Grappling with the Gray

When everyone is guilty, is no one guilty?

That's what the ethics panel will be grappling with on this episode of Grappling with the Gray. 

Here's our scenario:

Ronald Opus attempted to commit suicide by jumping off the top floor of a ten story building. What he did not know was that construction workers had placed a net at the first floor level to catch falling debris, which would have saved the jumper’s life.

However, on his way down, a shotgun blast through an apartment window struck and killed Ronald Opus. Police discovered that an elderly man had been threatening his wife with the shotgun but missed her when he fired the weapon.

Further investigation uncovered that the husband routinely threatened his wife when he was angry, but that he always kept the gun unloaded. A witness was found who saw the couple’s son loading the shotgun several days earlier after an argument about the son being written out of the will.

The medical examiner struggled over whether the death should be legally ruled a suicide, a homicide, manslaughter, or accidental death. From an ethical perspective, who bears responsibility for the death of Ronald Opus?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Catherine Fitzgerald is a writer, speaker, certified coach, and founder of Brass Tacks With Heart executive coaching. She helps founders, owners, and C-Suite Executives and their teams to build businesses that fuel their lives, not consume them.

Dr. Jenna Ross is a doctor of performance psychology, a former Army National Guard Drill Sergeant, adjunct professor, mental health advocate, and podcast host.

Dr. Eric Zabiegalski is a technical and organization consultant, professor of HR management, and author of Unthink: All you have to do is Nothing.

#ethics #perspective #culture #values #grappling

If we can't trust the media, how can we be informed?
If we aren't informed, how can we hold opinions?
If we can't hold opinions, how can we condemn evil and fight for good?

This is the quandary the ethics panel takes up on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.

When a hospital in Gaza exploded two weeks ago, headlines on CNN and the NY Times both parroted Palestinian claims that Israel was responsible. The BBC simply reported it as fact. All of them were wrong. But many still believe the accusation.

This kind of misinformation has been going on a long time. In October 1996, the celebrated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in Time Magazine:

“As fighting raged in the streets of the West Bank and Gaza late last month, Israel's opening of the now infamous Jerusalem tunnel was denounced from Turtle Bay to Timbuktu as a desecration of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. It took nearly a week and fully 70 dead before the truth began to trickle out: the charge was a lie… an easily provable lie.”

Mr. Krauthammer continued:

“If NPR had covered the blood-libel-inspired massacre of the Jews of Munich in 1286, imagine what they might have written: ‘Leaders of the massacre claim that the Jews had killed Christian boys and used their blood for religious rituals.’ For balance, I suppose, NPR would have added, ‘The Jews deny this.’"

On the one hand, we shouldn’t expect – or even want – journalists to be overly clinical in their reporting. But when their personal biases clearly impair their objective reporting, they become tools of the wicked by lending legitimacy to villains and perpetrators and prolonging each crisis.

Assuming that journalists truly believe they are serving the public interest, why are they so prone to error and one-sided reporting? Why does it seem to be getting worse, and what can we do about it?

Meet this week’s panelists:

🔆 Anne Nevel, CAE is the Vice President of Education for a trade association and enjoys connecting the right people to the right projects to promote successful collaboration and partnership.

🟦 Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

Jolanta Pomiotlo is Vice President of Information Technology for EXSIF Worldwide who manages innovative initiatives aimed at reducing operating costs, improving profit, and growing revenue.

hashtag

#ethics 

hashtag

#media 

hashtag

#journalism 

hashtag

#terror 

What are we to think of people who literally can't think for themselves?

With only a few notable exceptions, the entire world has condemned the atrocities of October 7 perpetrated by Hamas terrorists on Israeli civilians. Citizens of Gaza, however, remain loyal to Hamas leaders, and those same acts violence seem widely endorsed and even celebrated.

Particularly disturbing is how Palestinian youth are indoctrinated into Jew-hatred. Early childhood television programming depicts Israelis as evil oppressors who deserve violent death, while camp activities and games include playacting attacks on Jews and paramilitary style exercises against Israelis.

