Fair housing

   I found a very interesting article about a lawsuit being brought against M&T Bank for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Test subjects of all races were sent into the New York City loan office to get a loan for a house. All the actors said they were married with no children and presented their financial statements. The test found that white applicants with lower savings and credit than members of other races were approved for higher loan amounts. Bank employees also tried to steer whites away from buying homes in predominantly minority areas and minorities from buying homes in predominantly white areas.
   I consider myself a realist. I don't believe racism will ever go away on a personal level, Humans need to identify with a group. It's like one of the examples of what makes a person in The Moral of the Story. One tribe may look at another tribe as being unequal to them even if members of their own tribe have intermarried with the other group. I believe there are similar sentiments throughout the world. Also, as Americans we probably will never have an honest discussion about race or racism. There is a prevailing attitude that only white people can be racist. If we have people who are too ignorant to realize what the true definition of racism is, and that all people can be racist, then racism will always be around.
   What struck me about this article is that it was a major bank. One of the questions on my mid-term exam was why do businesses establish a code of ethics? My response was to give employees guidance when making decisions and to avoid possible legal issues. I haven't read M&T's code of ethics, but almost every company I know of specifically prohibits discrimination of any kind. I am assuming M&T does as well. Companies do this because discrimination is illegal and they can potentially face legal consequences. If these allegations are true then it means multiple employees were acting illegally. To me this means that these actions were probably unofficially condoned from higher up the food chain. If so, then shame on M&T Bank. It's one thing for an individual to hold racist views, it's another for a bank to prevent someone from buying a home based on their skin color.

Hannah-Jones, N. (2015, February 9). Housing enforcement group sues m&t bank for discrimination.              Propublica. Retrieved from http://www.propublica.org/article/housing-enforcement-group-                  sues-mt-bank-for-discrimination

     Rosenstand, N. (2013). The moral of the story: an introduction to ethics. New York, NY: McGraw-    Hill

Children not being vaccinated

   I think most people have heard the myth that vaccines are linked to autism and now know that this myth has been debunked. The myth was driven by corrupt science in an effort to win a law suit. Unfortunately, many parents heard about this link to autism and were quick to believe it. This has led to many parents refusing to get their children vaccinated and the re-emergence of diseases that were considered nearly gone from the Western world.
   This topic enrages me because I cannot believe any parent would be ignorant enough to not vaccinate their child. Some children are allergic to vaccines, but if every child who can get vaccinated does, the allergic children are better protected. This is what doctors consider herd immunity. The most recent outbreak is of measles at Disney in California. As of today there have been 59 reported cases. Measles, although not the deadliest of diseases, is one of the most contagious. Doctors have said that in an non-vaccinated population each infected person can be expected to spread the disease to 11 to 18 others. Compare that to influenza, where an infected person will only spread it to 2 to 3 people on average. The reason measles is so contagious is because the virus is airborne and can linger for days. In addition, the incubation period is 21 days so an infectious person can go about their normal lives for three weeks while also spreading the disease. What angers me so much is how easily this could have been prevented.
   I was thinking about the ethics involving this subject. Is it ethical to not vaccinate your children? I don't think so. What immediately came to mind was John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. Are these parents harming others? Absolutely. They are harming their own children, children who have legitimate reasons for not being vaccinated, and the estimated 5% of the population that has been vaccinated, but do not have full immunity. The potential is there to harm many people.
   I believe not getting your child vaccinated is horrible parenting and unethical. The worst part is that the possible negative effects will be on someone else. The parents are most likely vaccinated. I, and everyone I know in my generation, have been vaccinated. We are just fine and never got any of the diseases we were vaccinated against. The autism myth was proven to be false. Parents, get your children vaccinated.

Fox, M. (2015, February 4). Disney measles outbreak could get worse, experts warn. NBC News.
              Retrieved from http://http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/measles-outbreak/disney-measles-                 outbreak-could-get-worse-experts-warn-n291426

The Media and Religion

   We all have read satirical cartoons either on the internet or in print. They can either be very funny or very offensive depending on our beliefs. We all know of the recent terrorist attack in France against the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. These attacks were carried out in retaliation for printing images of the Muslim prophet Muhammed. Almost all major U.S. news outlets refuse to show the cartoons Charlie Hebdo published so as not to offend Muslims. The ethical problem is that these same media outlets have no problem showing cartoons or printing articles that are offensive to Christians, Jews, or any other religious group.
   What is the media's ethical obligation to a particular group of people? Should they pick and choose who they will offend or should they offend no one? If they choose to offend no one they will have a limited amount of material that they can publish. Is that what free media stands for? The decision to not publish these cartoons has very little to do with ethical standards and a lot to do with cowardice. They are afraid of retribution. They will continue to publish cartoons mocking other religions because it is safe to do so.
   I love the right to freedom of speech. I think it is an integral part of our culture and I would rather have someone say something that I don't agree with than not be able to say it at all. I believe that limiting criticism and offensive images against one religious group, but not all, is unethical. I don't care what a media outlet's policy is on ethics, but it needs to be applied equally.


Byers, D. (2015, January 14). Does free media have an obligation to Islam? Politico. Retrieved from
                http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/does-free-media-have-an-obligation-to-                         islam-201064.html

Wages in America

   I like to pick topics that I don't have a definite opinion on. A letter from the NY times editor was addressing the fact that Mr. Obama had declared wages were on the rise and that the president's statement may not have been 100% truthful. This article points out that wages have only risen an average of 3 cents over the last three month period, which is the smallest increase in years.
   The article also had a picture of protesting fast-food workers demanding higher pay. This is what really caught my attention, because I believe that people working in fast-food are ridiculous to think they deserve 15 dollars an hour. I read that the average EMT makes only about 16 dollars an hour and the average firefighter makes around the same. Both these careers require schooling. My wife has a Bachelor's degree and makes under 15 dollars an hour. There is no way that someone operating a fry-o-later or flipping burgers should make as much as emergency service personnel. There is a part of me that says these people didn't work hard enough to better their lives and they are reaping what they sowed.
   The part of me with a heart empathizes with people trying to live off of near minimum wage. I imagine it must be pretty tough. I question if Corporate America has an ethical obligation to give their employees a decent wage? There is so much talk about ethical standards and corporate responsibility, but at the end of the day a corporation's number one goal is to make money for their shareholders. I fear a corporation will almost always choose the option that makes them the most money. Many good jobs have already been moved overseas and I have no doubt that one day these fast-food workers jobs will be automated to save money.
   I wish the best for everyone, but I don't think workers will ever be able to force corporations to pay them more because the workers are so easily replaceable. Instead of protesting, these workers would better serve themselves by getting an education and a job that pays more.


Leonhardt, D. (2015, January 23). Letter from the editor: 2015's big question. The New York Times.
                  Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/upshot/letter-from-the-editor-2015s-                   big-question.html rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=header&action
                  =click&contentcollection=the%20upshot&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0

Jackie Fortin's dilemma

   One recent issue in my home state of Connecticut is one of the state having the right to force a 17 year-old girl to undergo treatment for her Hodgkin's lymphoma. This is a heated issue with valid points on both sides of the issue.
    As it stands right now, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has given temporary custody of the girl to the Department of Children and Families. This is to ensure that the girl gets chemotherapy. Both the girl and her mother are opposed to this situation.
   The girl's argument against receiving chemo is that she does not want to put poison in her body. Unfortunately for her, because she is not 18, the state does not recognize her as an adult capable of making her own decisions. The mother is not being allowed to maintain custody because by refusing treatment she is endangering the life of her child.
   The girl has an 85% chance of survival if she receives chemo. While there is no set rate of survival if she chooses another form of treatment, the cancer will be fatal if not treated at all.This issue encompasses many questions. Should the state be able to force treatment against both the patient's and the parent's will? Will the girl be anymore capable of making a mature decision a few months from now when she turns 18? If a child can be criminally charged as an adult for a crime they commit, should they not also be treated as an adult when making medical decisions about their own bodies?
   My mother was diagnosed with kidney cancer just over three years ago. Her five year survival rate was only 8%. She had a kidney removed, but she opted against chemo in favor of holistic therapy. As of right now the cancer has gone into remission. She had the right to do what she wanted regarding her treatment because of her age. Based on my mother's experience and listening to the girl's argument, I believe this girl should be considered old enough to pursue the treatment she wants.
Conversely, this situation reminds me a little of the trolley study and how people consider life valuable. 85% seems like a good rate of survival compared to an unknown quantity using other therapies. But 85 is not 100, and there is no guarantee any form of treatment will work. I will just wish this young woman the best of luck.