Am I Ethical?

After twenty-one years I have come up with one question that will help to define me as a person and overall human being. A question that not only asks about the person I have become but the person I will continue to grow and continue to become. 


Am I Ethical?

Well, lets first start off by taking a look at my values:
1. Honesty
2. Loyalty
3. Faith
4. Kindness
5. Compassion
6. Integrity 


I think that so far in my life I have lived up to my values in the strongest way possible. I have brought these values into my overall wellbeing and encompassed my life around these values. I could tell you certain situation where I have told the truth, or been fair, or stayed true to my friends, or fallen in love but that wouldn't be quite enough. All the examples will do is prove that I've done my work and I've been myself. Values are about taking someone's word that they are telling the truth and that they abide by these values day-in and day-out. So I ask you to you take my word and understand that I have tried my very best to follow these values and to be the most ethical person that I can be. This isn't to say that I am perfect and I don't make mistakes because I can assure (as can my best friends) that this is not the case. I am simply saying that I am trying. I am trying and have been trying to be the most ethical, honest, loyal, integrity, faithful, kind, and compassionate person that I know how to be. I think I've done pretty well so far. 


Thank you for all who have been listening. I appreciate you!




Have a wonderful day! It's time to graduate college! Go me!




I will leave you with a quote:


“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching.”

Food Crisis in The World

In relation to my adverting vs. ethical violations blog I wanted to relate this blog about a food crisis in the world. I think these two topics relate because advertisements continue show skinny males and females, naked and beautiful. Our society is accustomed to thinking that this is the way we must look. This is a huge issue. We are human beings, we are all different.


I think the most significant food crisis facing the world today is the actual effect that food is having on our mental health. Basically, there is this obsession with being thin and it is having an impact on society’s wellbeing. I guess that would be described as our “lack” of food consumption crisis then..? This issue affects both men and women around the world. Someone somewhere started this crisis that everyone must eat “low cal”, “fat free”, “whole wheat”, and whatever else you can find, foods. I think same crisis is much more prevalent in the US due to the extreme obesity and body image issues. I do think that these issues can be solved as soon as everyone realizes that you don’t need to be a size zero or look like the Hulk in order to fit in or be accepted by society. We are all meant to be different shapes, sizes, colors and we should be able to eat what we want (within reason) and once people realize that then yes, I think we can solve this crisis.

 

Below is a youtube video created by Dove, Real Beauty Campaign  which i think is a great depiction of the influence advertisements can have on us. 

Sandals Resort case study

When writing something online, it is automatically open for the public to read. There are no barriers and whatever you wrote is “fair game” for anyone else to stumble upon. Today, there are various viewpoints and opinions written about just about any topic you can think of. However, if one is to write something online anonymously, can they be held accountable?

I think this is clearly demonstrated in the court case concerning Sandals resort chain and an anonymous writer in May 2011. The issue at hand is that pseudo name, John Anthony sent messages to the Sandals resort chain referring that the hiring methods were inappropriate and unlawful from the email address jft3092@gmail.com. This individual went into detail abut the hiring methods. The NY Supreme Court Justice however said that Sandals was not entitled to the information that Anthony wrote and that is was not defamatory because it was an opinion. The case goes on and as it turns out, the court disagreed with resort chain for various reasons.

Is it ethical??

I think that people have the right to type with what they want within reason. Obviously, if it is defamatory then there is no question, it should not be written. It is unethical to talk poorly or inappropriately about a certain person or company in my opinion. Int his situation I think that the anonymous emailer should be penalized for talking badly about the company by a slap on the wrist- more of a warning. Otherwise, I think it is fair game, it really is just an opinion statement. To another individual their hiring methods maybe be appropatire. It is simply about who you ask.

Plagiarism: What is it?

“The bees pillage the flowers here and there but they make honey of them which is all their own; it is no longer thyme or marjolaine: so the pieces borrowed from others he will transform and mix up into a work all his own.”

           - Michael Eyquen de Montaigne*

At one point in time, someone came to plant these flowers only hoping their yard would look more beautiful. The bees came to the flowers and made honey with what they found. The bees used other’s resources however made something completely their own with what they found. I vote that this is completely fair when referencing plagiarism. 

