A634.4.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 This is a question that has been turning in my head since I read our chapter on affirmative action.  I can most definitely see both sides of the argument but after much reflection I have to agree with LaFollette in that affirmative action is the only way that we can level out the playing field, he states “affirmative action is one weapon in the battle to overcome that disadvantage” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 92).

I think one of the most predominant arguments I have heard when I ask for people’s opinion on affirmative is that it is reverse racism.  First of all, let’s look at what reverse racism means.  When an employer decides to implement affirmative action in their company and chooses a qualified black candidate, in an effort to create more diversity within the workforce, they are not acting through the lens of racism.  They are not looking at the other white candidates and thinking “I am not hiring this person because they are white”.  That is not what is going through their minds.  Instead, they are making a conscious decision to diversify their workforce by introducing more qualified non-white employees.  It would be preposterous to assume that racism is at hand.  LaFollette (2007) makes an excellent point when he argues that:

Whites have subjected blacks to decades of systematic and widespread discrimination.  In contrast, affirmative action is not part of a network of discrimination against whites.  Whites are not thought to be inferior to blacks.  Indeed, whites’ interests have been – and continue to be – well protected by political, legal, economic, and social institutions. (p. 88).

Another argument from opponents of affirmative action is that people of today shouldn’t have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors.  I can understand the logic in this but LaFollette (2007) brings up another valid point.  He states:

Affirmative action does not punish sons for the sins of their fathers.  Rather it holds that the children and grandchildren of those who wronged blacks should not continue to benefit from those ancient wrongs, and that the progeny of wronged blacks should not continue to suffer effects of those wrongs (p. 89).

This makes perfect sense to me.  If my grandfather killed your grandfather and stole all his wealth leaving your grandmother to raise all of her children in poverty and with no opportunity to an education which means no opportunity for a good job.  Now their children also are born in poverty with the same lack of resources.  In the meantime my grandfather capitalized on his wealth and passed that wealth on to his children and then on to me.  Now I am reaping the benefits of what really is blood money.  I may not have been responsible but what I have inherited, whether it be money or opportunities, but it exists because of a crime that was committed against your family two generations ago.  Affirmative action is not saying that the debt has to be paid, it is only saying that compensation of some sort is warranted.  If not, what kind of people are we?  What kind of examples are we setting for our children and for society if we cannot assume responsibility for the crimes of our ancestors?  When I child breaks a neighbors window, who pays for it?  The parent does.  You do not see the parent shrugging his shoulders and telling the neighbor “it’s not my problem, my kid did it”.  Someone has to assume responsibility.

Another argument against affirmative action is that it stigmatizes blacks.  But there is a flaw in this thinking.  Stigma is only another form of discrimination.  If a black person is stigmatized by their white counterparts due to a gained opportunity through affirmative action, then that particular perspective or attitude is racist to begin with.  A stigma is “a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation” ("Stigma,", n.d.).   To automatically assume that a black person has been hired or admitted to college due to affirmative action is a racist behavior to begin with and completely contradicts the argument.

But I think one of the strongest arguments for affirmative action is that it fosters cultural diversity and “helps create tolerant communities because it exposes people to a variety of cultures and ideas that are different from their own” (Mount Holyoke College, n.d.).  Dontigney (n.d.) states that by adding diversity to the workplace you also have access to many more resources and an array of perspectives.  “Companies that embrace a multi-cultural employee roster are better positioned to serve multi-cultural communities, by overcoming language and cultural barriers” (Dontigney, n.d.).

I think before someone refutes affirmative action they really need to reflect on why the idea upsets them.  Is it because the person is black?  Is it because they got the job and not you? Is it because you feel they are less qualified? And if so, how do you know this?  What evidence do you have?  It’s easy to yell “reverse discrimination” but you have to make sure your intentions are justified or you are just exhibiting a less overt form of racism.  

