVeighs of this world, there are intolerant and violent individuals who will not be educated and will buy the rhetoric. What then?

What do you do with false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language and dehumanizing metaphors? Are not these ingredients the perfect broth for "hate speech"?

In countries like Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands hate speech is prohibited. In our country, in light of the First Amendment, our position remains ambivalent. 

How do you reconcile freedom of expression in a world with terrorism and political polarization? Is there a middle way?
________


Update: To illustrate my point. Just after the shooting, members of the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church, known for their anti-homosexual propaganda proposed to picket funerals of Arizona victims. They published the following in their Website (appropriately dubbed www.godhatesfags.com):
God sent the shooter!

Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!
If these words not incendiary, what is?
_____
1By Ur-Constitution, I mean the "original constitution w/o amendments." A constitution that many people in our country keep invoking.