Plagiarism is taking someone else’s ideas, writing, art or anything else that can be determined as personally unique. Personally, meaning that only one person is able to name it as their own and unique, meaning that there is nothing identical to it. Plagiarism is a difficult topic to reason with because today the rules or guidelines of what is, are blurred beyond imagination. It is an issue that individuals of all ages are dealing with on a daily basis. Whether they’re in their freshman year of college or their tenth year at the law firm, the rules apply to everyone. It is a subject that causes a great deal of problems yet is necessary in order to preserve people’s creativity. It would be poor behavior if anyone were able to use a piece of work, no matter the content, and receive credit. It is just immoral and unethical hence the reason plagiarism came to be.

The more plagiarism is referenced, the stronger the argument becomes for heavier punishment. At this point in time there are a variety of different punishments depending on where the act takes place. Not to mention, the idea of how to prevent plagiarism from occurring becomes a larger discussion at school board meetings and executive board meetings around the country. It would be easy to say, “We should trust everyone not to plagiarize.” However, that may be the easiest solution but not a realistic one at that. A reasonable option would be to enforce the academic, legal and institutional punishments as mentioned on the Plagarism.org website. Plagiarism is often handled in a gentler manner than suggested by the written laws. It is understandable seeing as each case is different therefore no matter how the issue is dealt with today or tomorrow, in a few years the issue will have taken on a whole new set of rules.

Overall, plagiarism is something that will continue to cause problems within academic and occupational careers for many years to come. As far as today’s generation is concerned, we must follow the wise words of Michael Eyquen de Montaigne; find our own “flowers” and simply create our own “honey.” It is a matter of creating and crediting what is yours while the rest remains mystery. It is a matter of what is ethically correct.

Apple vs. Ethics

All I have heard lately about Apple has generally been negative things. Aside from the new Ipads and Iphones being invented its been bad news bears. When referencing the ethical values of Apple I think a lot of them have been neglected on recent standings.In Apple factories there have been issues concerning health and meeting safety guidelines. In a number of different photos (some shown below) there have been multiple protests by factory workers. Even in one of the photos if you look closely enough you will notice that in the foreground there are workers simply working on iPads or something of that nature but when you look at the background of the photo you will see individuals wearing full face masks. 

This brings about the questions:

What are the workers doing in the background that makes them need a mask but the people a foot away don't need masks?

Is this safe?

Is this ethical?

I cant answer the first question but I can only image that this is NOT safe. In no way could a chemical or whatever substance is so unsafe that masks must be worn, be able to be inhaled by others. I think that this situation clearly contradicts Apple's ethical framework. THey are supposed be a company of truth and honor. BUt instead they display themselves in a manner of disgust where their "ever-so-amazing" products are being created. To answer the third question, is Apple ethical. My answers seems to be NO. 

Let's Meet and Eat Meat

In today's society we are wrapped up in the idea of being healthy and doing what is best for our bodies. Everyone's definition of "healthy" is different for every person you ask. My idea of being healthy is having the correct balance of nutrition and exercise in your daily lifestyle. This of course includes the obvious consumption of dairy, carbs, fats (good and bad- splurging a little never killed anyone!), sodium, sugar and of course, protein. Protein I think is the most important component in one's diet. This answers the pertinent question of being a meat-eater. I choose to eat meat because I have grown up eating chicken, steak, pork chops, filet, you name it, I've most likely eaten it. 


Vegetarian Times study shows 7.3 million Americans are vegetarians and an additional 22.8 million follow a vegetarian-inclined diet. Therefore, on the other and, a large number of Americans choose not to eat meat. It may be for reasons of the taste or it may be the reason of animal cruelty or it could be various other reasons. I, personally, eat meat due to the fact that not only is it delicious but it provides me with a balanced and nutritious diet. I don't like the taste of many fish so my sole leader of protein in my diet comes from meat. I may be unknowledgeable about the animal and production process of the meat and for now, I am fine with being unaware. I like eating meat, and that is the way it is going to stay!


If you are vegetarian or a red-meat vegetarian, click here to learn more about that type of lifestyle!


A fun video about why you should eat meat and where it comes from:

Take a Step Back

I want to another look at TCU's situation over the past semester and how when referencing the balance of means, everything plays out. 

In order to create balance in our lives we must follow a few basic rules, which lead us to life full of success. These rules are composed of balance of means, utilitarianism, veil of ignorance, universalized actions and cosmopolitianism. There are various situations in an individual’s life where these ethical guidelines may play out. With the guidelines, one may learn something new about themselves or learn a new way of life, which they had never experienced before. These ethical guidelines create a basis for making moral decisions.