References

Dontigney, E. (n.d.). Advantages and disadvantages of affirmative action in the workplace. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-affirmative-action-workplace-18141.html

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Mount Holyoke College. (n.d.). https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jesan20l/classweb/pright.html

Stigma. (n.d). Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http

A634.3.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Interestingly enough I am familiar with the types of behaviors that Kramer describes in his article.  I work with the educational system and for a university that is nonprofit.  And yes, even in the nonprofit sector we see leaders rise and we see them crash and burn.  I can give one example of a co-worker of mine let’s call him John, who started in the same ranks as I did.  He was blessed with a certain ambitiousness and assertiveness that I do not possess.  I watched him climb his way to the top of the food chain until he was working at our main headquarters head to head with the big honchos of our organization.  I remember at the Assistant Director position he was very well liked and all of us always looked forward to spending time with him at reunions, graduations, and other conferences that we attended.  When he was promoted to Director, he still maintained the same likeability and charisma with his fellow colleagues but his staff was beginning to see how his new freedoms affected his job performance.  We who shared similar roles were willing to forgive certain behaviors only because we knew him and still respected him as a person.  Kramer explains that the followers of great leaders usually are not pointing out their flaws and instead generally will look the other way (Kramer, 2003).  Kramer explains the dangers that leaders face when they don’t reflect on the ingratiating behavior their subordinates demonstrate towards them and thus it creates the false illusion that they are perfect.   Needless to say, when John was promoted and moved to the “White House” of the organization, which is the headquarters for the entire university, we began to see the changes in him.  Kramer (2003) likes to call one of the big follies of leaders in these positions as the “sin of omission” and this is where John started to fail as a leader.  What got him to the top which was his assertiveness, hard work and “whatever it takes” type of attitude began to slack.  He became lazy and started making a lot of mistakes.  Curiously, he had always been someone who paid attention to details but he stopped “sweating the small stuff” as Kramer (2003) would say.  Eventually his department suffered as well as his employees who had to pick up the slack for him.  

An interesting view on this topic is the fall of  religious leaders.  When we think of religious leaders we think they are endowed with values such as kindness, compassion, empathy, honesty and integrity, yet time and time again we see religious leaders fall from grace.  One of the reasons that we are seeing this is “because of the celebrity status we give” to these religious leaders   (Wallen, 2015).  They begin to lose perspective on why they began the kind of work that so impassioned them in the beginning and are given almost God-like qualities by their followers.  In this case, followers are just as much to blame in feeding the type of scandals and corruption that befalls religious leaders because they are not reminding them of their humility (Kramer, 2003).  Kramer explains that it goes beyond personal flaws or a lack of moral fiber, and in fact has to do with a change in behavior that comes with the pursuit of power.  According to social psychologist Dacher Keltner, empirical studies show that “people who have power suffer deficits in empathy, the ability to read emotions, and the ability to adapt behaviors to other people” and furthermore, "power can actually change how the brain functions” (Solomon, 2015).  Scientifically, how power changes our behavior as a leader makes a lot of sense.  The science of neuroplasticity demonstrates “the potential that the brain has to reorganize by creating new neural pathways to adapt, as it needs” ("Neuroplasticity," 2010).  In fact, the science of neuroplasticity is being used in many management and leadership programs to teach people how to “rewire” their brains. One example is the Neuro Leadership Institute which uses science to create better leaders.  Banking on this idea of neuroplasticity, we can imagine how leaders who are surrounded by power somehow lose touch with the basic principles that got them to where they are.  Our brains can easily rewire to adapt to new environments and in essence is a way of survival.  When you are at the top of the food chain, the only way to stay at the top is to survive, and that means doing whatever it takes.  Hence we are willing to make many trade-offs to guard this position and sometimes don’t even realize our mind has gone into survival mode.

References

Kramer, R. M. (2003, October). The harder they fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=09f16198-cfdb-44a9-bec4-5d9678b17694%40sessionmgr103&vid=0&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d&preview=false#AN=10986098&db=bth

Neuroplasticity. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.whatisneuroplasticity.com/

Solomon, L. (2015, April 21). Becoming powerful makes you less empathetic. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic

Wallen, A. (2015). Why Christian leaders are falling into scandal . Retrieved from http://www.charismanews.com/us/48807-why-christian-leaders-are-falling-into-scandal

A634.2.4.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

        Before delving into my personal thoughts on Consequentialism and Deontology, I would first like to offer the definitions of both schools of thought that resonated the best with me.  The first definition is of Consequentialism which is defined as:

An approach to ethics that argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or consequence. Thus, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome or result, and the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh all other considerations (Philosophy Basics website, n.d.).