If Palestinians are genuinely victims of brainwashing, how can they be held accountable for their actions and attitudes? If an entire society is convinced of the justice of destroying another people, what steps are possible toward achieving peace? And if peace is unachievable, what options does that other people have to defend itself?

Furthermore, it is not only Palestinians that have celebrated or approved terrorist acts by Hamas. On college campuses across the country, most notably Harvard University, anti-Israel rhetoric has raised alarms of resurgent anti-Semitism. But are these students not also victims of ideological indoctrination by their professors? Is there a difference between indoctrination and brainwashing?

Many conservatives claim that university is no longer a marketplace of ideas but a petri dish for the cultivation of groupthink. Does their claim have merit? If so, how do we as a society restore balance to the free exchange of ideas?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Michael Alcee is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Tarrytown, NY, a Mental Health Educator at Manhattan School of Music, and author of the book, Therapeutic Improvisation: How to stop winging it and own it as a therapist.

Michael Sherlock is a Sales & Leadership Communications Strategist and CEO of Shock Your Potential, a global professional development training company.

Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

This panel discussion was recorded on October 18, Global Ethics Day. I had planned a different topic for discussion, but we really can’t avoid addressing the current crisis in the Mideast.

Here is our topic:

The plight of 2 million residents of Gaza has been desperate for decades. It may seem easy and convenient to blame Israel, but the reality of the situation is far more complicated. In 2005, after many years of conflict, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the territory and forcibly removed 10,000 of its own settlers.

Some observe that Gaza had the opportunity to become another Singapore or Dubai. Instead, Hamas leaders launched missile attacks on Israel and diverted humanitarian aid to build hi-tech terror tunnels, prompting Israel to retaliate against terrorist strongholds and blockade the enclave, resulting in collateral civilian casualties and suffering as well as widespread poverty. Now their leaders hide out in Qatar while telling their people not to evacuate before an approaching Israeli offensive.

Support for Israel around the world has been overwhelming. But that hasn’t stopped students at Harvard and universities across the country, together with protesters around the world, from speaking out in defense of Hamas and against Israel. Having studied the history of the region, it’s hard not to conclude that many of these are either willfully ignorant or blinded by ideology.

It’s also arguable that support for Palestinians around the world legitimizes and encourages acts of terror. The French government has even criminalized public support for Hamas.

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society. But when opinion is built on misinformation, and when it might actually encourage violence, to what extent should free speech be tolerated and protected? Moreover, once governments outlaw speech where we agree it is necessary, what happens when those same governments outlaw speech we think should remain permitted?

Furthermore, when both sides have merit, but when that merit is profoundly lopsided in one direction, how do we acknowledge both sides without drifting into moral equivalence?

Meet this week’s panelists:

Jennifer H. Elder, is a CPA and Certified Speaking Professional who helps leaders future-proof their businesses by making smart decisions and staying ethical.

John E. McGlothlin is a captain in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and D.C. army reserve, as well as an adjunct professor of business and ethics at the University of Maryland Global Campus.

Stewart Wiggins is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

https://www.ethicsninja.com/

#ethics #terror #israel #communication #freespeech #ethicsninja #yonasongoldson #rabbigoldson #therabbi #grappling

Can you be right and still be wrong?

That's the question I'll be discussing with my very special guest Cy Wakeman on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here is our topic for today.

Real estate mogul Tim Gurner, one of Australia’s richest men, made headlines when he remarked that employees should stop feeling like they’re doing their boss a favor and consider themselves lucky to have a job. He later retracted his comments and apologized.

How are we to evaluate attitudes among both bosses and employees? On the one hand, employers complain about quiet quitting, a sense of entitlement, and a loss of work ethic among their employees. On the other hand, employees complain about a lack of respect from bosses, unreasonable demands and expectations, and an astonishingly high CEO-to-worker pay ratio.

