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: