A Reflection of Our Learning

            Upon nearing the completion of this course in ethics, there are three key lessons that I will take away.  The first key lesson is the self-reflection of one’s ethical behavior.  We believe that our behaviors and/or actions are ethical but that is not always the case.  One must be able to reasonably defend his or her ethical stance.  For example, I am opposed to increased gun-control legislation (further limiting 2^nd Amendment rights), but I understand that my ethical argument in opposition may have flaws (or even be flat out wrong). 

            In taking a stance on an ethical issue, I must understand the ethical theories and how they correspond with my beliefs and values.  Furthermore, I must consider the facts, the situation, consequences, etc.  I do not live in a vacuum and apart from society, thus, my ethical decisions cannot be made in a vacuum.  I interact with other people and must face their ideas.  Boyatzis & McKee (2005) wrote that one must have the ‘Intellectual Courage’ to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints different from one’s own. 

            It seems to me that in today’s American culture, some people’s ethics are driven more by personal opinion/assumptions rather than facts or contextual relevant factors.  For example, consider the argument against guns, and most notably, the opinion that most deaths by gun are of violent crimes.  To illustrate a contextual relevant factor, according to a report published by the Pew Research Center, the majority of gun deaths are by suicide (Desilver, 2013).  So while opponents of gun ownership focus on crime, they disregard a relevant issue of mental/behavioral health problems. 

            The second key takeaway for me is that ethics can and must be taught.  One assumes that we (society) clearly understand the difference between right and wrong.  Yet, as discussed in the example above, “right” versus “wrong” may be a matter of opinion.  I would argue that the example above (gun control versus a constitutionally guaranteed freedom) is an argument of right versus right. 

            Building on the first takeaway (e.g. self-reflection), studies have shown that teaching ethics had an effect on people’s moral development, that is, their perception of self’s morals have changes (in addition to that of society) (Andre & Velasquez, 2014).  Thus, learning and understanding ethical theories and other relevant teachings will improve one’s ethical behavior.  It most certainly has improved mine.

            The last key takeaway is that ethics is necessary in leadership.  The general notion of leadership is providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  If one does the aforementioned things, then he or she will be successful in achieving his or her goals.  LaFollette (2007) wrote about the leadership goals and achievements of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler; the former had morally good outcomes while the latter had immoral outcomes.  The difference is that Mother Theresa was guided by ethics and Hitler was not.  Hitler may have believed he was acting ethically but his ignorance may have stemmed from a lack of self-reflection and not understanding the morally relevant facts, situation, and consequences.    

            Ethical leadership is necessary because it trickles down.  If a leader is ethical, then it is likely that his or her followers also behave ethically.  This pertains to leaders in all aspects of business, religion, cultural, community, sports, etc.  The Center for Ethical Leadership wrote, “Ethical leadership is knowing your core values and having the courage to live them in all parts of your life in service of the common good.” Ethical leadership will provide the common good that we need in this world. 

            I perceive this course to have been very valuable to my moral and ethical growth as exemplified by the takeaways I have discussed above.  Moreover, I can and will become a better person – I will be a better husband, father, son, brother, friend, and member of society. 

References

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2014). Retrieved from Snata Clara University: https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/taught.html

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Center for Ethical Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved from Center for Ethical Leadership: http://www.ethicalleadership.org/

Desilver, D. (2013, May 24). Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

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

Gun Control: What is the Answer?

    

            I believe that citizens have the right to bear arms.  I believe that I ought to have arms so that I can serve my self’s and self-interest.  I did not always think this way.  This opinion was formed in my own life experiences and witnessing the world around me.  It is a reality that there will be evil in some people’s hearts and they will act out that evil on others.  The proof of this “evil” is recorded throughout our human history.

            There are several arguments for the right to bear arms.  These arguments include that guns are a constitutionally guaranteed freedom (the 2^nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution), used to hunt animals (a form of self-subsistence), and used for self-defense.  The last of those statements is what is most important to me.

            One may ask, “Why do you need a means to ‘defend’ yourself when we already have laws, law enforcement, or government bodies that seek to protect our interests?”  I would argue that you could not absolutely depend on another person/entity to guarantee your freedom and/or safety.  The government protecting you is not a sure thing.  After all, tyranny has happened in our country and other countries and it is foolish to believe that it could never happen again.

            I have witnessed the oppression of vulnerable people firsthand during my combat deployments.  It was at this time did I realize that bad guys with guns could only be stopped by good guys with guns.  To relate this to the context of the individual, I will recall a time when I was traveling cross-country with my pregnant wife (for a military PCS move).  We had rested one late night at an interstate rest area.  A group of three men approached me demanding money.  I informed them that I was concealed carrying a gun and it de-escalated the situation (albeit, I recognize that the opposite could have happened as well). 

            One may ask, “What if we eradicate all guns, wouldn’t that end gun violence?”  Lafollette (2007) wrote that this “scale” of gun control slides from ‘no abolition’, ‘moderate abolition’, and ‘absolute abolition’.  I would argue these two parts.  First, it is not possible to eliminate all guns; someone, somewhere will manufacture guns and those that want guns will find a way to get them.  (Consider the American prohibition of alcohol or the continuing ‘war on drugs’.)  Second, I would agree that gun control could possibly reduce or end gun violence but it does not reduce violence.  Guns or not, evil humans will commit harm on another.  Interestingly, as guns have steadily increased in America by about 10 million per year, gun homicide has decreased 49% since 1993 (Cleveland State University, 2013; Chon, et al., 2013).