A particular situation where Aristotle’s Balance of Mean concept presents itself in various situations throughout the world on daily basis. Aristotle’s theory on virtue ethics is one that does not see a person’s actions as a reflection of their ethics, but rather looks into the character of a person as the reason behind their ethics. His concept stats that there is a desirable middle ground between two extremes, one of excess and other of deficiency. Furthermore, Greeks believed there to be three “ingredients” to beauty: symmetry, proportion and harmony. These three “ingredients” are extremely relevant and play a large part in finding that middle ground of balance.

An example of Aristotle’s Balance of Mean theory has become extremely applicable for the students and community at TCU within the past few weeks. On February 15, 2012 at 5:30am there was a drug bust conducted by the TCU and Fort Worth Police officials in order to confiscate any drug dealers on or around the TCU campus. Seventeen students were arrested on drug related charges, all of whose names were published in local newspapers, including arrest warrants.  Later in the morning Chancellor Boschini and TCU representatives made public announcement about the situation. Chancellor Boschini addressed the situation with honor and grace as he discussed that TCU would not accept this sort of behavior and the zero tolerance policy would remain in effect. The drug bust reached national news and was featured in newspapers and television stories throughout the week. Even more so, the media continued to hassle and heckle TCU for its student’s misconduct. Various media stations were at the scene of the arrests on the early Wednesday morning, which caused a large disturbance among community members. Overall, when relating this case to of Aristotle’s Balance of Mean theory it displays the extreme of excess. The situation was blown to extreme proportions and heavily weighted on the TCU community. The desired middle ground would have been to handle each case individually but still keep students and community informed with a generalized statement. This would have created a balance in the situation allowing for the charged individuals to handle the media and public opinions at their own discretion. 

Advertising and Ethical Violations

As an advertising major I have essentially been taught to do whatever is necessary to sell a product. I, personally, understand the limitations of this and realize what would be appropriate for the public eyes. Now some advertising and fashion icons I feel did not get the same memo. For example, Tom Ford, Dolce and Gabbana  and Ralph Lauren seem to take "reaching the audience" a little too far. In our generation, do the same rules apply to fifty years ago? WHat makes something inappropriate?


I think that it is an ethical violation to show any female or male parts in order to sell a product. The images below are advertisements from Tom Ford and Dolce & Gabbana that I find inappropriate for the public eye. I understand that he is trying to make eye-catching statements but I think he is taking this a but too far. In my opinion it is unethical to show pornographic or somewhat pornographic images. We are consumers don't want to see that in a magazine or as we drive down the road. It is just not necessary. Not to mention, have we really reached a point of sacrificing our bodies? This is just wrong for the female gender to objectify our bodies even more than it already is!

Ignorance or Ignorant?

John Rawls create the theory concerning the Veil of Ignorance. It relates the determination of morality in the sense that the veil covers the "face" of whomever has to make an ethical decision. The veil withdraws any external information concerning factors that would effect the decision being made. For example, it would disregard race, ethnicity, gender, age, and many other things that would effect the decision. The Veil of Ignorance theory allows equality and balance within society. 
A situation where the equality has been skewed is in the JC Penny case study. If you unaware, Ellen DeGeneres recently became the spokesperson for JC Penney. I personally love Ellen and think this a great campaign for her! However, in this instance, a group called One Million Moms is trying revoke the partnership and saying that Ellen should not be the spokesperson do her homosexuality. One Million Moms have gotten media attention and the case has been on national television. I am happy to say that JC Penney decided to disregard this group and any other negative views and has kept their partnership with Ellen strong. This situation demonstrates how rude and narrow-minded some individuals can be. It is sad that our society is still so judgmental of one person's decision on his or her own sexuality. 
All-in-all, I think the JC Penney made a wonderful decision and should continue to look beyond the external factors and follow Rawls theory concerning the Veil of Ignorance.


Below is a quick video explaining Ellen's stance on the topic:

Right Vs. Wrong

On daily basis we contemplate the right and wrong things to do. Whether it be something as simple as recycling or not, or something as important as choosing to rob a bank (drastic, i know) but regardless, a decision must be made. How do we know which is the right decision. Clearly, when regarding the bank robbery, i would hope that most of you would decline that opportunity if it ever arises.
At a young age our parents instill in us three important things, love, respect, and values, of course amongst many other things but I think these are within the top five at least. From the beginning they teach us that hitting is wrong, you should always use your please & thank yous, never ask someone how old they are, and you should know the difference between right and wrong. However, can right vs. wrong, be taught? I think that has a simple answer, no. Right decision vs. wrong decision is not something that we can read about in a book. Instead, we learn through way of life and with experience. When you push your best friend down when your little, they cry, you learned that crying is a way to show sadness or hurtfulness therefore you learn that pushing (which made them cry) must be bad. The values our parents instilled in us at that young age I think are guidelines for learning ethics later in life. We learn that most things in life have ethical reasoning. The ethics that we learn help us to better make decisions. As stated before, these decisions can be an 1 second answer or two-day answer. It doesn't matter, all that matter is that at the end of the day you're happy with your decision and your not afraid to own the decision you made. If you dont want to announce the decision you've made and you're not proud of it, whelp, you my friend may have picked the wrong answer.

Have a great day! Make good decisions!

A Day At the Ball Game

When you think of baseball games, what comes to mind? Home runs? Peanuts? Cold beer? Hot dogs? Injuring yourself... probably not. Well Shannon Stone's family surely didn't think so. But in reality, in July 2011, the Stone family endured a tragic event where they lost a major part of their family. 

Most of you Texans are probably already know the story of what happened to Shannon Stone when he fell from the stands during the summer game. What most of you probably don't know is how the owner, Nolan Ryan, handled the situation. I am happy to inform you that Ryan handled the case with grace, honor, and the utmost respect for the family.

Now-a-days we hear stories and are disappointed about the outcome. More often than not, the PR is bad and doesn't do the story justice. I know it sounds bad but I think that today we are more focused on the drama of the story than the actual facts. I hope that there are still reporters and public relations gurus who see the heart in the story. I hope that there are still CEOs and Presidents that realize saying sorry doesn't mean you failed. It is not a sign of a weakness but rather, a time to shine and a time to realize your mistakes in order to fix them the next time around. There is always room for improvement. There is always room to become someone better and wiser than you ever were before.

For more information on the story of Shannon Stone please visit http://abcnews.go.com/Health/texas-baseball-fan-shannon-stone-asked-son-fatal/story?id=14030458#.Tz1P_ZhZVAc

For Nolan Ryan's comments on the situation please watch the video provided below:

A look at the traditional family

Lets take a look a the traditional family. That being, mom stays home and dad does to work, kids go to school. It is the basis for our livelihood and I think it should be analyzed.  

I think that in some ways the traditional family was better for society. This is because everyone knew what their role was in society and there weren’t any questions of quality of life or social standings. I think it was a simpler time and possibly more peaceful. Everyone knew what was expected of him or her and they had no problem delivering what was asked.

However, at the same time I think that the traditional family was not better for society because at this day in age, the options are endless. I think that since our society has grown so much concerning equality, opportunity, employment, and has had overall lifestyle changes. I think that today, the traditional family would not have been beneficial because we need change. We cannot live in the past and think that the same “rules” of family still apply. Times change and so do our expectations; it is just the way life goes.

I do not think that our society will ever be able to return to that version of a family because we have learned too much to move backward. As women, we have discovered the self-fulfillment of having a job AND raising a family. We are society that tries to multitask and handle everything under the sun. If we were told that we must all stay at home while our husbands work, there would be a riot. Some women may be fine with that and for them it will work, but what about all those women who love their jobs and love what they do? The standard has risen for the “traditional family” and probably won’t be returning to what it used to be in a very long time, if ever. 

A life with Technology

Let's start off with a question:

When did the "thing to do" become the "five things to do at once"?

In our society we are constantly doing more than one things at once. You name it: texting and driving, eating while watching TV, skyping while texting, walking and talking, working out and listening to music... the list is never ending. Why does we feel so inclined to have to do so many things at once? Are there not enough hours in the day to complete the necessary tasks? I personally think it comes down to one thing: we got bored.

We became bored doing the same thing all the. We needed to mix it up and try something new. It's the same reason technology is always changing, we need something new to play with and to wrap our minds around. We are infatuated with new things, whether that be new games to play, new phones to figure out, new TV shows to watch. Our lives revolve around the update of technology and we're so blinded by it all that we don't even see it. More often than not, we go out to dinner with other individuals, and spend more time on our phones than we do talking to the person sitting next to us. I can't say Im not guilty of it. But i just wish that for one day, we went back to the way things used to be, a simpler time. A day when a family dinner meant, no talk of religion or politics and all phones, computers, and non-existant iPads were left in the other room. I dont want it to go back that way forever, lets face it, our world would crumble. I just think that all of could use a dose of reality and cause us to pump the breaks on this busy life were so engaged in.


