Big Game Hunter's Killing of Well-Known Lion Engenders Anger

The well-publicized case of a Minnesota dentist and big game hunter who shot a killed a well-known and well-loved lion named Cecil  during a hunt in Zimbabwe recently, has brought howls of anger from all over social media. People have posted negative reviews on the Yelp page of his dental practice, there has been a makeshift memorial for the lion at the office of the practice (which is temporarily closed due to the heavy traffic of phone calls and visitors), and national and international news organizations and celebrities have condemned the practice.

The reasons for the anger are many: With dark fur along his back, Cecil was an easily recognized and well-known part of the nature preserve where he lived, he was lured out of the preserve (illegally) by the people hired by the Dr. Palmer, and after he was shot by Palmer, he lived for more than a day in pain, until he was tracked and dispatched with a bullet.  After he was dead, he was skinned, beheaded and his carcass was left where he died.

What can we look at through the lens of ethics in this case?
-Is big game hunting ethical?
-Are there ethics associated with hunting that Dr Palmer transgressed?

Firstly, big game hunting can be done ethically, according to multiple sources on the web, as long as certain rules are followed, such as "Obey all laws", "Fully use the animal" and "Use an appropriate weapon", among others:
http://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/2015/02/6-hunting-ethics-that-every-new-hunter-should-know/

These rules ensure that the animal is not needlessly suffering when it is killed and that its death will be beneficial to the hunter and the hunter's family in an elemental way-through eating and use of the carcass. The rules outlined in the above site are echoed all over the web, and they seem contrary to the style of hunting of Dr Palmer; his hunting party flouted local laws when it lured Cecil out of the nature preserve, they did not use all of the carcass, and one of the rules, "Use a powerful enough weapon", is for the specific purpose of cleanly and quickly killing the game so that it won't live in agony like Cecil did due to being shot with an arrow.  According to these rules Dr. Palmer was not ethical in his hunting of the lion.

The investigation will continue, and we will see how Dr. Palmer is punished (or even if he is).  Until then, he is very much being punished in the court of public opinion - it is very likely that he has lost a good bit of business and he is (for the time being) infamous as being "the hunter who killed that beloved lion, Cecil".  I have no doubt that he will be receiving death threats and his family will be dragged out into the limelight to suffer as well.  Hopefully, when this story is replaced with some other story, and the investigation is complete, he will be punished if appropriate, according to laws he broke and he will not be buried under an avalanche of vengeance.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/international-outcry-over-death-of-lion-brands-big-game-hunter-as-villain/

American Nurses Association to Give Ethics Award to Navy Nurse

The American Nurses Association (ANA) is giving an ethics award to a US Navy nurse who refused to force-feed Guantanamo prisoners through a tube.  This  contravenes Department of Defense policy  that indicate the practice of force-feeding the prisoners is, according to the article, “legal, appropriate and ‘medically sound’”, making the nurse’s actions doubly important – he was disobeying orders by not doing the force feeding.  Unlike a civilian hospital job, where he might be fired and simply go to another hospital, the nurse was facing a court martial for his actions and the likelihood of losing his chance at military retirement.  And a court martial can also result in a discharge that is other than honorable, making employment in the civilian world difficult, loss of wages and possibly time in the brig.  Certainly, the nurse risked a great deal by not following orders.

https://news.nurse.com/2015/07/23/ana-honors-navy-nurse-with-year-of-ethics-award/

But is force feeding unethical? 
According to the American Medical Association (AMA), in a 2013 letter to the Secretary of Defense, stated that force feeding of prisoners “violates the core ethical values of the medical profession.  Every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention, including life-sustaining interventions.”  (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/694196-hunger-strikers-letter-04-25-13.html)

The letter goes on to endorse the World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo, which makes the same point, showing that there are international standards that should be applied and these standards say that a competent patient should have agency on refusal of being fed. 

But regarding Guantanamo prisoners; if we let them starve then we make them martyrs to their cause, right? Well, force-feeding them also brings attention to their cause like martyrdom would, and makes the US seem barbaric in our treatment.  

But how can letting them die be ethical?  Well,  letting them make decisions on their own death has more dignity than stopping it via the cruel and unusual practice of forcing a tube down their throat strapped to a chair.  Neither choice is preferable, but they do have an opportunity to make that penultimate decision, vice taking it away – and giving them that agency is more ethical than taking it away.

Mitsubishi Issues Apology to American POWs Used As Slaves During WWII

In a move to seek forgiveness and make things right with those that they mistreated, Japanese manufacturer Mitsubishi apologized for treating American prisoners of war as slaves during the second World War.  Specifically, representatives from the company stood upon a stage before a 94-year-old former POW, gave a deep bow, then held hands with him as they apologized.  They indicated that they were sorry for the awful treatment and also apologized for how long it had taken them to apologize.