Within consequentialism there are multiple types such as Utilitarianism, Rule Consequentialism, Egoism, etc. Each type is a variation of the main theory but all are based on the concept that “we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007).  Now this is a very generic way to look at consequentialism, since apart from looking at consequences, the consequentialist also will consider whether the consequences are morally relevant, the importance or weight of each consequence and how it should be applied in moral reasoning (LaFollette, 2007).

Deontology on the other hand is “a system of ethics that judges actions based on whether they adhere to a rule or a set of rules” ("Deontological," n.d.).  Therefore a deontologist would decide if something is ethically wrong or right depending on whether it breaks or follows a rule (Goldstein, 2013).  One of the aspects open to debate for deontologists is determining which actions are right and which ones are wrong.

After studying both theories I feel that a combination of both theories is necessary and useful in making ethical decisions.  Basing our decisions from a purely consequential viewpoint could lead to very poor ethical decisions and cause us to act immorally, and the same can be said of deontology.  An example of this would be an act that most of us would consider immoral, which is rape.  What if all the men of a society decided that raping a woman was a good thing because it provided a benefit to the entire male population?  It would fill a very basic sexual need, provide a quick means of procreation and the general population would be extremely happy.  We could consider this an action that provides the greatest and most beneficial consequences.  Using this same example, let’s imagine an apocalyptic world where there are many men but only one or two women.  The men in this society have decided that rape is a necessary action that will provide the greatest consequences for all involved.  The human population has dwindled and there is an urgent need to repopulate the earth to create more life on the planet.  In both of these instances I feel rape is morally wrong, yet in the apocalyptic setting I would be more inclined to accept the action as a duty or moral obligation.  My standpoint would be considered consequentialist.  A deontologist on the other hand would consider the rules in both scenarios.  Imagining that the moral rule that raping is bad, a deontologist generally would say that rape is rape, regardless of the consequences, and therefore it is morally bad.  Yet, in the apocalyptic setting, if repopulating the world was a duty that we all needed to fulfill then raping would be considered good because it is a moral rule that enjoins “me to promote the happiness of others” but the action should not be taken “if I thereby violate some stronger or more important rule” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 31).  In this case, repopulating the Earth is an urgent need and the duty of all therefore ethically we can support the decision.

I would venture to agree with Smith when he says that “any consequentialist system of ethics requires deontological rules to make it tick” and “any deontological system requires consequentialism for its implementation” (Smith, 2011).  Smith resumes these statements by concluding that “all ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialist in nature, since they all require a rule for motivation and an outcome measure for implementation”.  The classic story of Robin Hood is a great example of how consequentialism and deontology come together.  A deontologist would say that stealing is morally unethical.  But if we set a rule that we only steal from the rich, and we can prove that the consequences are beneficial to all since the rich will still more than likely continue being rich, but the poor will be less poor but happier, then we can justify this action as morally acceptable.

I feel that we can’t adhere to the strict application of one theory or the other but need to consider each situation carefully and use thoughtful reasoning and ethical theorization when deciding how to act in different situations.  Being equipped with the knowledge of both theories and accepting the possibility of using one or the other or combining the two, will give us a better perspective and a higher chance of making morally just decisions.

References

Deontological ethics [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Business Dictionary Online. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from  http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deontological-ethics.html

Goldstein, J. (2013, July 2). Ethics: Deontology versus consequentialism - Lesson 1 Kant [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Da0EtI3b4I

La Follette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Philosophy Basics website. (n.d.). http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html

Smith, N. [Noahpinion]. (2011, February 16). All ethical systems are both deontological and consequentialist [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.es/2011/02/all-ethical-systems-are-both.html