Category: ethics

>just another week in pepper spray history

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>I’m getting a kick out of watching the “other” news of the RNC, that is, the protests outside the convention that are not really being covered much by the mainstream news. But first, here’s a recruitment video made by the RNC Welcoming Committee (an anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body) prior to the convention:

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=1982101605603600567&hl=en&fs=true

I love it. Fun, goofy, and it indicates a major aspect of the protests, that is, they’re thrilling to do. In other words, being a protester, though driven by apparently deeper meanings, is also something people do because it’s an exciting form of entertainment – like playing sports, but more important. I have to say that after watching the following videos I would much rather be with the protesters than inside the convention, though I am not so anarchist in my philosophy, or so anti-authoritarian in my reactions – though I am a little of both.

This video also highlights the reality that contemporary political/social movements are leveraging new media forms with aplomb. Modern protests are far more organized and prepared than they used to be, but so is the response.

[Side Note: So far eight members of the RNC Welcoming Committee have been arrested and charged as terrorists. Plus the I-Witness Video Collective has been evicted from their offices after police raided their building on what look to be trumped up charges. That group was responsible for videotaping much of the 2004 RNC protests and those videos led to most of the cases against the arrested protesters to be dropped. Apparently case after case the videos showed the police officers had lied. That may be why the police don’t want cameras taping them this time around.]

Now that it’s been a couple of days since the initial protests outside the RNC a number of videos have been appearing online. The first three below are video/photo collages that offer some overview of what is going on. There is some overlapping content between the three videos. At a minimum these collages offer some interesting psychological and sociological data to consider.

Finally, here is one of the most interesting, entertaining, and low quality (read verité) videos from the protests. I love the personal commentary.

Of course, one has to ask if any of these protests, violent or peaceful, have any objective value beyond the personal sense of making a statement. It is important to make statements, to carry signs and rant, to march and, hopefully, get on the news, but what is actually accomplished? The RNC continued on as though no one is protesting, as though the protests are so insignificant and inconsequential as to not even warrant a sideways glance. I also believe some of the same protests were deserved at the DNC, but I don’t remember if there were any.

I am reminded of two quotes by Mahatma Gandhi:

“It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.”

“Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”

These quotes underline the balancing acts in both effective protesting and in cracking down on protesters. Both sides have to live with the consequences of their actions, and ask the question “what really was accomplished.” I cannot help but think the actions and the style of the police will only lay the foundation for more of the same, and then bigger and more substantial protests. In the end the police, and those who back them, will likely lose the battle. In the mean time I fear many citizens will be hurt.

>Global Supply Chains and the Commandment to Love One’s Neighbor as Oneself

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>The title of this post is also the title of my thesis which I wrote for my Masters of Business Administration program, which I just completed. To get some idea of what sparked my thinking and led to my thesis topic you can watch the video clip below about workers in developing countries as they support the demands of the developed world. You have already heard about sweat shops in third world countries. Here is what they look like:

…or this parody from The Onion brings up the issue in its way:
http://www.theonion.com/content/themes/common/assets/videoplayer/flvplayer.swf

What are we, those of us in the most powerful nations on earth, going to do about the globalization of capital and corporate power? The world may be becoming increasingly, economically “flat”, as Tom Friedman says, but is it becoming morally flat as well?

It may sound strange to ask what we are “going to do” about globalization. Isn’t it a good thing? Isn’t it about the expansion of wealth and freedom? Isn’t it about the Internet and better communication? What we don’t typically hear about is the hidden costs of globalization, or about what that word conjures up in the minds of those in the developing world. For much of the world globalization includes the realities in the video above. For the rest of us that reality is often hidden.

I am, by nature, a rather conservative type. I don’t get easily bent out of shape over issues. I don’t seek revolution at the drop of a hat. I also grew up a Christian and was, until a few years ago, a registered Republican. I am still a Christian, and because of taking my faith seriously I could no longer be a Republican. Now I am an independent. But it’s not really about politics. It’s about a perspective on the world, on how I want to live. It’s about what kind of person I want to be and where I want to end up. And it’s also about the kind of world I want for my children and their children.

When it came time for me to choose a topic for my MBA thesis I felt the need to tackle something to do with ethics. I felt I needed to address, for myself, the underlying moral issues inherent in business and economics before I went out from my schooling into more business adventures. So I picked the topic of the treatment of women workers in global supply chains and the ethical implications for businesses that rely on the benefits from those supply chains (like lower costs and faster delivery, etc.). My thesis became, for me, a kind of introduction to the larger topic of ethics and, more specifically, how should someone who claims to be a Christian act in the world.

The following is from Chapter One of my thesis:

Consider this scenario: when a shopkeeper opens her doors in the morning and hangs out the welcome sign it is time to get to work. The pressures of the day quickly crowd in as she must meet the demands of her customers and her business’ bottom line. She must manage her time and her employees, deal with suppliers, and try to make plans for the future while also trying to fully understand the past. Questions of ethics are considered, if considered at all, largely in the immediate context of the day-to-day routine. Our shopkeeper will have to decide where she stands on being truthful and honest with those whom she works; she will make ethical decisions around how she manages her accounting and pays her vendors; she may even face moral questions about what products she sells and whether they are good for her community.