We speak of justice usually in reference to criminals in the criminal justice realm; how they will be punished or treated after being found guilty of a crime.  We can speak of restorative justice; what has the perpetrator done to the victim, and how can they make it right?  How can we restore the victim so that they no longer want to punish the perpetrator and they look to the future?

But what about a company that has perpetrated crimes against an individual or collective group?  How can they make it right with the people that they have wronged; will making them pay a fine to the government do the trick?  Well, some of the POWs say that it wasn't "about money", so fines may not be enough for what these people endured. For them, it was more important that the company recognized the wrong things that hey have done, and making amends for it, through contrition and apologies.  That step has gone a long way in making the victims feel better; in the words of the POW who received the bow: "This is a glorious day; for 70 years we wanted this."

So justice in this case was more restorative - where you look toward the future, not toward the past and make the victim able to move forward.  That might be more important than in ensuring that the perpetrator is sent to prison forever or has to write a check to their government.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/07/20/mitsubishi-apologizes-for-using-american-pows-as-slaves-during-wwii/

Will We Build Ethical Machines In The Future?

Now that we have machines that have some autonomy, like the driverless cars that are coming to our roads soon enough, scientists are looking at how they will behave and can they behave ethically.  They even ask the questions, "What if a vehicle's efforts to save its own passengers by, say, slamming on the brakes risked a pile-up with the vehicles behind it? Or what if an autonomous car swerved to avoid a child, but risked hitting someone else nearby?" (Dang, 2015)

These echoe the thought experiment (and others of it's ilk), of "If you were driving a streetcar and you were rolling toward 5 people strapped to the track where you can either plow into them killing them or swerve and miss, killing the passengers on your streetcar, what would you do?"  Basically, setting up choices between killing a bunch of people compared to a handful, with no right answer.  

The idea is important, as it gets people thinking about what is really right or wrong when making a choice - even if the answer is not in black and white.  And having objects like self-driving cars be programmed to make ethical decisions is the next logical step.  The ethical decisions are different from you or I; the decisions will be made by writing an algorithm for the machine so that it will choose the best option.  And part of this is having the machines capable of self-learning, so that they will be able to improve in how they interact.  Hopefully, the philosophers will play an important role in ensuring that the machines that are coming to be used by the public will have a solid set of ethics to use, as they go forward.  




http://www.nature.com/news/machine-ethics-the-robot-s-dilemma-1.17881

Ethics in the Insurance Industry

This article gives an overview of how the insurance industry is trying to improve it's image regarding ethics; especially in light of the ethics poll that was completed recently, which showed the insurance industry lags in how the public perceives there behavior as being not very ethical.  In 35-plus years, the number of participants who consider the insurance industry to have high ethical standards has remained lower than 15 percent.
     Some of the steps to get the public to get on their side include releasing all of the data regarding an insurance policy, i.e., how did an insurance company come up with the costs of insuring your car.  This will help stop hidden fees and extra costs, and it's the right thing to do, ethically.
     Another change they are looking at is checking the fine print.  It is ethical, but looking at the story through the eyes of the author, but it is questionable ethically.  If an older gentlemen has issue with the fine print, and they need assistance.  then a staff member should assist, and the fine print should be larger and longer.  Having it reviewable (by being the correct height and legible), looks out for the customer's best interest.  
     The insurance company is learning a valuable lesson, and changes will go a long way in improving customer relations.
   
http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/07/improving-current-state-ethics-insurance-industry/

Does Ethics Drive Opponents of Same Sex Marriage to Disobey SCOTUS Ruling and Ignore Professional Ethics?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Friday the 26th of June, that same sex couples could enjoy the right to legally marry in Obergefell v. Hodges.  Great.  Let the weddings commence, lets see couples of all kinds go and proclaim their love for each other in front of clergy or magistrate and join the institution of marriage.  

Not so fast, says Judge Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.  He has consistently fought it, and has told judges in his state's lower courts not to implement the federal court ruling that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage that was handed down earlier this year.  So he sees the ruling that took place on Friday as an affront to the Constitution, an affront to Alabama's constitution and he promises not to uphold it, as it is not the "law of the land" like the Constitution is.  He feels it is his ethical duty and moral obligation to not start marrying same sex couples, as he feels that the Supreme Court made the unethical and immoral choice on Friday.  

So does that mean that (whether you agree with Judge Moore) he is doing what is right, and following his ethics despite it causing him some professional grief?  He has a certain moral code, based on his Christian beliefs, so why should he go against those principals?  What about the professional ethics he swore to uphold; not not only uphold the Alabama Constitution, but following the US Constitution?  The Supreme Court is in the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause makes it so Federal Law trumps State Law, so is he ignoring those ethics?

