It was hard for me after reading this article, and seeing the video clip, to not laugh in unbelief that this kind of thing still happens. A school director in Georgia made some very racists comments after she started losing control of the crowd at a High School graduation ceremony.
See the USA Today article and clip: USATODAY
As well as another view from the same event: YOUTUBE
What is further interesting about this piece is not only did she seem to have extremely poor social and leadership skills, he apology was equally bizarre. First she said "I didn't know 'black people' was a racist remark." (Dallof & Fieldstadt, 2015). She then later went on essentially say the devil made her do it.
The specific ethical issue I would like to investigate here (there are many!) is the response of the school to her actions. While this was not (yet) a criminal case, the school responded with one of Five Common approaches to punishment: Incapacitation (Rosenstand, 2013). They swiftly fired her, preventing her from speaking with "authority" in that situation again. I believe they responded in the correct manner. While some might cite freedom of speech as justifiable grounds for her action, it is right on the part of the school (prior to legal action) to take the issue and pass judgment on her actions. I believe that a private enterprise has complete justification to fire and hire it's employees as it sees fit.
References:
Rosenstand, N. (2013). Different Gender, Different Ethics? In The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics(7th ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dallof, S., & Fieldstadt, L. (2015). TNT Academy Director Who Singled Out Black People Says She's Not A Racist. NBC News. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tnt-academy-director-who-said-all-black-people-says-shes-n357141
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Saturday, May 9, 2015
The Ethics of Surveillance
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/07/404898259/federal-court-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal
This past Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that the National Security Agency's (NSA) level of surveillance was excessive and illegal.
I think this issue, puts in view an interesting perspective on utilitarianism. While I generally do not consider myself in agreement with utilitarianism, in this case occasionally do. Generally, I do not care if the government spies on me, or "invades" my privacy. I take the view that my understanding of privacy and rights is largely colored by this present society and culture we live in, not by any inherent rights of a human being. Some cultures have far more, and far less privacy, and that's ok.
However, I do not necessarily take the view that the high state of surveillance is a good thing either. It could be said that by making a few people very UNHAPPY by surveillance, you are protecting the greater good. I just don't see it. My position is less that I am ok with surveillance because I think it is helping the greater number of people, but more because I just don't mind it. I understand the implications of it going bad, but I am not interested in investing my time or energy to avoid it.
If I move deeper in, beyond my (apparent) lazy response, I find any ruling that protects the declared rights of U.S. citizens to be a good move. Again, I do not think these rights are critically important to a human being, but when we have a law (the Constitution) I believe we should uphold it, or change it outright, not simply roll over it and ignore it.
This past Thursday, a federal appeals court ruled that the National Security Agency's (NSA) level of surveillance was excessive and illegal.
I think this issue, puts in view an interesting perspective on utilitarianism. While I generally do not consider myself in agreement with utilitarianism, in this case occasionally do. Generally, I do not care if the government spies on me, or "invades" my privacy. I take the view that my understanding of privacy and rights is largely colored by this present society and culture we live in, not by any inherent rights of a human being. Some cultures have far more, and far less privacy, and that's ok.
However, I do not necessarily take the view that the high state of surveillance is a good thing either. It could be said that by making a few people very UNHAPPY by surveillance, you are protecting the greater good. I just don't see it. My position is less that I am ok with surveillance because I think it is helping the greater number of people, but more because I just don't mind it. I understand the implications of it going bad, but I am not interested in investing my time or energy to avoid it.
If I move deeper in, beyond my (apparent) lazy response, I find any ruling that protects the declared rights of U.S. citizens to be a good move. Again, I do not think these rights are critically important to a human being, but when we have a law (the Constitution) I believe we should uphold it, or change it outright, not simply roll over it and ignore it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)