Now let’s assume this shopkeeper is also a Christian, one who makes claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and one who participates in the life of Christian culture. The ethical issues for the shopkeeper will not be any different from any other shopkeeper. However, she now carries the burden of having to follow some explicit commands with regard to the world, most notably to love her neighbor as herself. And who is her neighbor? Is her neighbor only the immediate customer or vendor with whom she does business? Or, given that she lives in an increasingly globalized world, does her neighbor include those with whom she now has connections, even though they may be on the other side of the planet and at the distant end of her supply chains?

If our shop keeper then decides that she does want to build her business around the idea of loving her neighbor as herself, and then apply that philosophy to her dealings with her supply chains, she must decided how to do that. What options are available to her? Does she choose servant-leadership as a leadership style? That is, will she seek to be a servant first and, as Greenleaf (1991) says, “to make sure that other people’s highest priority meeds are being served” (p. 7)? Does she choose to buy only from suppliers that treat their employees well? Does she seek to instill corporate social responsibility into her business practices?

These kinds of questions might be of little importance if it were not for two realities. The first is that the world is more connected than ever before. The second is that many workers in global supply chains, particularly those in developing countries, often have few of the rights or freedoms those in Western and Northern societies take for granted and may even assume to be inalienable. This is not to say that the benefits of free-market capitalism have not brought greater wealth to many developing countries, nor that many of the world’s poor have not seen at least some economic improvement to their way of life. However, as the gap between the world’s poor and the world’s rich gets bigger, and as facts continue to come out regarding the all too often harsh treatment of laborers, including women and children, within global supply chains, one cannot help but ask whether a laissez fair, free-market philosophy is the best approach for creating a fair and just system that benefits all stakeholders appropriately.

A Christian business person must ask these kinds of questions, not merely because economic systems come with their own set of moral presuppositions about human nature and human needs, but also because in the day-to-day world of business, as it is in life, one’s actions flow from one’s beliefs. If a Christian is to take seriously the commandment to love her neighbor as herself, then it only makes sense that that command, that challenge, would raise such questions. Maybe one of the great historical ironies is the interconnectedness of free market capitalist thinking and Christian theology; ironic because one system is based on self-centeredness for its success and the other is based on other-centeredness. Our shopkeeper will have to decide if this interconnectedness is both useful and valid.

I go on to describe how global supply chains work, including the fundamental pressures they impose, such as cheaper labor and fast delivery. I then describe how those pressures necessarily create negative conditions for many workers. I then describe the common conditions of working women in those supply chains. (I chose women workers because of the data available and because they represent more than half of the global workforce while often being in the weakest position with regards to labor rights and fair treatment.) Finally I examine how some have sought solutions, for example the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR), fair trade, and servant leadership.

I also examine how Christianity has shifted away from social concerns by becoming a personal/private faith thing rather than an “all of life” thing. This shift has led many Christians for forsake the requirements of their faith, that is, to be “salt of the earth” as it where. Too many Christians, I argue, see their faith as a purely private matter, except for a small handful of political issues.

I do not see globalization as a specifically “Christian issue.” There are many perspectives and answers available. But I find narrowing the scope down a bit helps to crystallize the issue for me. I do not see in the Bible anything specifically about free trade, but I do see a lot about feeding the hungry and helping the poor. Recently a professor of mine related a story where he was teaching about globalization and one of his students, a man from Africa, said that when he hears the word “globalization” he knows it to mean Western imperialism. There is something that rings true for me about that student’s perspective, and that bothers me.

Much of my thinking has shifted over the past several years as I have tried to take seriously the teachings of Jesus. The irony is that the teachings of Jesus contradict much of modern, popular Christianity in both its focus and its call to action. I have become convinced that mainstream, right-wing (and many left-wing) Christians just may have become the new Pharisees – the pious religious types who Jesus railed against and who eventually killed him. They do church really well, but their hearts have become hard – and I know what I’m talking about because I am one of them. Because of this I chose to focus on the implications of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as a foundational challenge. I figured that commandment cuts through a lot of garbage.

This video interview with Tony Campolo offers some idea of what I am talking about:

I won’t say that I am in Campolo’s camp entirely, and I don’t cite him in my thesis. However, I will say that his teaching challenges me deeply.

I am also challenged by numerous other thinkers, most of whom are not Christians, and some are even anti-Christian. But I believe truth can be found just about everywhere. The following video clips further pad out the topic.

Christian “progressive” Jim Wallis talks about living out one’s faith:

Left-left-wing academic and leading progressive thinker Michael Parenti on globalization and what it really means:

Parenti is no fan of Christianity by any means, or any religion really, but he is a very sharp thinker and erudite historian.

Brilliant and exacerbating Noam Chomsky on globalization:

I find myself more and more fascinated with Chomsky’s work. Years ago I read a book of his on linguistics for my MA thesis. Since then I have most only heard him speak. His observations on power politics are illuminating. Chomsky and Parenti do not see eye-to-eye on several issues.

Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine speaks on the topic of global brands, the topic of her famous book No Logo:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2343596870021245516&hl=en

Famous activist, historian, and progressive thinker Howard Zinn on American Empire (a topic related to globalization):

Not all is doom and gloom. Consider the Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis clips above and the clip below.

Towards a solution – Fair Trade:

I have to say the process of writing and defending my thesis was longer than I anticipated, but it has bee a very rewarding process. I am glad I finished school and I am excited about my future career. I will say, however, that I have not, for me personally, solved the issues raised in my thesis. I still struggle to fulfill the commandment to love my neighbor, and I’m sure I always will.

References
Greenleaf, R. K. (1991). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

>the trolley problem

Published on by Tucker6 Comments

>

Original version:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

Fat man version:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Postscript: Hypothetical ethical dilemmas provide great opportunities to stretch one’s brain. But they can also encourage one to veer away from greater questions by emphasizing the apparent plausibility that truth is finally unknowable and that ethical dilemmas are purely rational formulations. Neither of which are true.

But to continue, what if there are five people on one track and your child is the one on the other? How does that change your decision? Or five very old people one the one track and a young person on the other. Does that change it? Or what if you were one of the five, but still the sole person who could the trolley’s direction. This is rather tricky now.

A different scenario puts you in the position to save both the trolley and all the people on the track if you sacrifice your own life in saving theirs. Would you be willing to do that? What if you did not know those people? What if they were, in fact, your enemies? This is a greater question. However, it is still rather hypothetical.

What if the scenario was not life and death, but benefit and loss? What if you could give someone else a better life if you would give up your own happiness? Is this not a “laying down” of one’s life for another’s? What if the scenario was that you had to give up your pride, be humble, and serve another for their benefit and you get nothing of comparable consequence in return? This is less hypothetical. In fact, it can be part of every relationship, increasing in intensity the closer the relationship.

In terms of profit and loss, what the trolley problem does not ask (maybe it’s assumed) is which decision is better for the decision maker, in terms of damage caused. The scenario assumes that the only consequence is one of numbers of human lives, but there is also the fact that it sets the state of one human soul (the decision maker) against the physical deaths of one to five human beings. The real power of this problem is not in which solution could you better defend in a court room, it is in which decision is truly right, is righteous, which makes it a potentially spiritual problem in a conundrum’s clothing. Thus, the utilitarian solution, which most people say they would choose may, in fact, still create a kind of long-term “haunting” in the decision maker’s soul because there are no good options. This is often a problem in war, where soldiers have to face into the personal ramifications of making terribly unfair choices because the situations themselves provide no other real options. Making such a decision is more than a matter of pure ethics or brain chemistry. In fact, it may have a great deal to do with the state and story of one’s soul.

A humorous take on these kind of ethical conundrums (click to enlarge):

Xala, imperialism, and bottled water

Published on by Tucker2 Comments

About two days before the great African filmmmaker, Ousmane Sembène, passed away on June 9th of this year, I got the urge to watch one of his masterpieces, Xala (1975). Recently I also watched one of his earlier films, Black Girl, and wrote about it here. Needless to say I was surprised at his death. And I have been thinking of Xala ever since, and in particular two structurally and thematically intertwined scenes that feature the use of bottled water.

Here we have the chauffeur pouring a bottle of Evian (a French imported water) into a bucket so that a street beggar can make a buck washing the car:

Here the chauffeur pours another bottle into the car’s radiator:

These shots are meant to display a kind of ambivalence towards the product (Evian).

Here we have government minister Hadji Aboucader Beye (the main character if one does not count Africa itself as the main character) offering some Evian to his daughter who has visited him in order to confront him about his marrying a third wife:

We watch Beye pour himself a drink – the daughter declines:

Emphasis is placed on Beye’s preference for Evian:

Beye speaks to his daughter in French. His daughter speaks to him in the native Senegalese language of Wolof – which upsets Beye:

In these two scenes an apparently innocuous product, a bottle of Evian water, is used as a kind of metaphorical device standing for the continuing hegemonic power of colonial imperialism, even when the former colony has now gained its Independence. Senegal had been a French colony from about the 1850s until 1960. Xala pokes very serious fun at how the newly elected leaders of Senegal ruled for their own self interests, were corrupt, and were still trying to emulate their former masters.

The bottle of Evian also raises the issue of how products play a role in defining cultures and individuals. As consumers we make choices based on needs and desires. Our choices say a lot about who we are and what we value. Just as when we speak our native tongue, or that of another, the products we buy have a kind of symbolic language that is both an expression of who we are and changes (even slightly) the world in which we live. Brands can have real power in the world, but that power is given to them, not inherent to them. In Xala we find that products are not disconnected from culture or power. Not surprising coming from a Marxist like Sembène.

Needless to say, I like Evian, and probably a lot of other products emblematic of imperialism, free trade, and neo-classical economics – for example: Nike, Coke, iPods, low prices, instant gratification, and even organic food grown on farms around the world using low-cost labor. I like to think I am independent of those products, but am I really?

Some good examinations of Xala:
Symbolic Impotence: Role Reversal in Sembene Ousmane’s Xala
Xala at Louis Proyect
The Guardian review