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/