Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section B

Before typing this, I will have any of my readers know that my opinion is biased. I may seem dogmatic in that I have been raised by experience, and I have yet to hear an opinion that has swayed me otherwise.

As the majority of the blog discussions will probably follow suit, I'd like to take this time to talk about Wal-mart. I am yet to have to obtain many of the things wal-mart provides, so I will speak on an issue with which I am quite familiar: video games. I am rather a bit of a picky gamer myself in that I require all of my games be awesome. Sadly, very few games in this day provide the sort of immersion or challenge that I crave, so the majority of the games I own are all rather sleeper-titles or 'cult' games. When I go to Wal-mart, I do not expect to be able to buy much software at all there. Gamestop, on the other hand, goes one step further and contains tons of games of all sorts of varieties.

That having been said, Gamestop provides something Wal-mart doesn't: a wide-variety, or specialized assortment of an item that I, the consumer, desire. This can be taken in a few different directions though, as Gamestop is itself almost too mainstream nowadays and is losing its touch, and perhaps the way they make most of their money is in the used game business, where the buy games for an almost absurd price, then sell it for 80-90% of its new price making a ton of profit for them and providing no benefit to the people that made and published the game.

Moving to another point which others might relate to easier, Wal-mart sells shoes. When I go shoe shopping, I look for price-effective shoes that are still reasonably comfortable and generally all-black or all-white. I refuse to pay $90 for a pair of shoes. Wal-mart helps me out with this sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't, and then they lose my business and I go to a plethora of stores in an attempt to purchase shoes without having the amount of time spent outweigh the price I'm looking for.
On to the actual point of this, my younger brother has feet the size of a small car (seriously, cars are pretty small these days). We don't even attempt to go to Wal-mart. We used to go to the supposed "mom and pop" shoe store in town, but they no longer help. I think the only reason it's there is because my town likes keeping its uppity-atmosphere in the silly old-people store part of town. Well, when I go to a shoe store - especially a specialized one - I want specialized shoes, not the same thing I could get at Wal-mart for an increased price for the sake of the store owner or the town's image. We drive for about 30 minutes, then we find another small family-owned shoe store where the people there actually carry shoes equipped for elephant children - errr.... kids with big feet. These guys stay in business amongst tons of huge shoe retailers and huge wide-variety stores like Wal-mart by carrying specialized goods.
Afterwards, we head over to Wal-mart to buy some small plants for the garden, a new controller for the gamecube, some socks for my dad (because he keeps trying to take mine), and a ton of school supplies because I like "rolling ball" pens and nice notebooks, etc.

In summary: step up and provide goods that people need that Wal-mart (or any larger retail store) can't, join Wal-mart, or get out of the merchant business. There are other jobs as well, and holding back the economy because you feel bad about someone going out of business is just as selfish as Wal-mart underpaying its employees. Which I might not be a fan of, but that won't stop me from buying they're cheaper-yet-same-quality goods.

Blog week #13 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

My issue with morality in advertising is not so much that it should be super regulated or that the impact is unquestionably the cause of negative societal qualities, but rather how the advertisers, entertainment industry, and news media try to shift blame and responsibility. I am very sick of hearing that the responsibility is on the parents. In today's society, it is very unfortunate that many working families have to decide between employing both spouses to ensure say a child's future education, or choosing short term care and oversight - possibly limiting the child's future opportunities. Our middle class is no longer in any shape to have one spouse with an average job carrying the flag of the burdensome American Dream. These people are not bad parents. We will not be bad parents when we are forced to make the same decisions. But when I come home while my dad is at work and my mom is cooking dinner after a long day herself, it is always a bit horrifying to see what is being indoctrinated into my nine year old sister from the internet or the television. Moreover technology such as site blocking and monitoring or channel control is often more in favor of the under 10 generation than our parents.

Given these circumstances I believe that is everyone's duty to be careful of the messages they put out. Personally I am a big fan of video games such as Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, etc (if you aren't familiar these are all pretty violent). I may even concede that age requirements should be slackened because i believe i could handle some of those titles at say age 13. However, explicitly vulgar material such as sections of grand theft auto could easily be informed to the buyer. For any such product (this technique probably wouldn't work with cigarettes) the seller should be required to ask the buyer who the game is intended for (as many Christmas shopping grandmas may have no idea what the hell a video game is) and then inform the buyer that it cannot be sold in such cases. If the buyer lies and says a false age, then the moral fault is clearly on them, but at least there is some more accountability. This can be applied to movies, magazines, etc.

I love rock music (remember the Beatles and Elvis?), I love counter culture, I see the parallels of breaking down barriers. However the moral decay of our country can not be ignored. News media should not necessarily use what sells (war, murder, etc) with graphic depiction while ignoring other issues completely. Why not just report the facts? Excessive visuals and descriptions desensitize us or put violent ideas into our heads in the first place. This kind of regulation does not destroy free will or keep people ignorant. People would then understand when violence is truly necessary.

The means for such action is really unimportant. In general, ask yourself: Is better for morality to be solely the responsibility of parents... or everyone? It's really that simple.

(posted for Lennon Pukowsky)

During class, there was a debate as to whether any restrictions should be adhered to for advertisers. On occasion many points were made in support for no restrictions but, when pressured, supported restrictions, even though they said that they did support no restrictions. If advertisers should be held to any responsibilities to truth, it seems as if you support Reuss’ view.

However, the major argument against her statement is that the protection of the ignorant should not be protected because either they are adults or they are children who should be protected by their parents. But there should be a moral law for the corporations to tell the truth just as Kant believed that individuals should tell the truth. Obvious lies and distortions of the truth in advertisements should be considered not good business just as it would be bad for a person to tell lies. Thus, truth should be a requirement for business to meet. If a protein manufacturing company for herbal supplements knowingly put out a product with steroids in and a person buys that product with the idea that it is natural is not right. The manufacturer could not expect every individual to research every product the individual buys because the individual is given no reason to research the product. The person buying the product is not ignorant to the point of retardation but he was duped as an ignorant party. So it would be illogical to say that ignorant people should not be protected because everyone could be ignorant.

Furthermore, after a period of time, the sentient public would no longer trust any advertisement which would hinder the company’s growth.

Corporations should be held to ethical standards of truth; it is a necessity.

Blog week #12 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

Blog week #11 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.

To me there are two central questions regarding family morality that need to asked in regards to a parent-child relationship after reading the English text. First, what if the parents do not love the children? Second, what if the children do not love the parents? In both cases let us assume that the other party did in fact greatly love the non-returning scrooges.

The question seems unanswered if one party is just simply ungrateful bastards. This is because she only states that love is owed when there is a mutual friendship. To me, if the selfish party was always loved and respected, and they do not despise their own life (by my standard this is equal to asking for life) then the loved party most certainly owes something to the lovers. You may ask why so?

Well why not?

It is hard work to keep up hate, especially for no apparent reason. The truth is by being love-scrooges the ungrateful party is in fact committing an immoral act, depriving someone close something they could easily extend. This would most certainly create less good in the world

I do believe different acts have different moral values. Risking your life to save a man from a burning building that once tried to kill you is more altruistic than taking your sister to school in the morning. Therefore, even the act of just giving birth to a human being produces some positive moral value (as long as the child does not grow to despise his or her own life). However how much exactly you owe your birth mother is dependent upon your own circumstances, faculties, and if other possibly negative moral acts by the mother outweigh any good that could be used as a pretense. I know this isn’t necessarily applicable all across the board, but I think basic human reasoning may be the most effective tool for family morality. It may not be cut and dry, but it is certainly simple. Overall it seemed English seemed to focus on that children do not owe bad parents anything, nor if they no longer have a friendship (the vast array of reasons for this was left out). Meanwhile, loving parents may receive nothing if the children are just simply ungrateful. This doesn’t make sense to me.

(Posted for Lennon Pukowsky)

Blog week #10 begins here -- this is a separator post to help you see which posts to focus on.