Below is short clip from John King on CNN concerning a hour and half without technology

It's All Political

Since a young age I have been taught the Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. And for majority of my life, I would like to think that I have followed this rule and kept up my end of the deal. But what happens when I am not the one deciding how people deserve to be treated. If everyone is nice to each individual they come across, assuming they don’t want to be treated badly, then the world would be nice and dandy place. WRONG. That isn't exactly realistic. That’s why we have villains and bullies and just your average grumpy people; the world isn't perfect. I guess my question is: when Mill's Principle of Utility is put into play, how do we know who is coming up on the good end of the deal? The principle states that we should "seek the greatest happiness for the aggregate whole." So are you just S.O.L if you're not in the majority whole?

This immediately reminds me of political campaigns. Every four years we have someone “x” amount of people run for office and only one person becomes President of the United States. What if you didn’t vote for this person? What if you don’t believe in his or her morals and background? I suppose you just have to wait until the next four years. Realistically, there is no way to please everyone but in our society I suppose we try to do what is best for the largest amount, that way you piss of the least amount of people possible. Seems pretty political if you ask me.

To learn more about Mill’s Principles please visit:

http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Crs/MILL.pdf

Disconnect While Connecting

After reading WIlliam Power's book, "Hamlet's Blackberry" a certain point to me stuck out like a sore thumb; Chapter Nine, titled "Inventing Your Life." The chapter's first paragraph goes on to talk about how no-email Fridays would be a successful way to go about our business week. For just one day a week, we completely disconnect ourselves via email/technology and allow more personal interactions to arise.
Powers' discusses that it echos the casual Friday act that everyone so quickly responded to in a positive manner. I, however, think disconnecting would be relaxing although initially stressful. In fact, on page 163 it reads, "man is a sociable being, and it is... one of the worst punishments to be excluded from society." Powers could not have worded it any better. Although, i do not have any book or movie to reference, I do have personal knowledge as well as a credible educational background that backs me up when I say, we as a individuals need society. There is no way to go around it. In our society, no-email Friday is more of a management problem than not enough cokes in the vending machines. We are dependent upon communication with one another. In the present day, we get emails constantly throughout the day. A few years ago, it wasn't uncommon to hear back from someone by the end of the day if you emailed them in the morning. However, if I got an email today, I can almost guarantee that individual will have a  response within at least one hour, sometimes one minute if I am on my computer. I understand that Powers' thinks that this type of solution will help you invent yourself by causing you to network and interact on a face-to-face basis but I think more people will get frustrated than relieved. Overall, I think no-email Friday would be a positive way to invent your life like Powers suggest. Although i hate to say it, I just dont think it is a realistic option for today's society. Especially for the Gen-Y era whom are constantly multitasking and attempting (key word) to do five things at once.

The Joy of Quiet, What Is It Worth?

After recently reading a NY Times article, "The Joy of Quiet," I made a significant correlation to the current bills attempted to being passed, SOPA and PIPA. In the NY Times article it discussed that our society has become so overwhelmed with technology and social media networking today that more often than none, we are trying to avoid it at all costs. The cost of course being a wager in eliminating all communication for "x" amount of time. For many years in our society we have been told that having the newest, nicest, quickest, most up-to-date items will make us successful. However, in the article it recalls that we actually need to step away from this busy and flustered life in order to be successful. Being happy and successful is parallel to finding yourself within the stillness of life. 
Now, ask me in 20 minutes when I'm par-oozing on Facebook and I'll probably contradict all that I'm about to say. Yet, there is a slight chance that SOPA/PIPA are solutions to this problem our society is having to find the stillness in life. On the off chance that you are not familiar with SOPA and PIPA, they are acts which "Stop Online Piracy" and "Prevent Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property." On the TED blog (can be seen below), I recently watched a video, "Why SOPA is a bad idea" by Clay Shirky. In the video, Shirky talks about how if these bills are passed our lives will change drastically, there is no argument in that. However, what if these bills merely simplify our lives. They would be taking away majority of free speech, which i fully disagree with. However, they are also looking to take away a lot of complications and reduce the over abundance of technology available to us. I'm not saying I agree with the two bills, I just think it is something to consider. If we want to enjoy the peace and quiet in the world than sacrifices have to be made and certain things will have to be eliminated. We need to make an ethical decision to determine what it is we are willing to give up for the gift of a joyous and simplified lifestyle. Beggars can't be choosers, I suppose the saying goes.