            LaFollette (2007) wrote arguments to counter my claim – although guns themselves do not cause harm, they were invented specifically to cause harm and thus are inherently dangerous to society.  He further noted empirical evidence showing a positive correlation (to a .01 level) between gun prevalence and an overall murder rate.  The question remained: Does eliminating guns eliminate murder?

            The U.S. FBI reported that for 2015, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).  Of those violent crimes, “Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).  While these statistics show that guns are used in violent crime, it also shows they are not used in all violent crime.  Jacob Davidson, director of Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, and a professor of constitutional law noted that two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide.

            Furthermore, along the lines above, one may make claim that increased gun control through legislation (i.e. even more stringent background checks, limiting the types of firearms, etc.) would reduce the ability for bad people to get guns or those guns that cause mass deaths.  Here is my issue with this statement – it assumes that everyone follows the rule of law, through either personal morals or consequences.  I hold the belief that laws only work on those who are willing to abide by them. 

            I concede that guns are dangerous.  I concede that people will use guns to commit violent crimes.  I concede that a significant portion of murders are committed with guns.  Yet, I still believe that gun themselves are not the root problem with violence.  If we are to find solutions to reduce gun violence, then we must first consider what is causing people to commit violent crimes.  It is not merely a “gun problem”, it a morality problem.

References

Cleveland State University. (2013, April 1). Retrieved from Engaged Scholarship@CSU: http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1679&context=urban_facpub

Cohn, D., Taylor, P., Lopez, M., Gallagher, C., Parker, K., & Maass, K. (2013, May). Retrieved from www.pewsocialtrends.org: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Davidson, J. (2015, 01 December). Retrieved from Time: http://time.com/4100408/a-criminologists-case-against-gun-control/

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

U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Retrieved from ucr.fbi.gov: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/home

Ethics and Behaviors

            An interesting quote caught my attention at the beginning of the video, the speaker said, “You have made a terrible mistake, but you are not a mistake” (Gallagher, 2013).  Chuck Gallagher was speaking in the context of ethics – ethics was more than just being compliant to rules, it was deliberate decision-making using morals; and yet sometimes, one makes the wrong decision.  The ethical person is one who can recognize that he or she made a mistake and will not do it again.  Gallagher understood this firsthand as he went to prison for making unethical (and illegal) decisions.

            It reminded me of a quote by someone many people, including myself, consider a great military leader – General Stanley McChrystal.  Gen. McChrystal once said during a speech on leadership, “Leaders can let you fail and yet not let you be a failure” (TED, 2011).  Great organizations are those that empower their people – the leaders understand that mistakes and/or failures will occur.  Admonishing followers for making mistakes will stifle their initiative and creativity as well as creating distrust in the leader.  

            Great organizations are also deeply rooted in principles.  Gen. McChrystal also mentioned a line from the U.S. Army’s ‘Soldier’s Creed’ that reads, “I will never leave a fallen comrade” (TED, 2011).  This stanza of the ‘Army Values’ was something that we (soldiers) believed in our hearts.  “I will never leave a fallen comrade” was more than a code prescribing what we ought to do; it was a promise, even at the risk of our own life.  If you had ever asked a soldier why he or she would do this for their comrade, he or she would most likely reply “because they would do it for me”. 

            I witnessed this promise on more than one occasion during my time in service.  I recall a situation during a combat deployment when I had heard the term “Fallen Angel” called over the radios.  Fallen Angel was the term used when a U.S. aircraft had crashed.  From that moment on, it had become everybody’s duty to secure the crash site and rescue the survivors (if any).  This was especially significant to me because I too was serving as an aircrew member on a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter.  While also serving as an Air MEDEVAC crewmember, it was understood that we would risk all, “So that others may live”.

            This is what I found fascinating about how the Army portrayed its values.  The Army instilled a culture of self-sacrifice.  However, it would seem that this mindset would be at odds with our natural tendencies for egoism, that is, to further one’s self-interests (LaFollette, 2007).  It was paradoxical, to “Be all you can be” also meant giving fully to others.  Furthermore, the Army urged each soldier to embody its values of leadership, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage (aptly given the acronym LDRSHIP).  The Army values were not supposed to be some normative description of how we ought to be – it was who we were.

            However, this is not to say that all leaders (or soldiers) in the Army were of the highest moral and ethical caliber.  Mistakes and sins were committed.  I committed some myself.  For instance, I came in at a time when the hazing of subordinates was a norm.  The hazing was conducted to those as a right of initiation, whether it is joining the organization, the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks, or some other group.  I was hazed and later perpetuated the behavior when I was a junior leader.  When I began to mature, I realized that hazing was more about exercising power and control over another.  While some of those who were hazed had no issue with it, others would harbor resentment and distrust in leadership.

            This was an example of leaders (like myself) making mistakes, learning from them, and committing to doing better.  Values are important in the Army.  So much so that a leader’s values are evaluated on Army personal performance reports i.e. Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER).  The ‘Values’ section of the reports precedes every other section e.g. competence, leadership, accountability, etc.  This reinforced the notion that values and/or ethics was the foundation that guided behavior and actions.  Moreover, it was clear that values were not just an Army thing; values are the fabric of who we are.

References

Chuck Gallagher. (2013, January 27). Business Ethics Keynote Speaker - Chuck Gallagher - shares             Straight Talk about Ethics! [Video File]. Retrieved from         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE .

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

TED. (2011, April 06). Stanley McChrystal: Listen, learn ... then lead. [Video File]. Retrieved from             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmpIMt95ndU .