Well, he can't ignore the US Constitution, so he has to follow the laws set forth federally, even if they come from SCOTUS and he disagrees with them. States cannot ignore Federal Laws - it is illegal - so Judge Moore is acting contra to what the laws of the US are.  So he can certainly pretend that he is allowed to ignore the ruling, but he will eventually have to either fall in line, or he will have to follow his personal ethics and be escorted off the bench (though he would have a great chance of being reinstated, as happened when he ignored a higher court's ruling to take down a monument to the ten commandments he had erected on the ground of the Alabama Supreme Court).

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/roy-moore-conservatives-gay-marriage-alabama-react/

Pope's Encyclical Says Taking Care of Environment is a Moral and Ethical Obligation

     

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis, released a paper that discussed the environment addressed to "...every living thing on the planet", not just his Catholic flock (Peppard, 2015). In it he discusses the environment and how taking care of the earth is ethical. Greenhouse gases are put out by industrial nations, consumption of resources is higher in the first world, and countries like the United States should take the lead on agreements with other countries in improving the world environmentally.

"The goods of the earth, continues Francis, are not meant for abuse and exploitation, but rather for sharing and inclusiveness of the least among us..."

This is keeping with Catholic teachings on taking care of the "least among us", and help the poor and handicapped. (Peppard, 2015). So Pope Francis sees that taking care of the environment is an extension of the Catholic's cause to help those less fortunate, a key ethical tenet of their religion.  So we have the leader of the largest Christian denomination putting out a call for taking care of the Earth, and framing it in a way to make it an ethical and moral obligation - something that mainstream religions do not do.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-pope-franciss-environmental-encyclical/

Ethics Probe Into Trip of Congressmen Paid For By Foreign Interests

     Ten members of Congress are under investigation for a trip to Azerbaijan paid for by the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (or SOCAR), contravening congressional rules on foreign governments from influencing US policy.  SOCAR hid the funding by "funneling the money through two Houston-based nonprofits that sponsored the trip" (Jackson, 2015).  Sounds pretty rough, and a clear violation of ethics, right? After all, the trip took place as Congress was looking at sanctions against Iran, which has a partnership with SOCAR, and one of the Congressman received gifts of a rug and some earrings while he was on the visit.  Seems like we hear of these things all the time - politician who breaks the rules (or the law), for their own gain.

     The only problem is that it isn't so cut and dried; N. J. Rep  Leonard Lance had his airfare paid for, according to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), who are conducting a probe, but the Congressman's office says that the trip had been cleared in advance by the ethics office.  Also, since the funds for the trip were through third parties, how can the Congressmen be held liable? Not so fast - the OCE says that "ignorance of the true source of travel expenses is not an absolute shield from liability for receipt of travel expenses from an improper source" (Jackson, 2015).  What about that rug and the earrings? Rep Lance didn't want to offend the host, so he accepted them, but upon returning to the US, he paid for the earrings and sent the rug back.

     So is this a clear case of a lack of ethics?  Until the investigation is complete and if the OCE recommends further investigation and eventual sanctions, we can't say.  At this point, it looks like we have an organization in the OCE that is trying to keep our politicians doing the right thing, and these Congressmen were either duped or complicit, and complicity would be a sign of an issue with ethics.  But it is a good sign that we have people within the government that take their job seriously; we'll have to wait and see if the probe shows the usual problems with those in Washington making poor choices.

Jackson, Herb (May 13, 2015). "Trip by N.J. Rep. Lance, other Congressional members scrutinized in ethics probe". North Jersey.com.  Retrieved Jun 11, 2015.

As FIFA scandal unfolds, ethical body found to be without ethics

     My choice for this week's ethics discussion is the latest charges involving FIFA (an international governing body of soccer), where officials have been accused of bribery, money laundering and bribery from an unnamed sportswear manufacturer who were vying for outfitting Brazil's soccer team. 

     The governing body is there to ensure that numerous football leagues/teams are able to compete against each other using standards and rules, enacted fairly across the board, and to ensure that those who participate have a set of "judges" who can impartially decide questions between teams.  Anyone in their position who has to deal with rules and rule enforcement (as a governing body, rules are their reason for living), has an ethical obligation to enforce those rules impartially, and to also follow FIFA's own rules as set forth in their charter, and international law.  As the story unfolds, this does not seem to be the case.

     Obviously, if the allegations are true, then using the "moral rules that we follow" morality definition from "The Moral of the Story" (Rosenstadt, 2013) seems to point to those who are guilty of bribery as having no moral compass.  They used their position to enrich themselves, instead of looking out for the sport's best interest.  Certainly this is much more black and white than many ethical questions, but I thought it best to start from the cut and dried and eventually move into something more difficult to parse.

"Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering Conspiracy and Corruption". United States Department of Justice. May 27, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015