Ethics clearly dictates that employees should put in honest effort to earn an honest wage, and that bosses should treat their employees with respect, set reasonable expectations, and not exploit their power by giving themselves stratospheric salaries and bonuses while worker salaries remain flat. Common sense would indicate that treating employees fairly and with dignity would earn loyalty and commitment, thereby driving greater productivity and employee satisfaction.

Was there any truth in Tim Gurner’s comments? If so, where did he go wrong? And in general, why are so many workplaces so toxic, and what can be done to detoxify them?

Cy Wakeman is a drama researcher, international leadership speaker, consultant, and founder of Reality-Based Leadership. She is the author of four books, including the NY Times Bestseller, The Reality-Based Rules of the Workplace: Know What Boosts Your Value, Kills Your Chances, and Will Make You Happier and, most recently, Life’s Messy, Live Happy. Described as “the secret weapon to restoring sanity to the workplace,” Cy was voted in the top 100 leadership professionals to follow on twitter for 7 years in a row. For the last three years, she has ranked #1 among the Global Gurus list of Top 30 Leadership Professionals across the globe. Cy, I heard you speak at the National Speakers Association Conference in 2022 and immediately reached out, and I’m thrilled that we finally made it work.

#ethics #communication #leadership #culture #grappling #yonasongoldson #rabbigoldson #cywakeman

Is it right to take what you're allowed to take even if you're not really entitled to it?  That's the question before the ethics panel on this archive episode.

Here's the challenge:

You've just finished your medical residency.  You've been hired by a respected hospital that wants you to start immediately.  However, because of state regulations and bureaucratic red tape, your accreditation to practice medicine will be delayed and you won't be able to start working for two months.

You are eligible for unemployment.  However, your parents paid for medical school so you have no student debt, and your spouse has a good-paying job so you face no financial pressure.

Do you file for unemployment?

Meet the panelists:

Jennifer Elder

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferhelder/

Catherine Fitzgerald

https://www.linkedin.com/in/catherine-a-fitzgerald/

Dr. Robyn Odegaard

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robynodegaard/

Is the lesser of two evils still evil?

That's the topic the ethics panel takes up on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here is our dilemma:

2024 is shaping up to be the third presidential election in a row where the majority of Americans oppose both candidates.  A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 56% of voters don’t want former Donald Trump to run for re-election and 59% don’t want Joe Biden to, either.  Yet odds are that’s exactly what we’re going to get.

Granted that there are no perfect candidates, and realistically we can’t expect to agree with any candidate on everything.  But if I conclude that one candidate is unfit to serve, whether because of character or competence or both, is it ethical for me to vote for that candidate anyway solely because the opposing candidate is even worse?

One common refrain is that voting for a third party candidate is either a wasted vote or a vote for the opposition.  But never in history has any vote with an electorate of more that 25,000 people been decided by one vote.  Which means that my vote by itself will not make a difference in the outcome.  If so, why should I not vote my conscience?

In his book Integrity, Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter writes:  I look forward to the day when we as voters will say, “I agree with So-and-so on most of the issues, but I could never vote for somebody who would say this or do that in order to win.”  Without discussing the merits or flaws of any specific candidate, why do so few Americans seem to accept Professor Carter’s ideal?

Meet this week’s panelists:

JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as an author and TEDx speaker.

Sarah Kalmeta, aka Sarah the Pivoter, is a speaker, author and relentless truthseeker. She is founder of Pivot Point International, a high performance consulting company.

S. Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

Do we want to teach our children to think or do we want to teach them to think like us? And what happens when we don't think there's a difference?

That's the question the ethics panel takes up on this week's episode of Grappling with the Gray.

Here's our scenario:

Education has become one of the most contentious fields of battle of the culture wars, with the political right accusing the left of revisionism and indoctrination and the political left accusing the right of revisionism and censorship.

Professor Leslie M. Harris, a contributor to the 1619 Project, described in Politico how the New York Times grossly misrepresented her research, and how critics exploited the misinformation to discredit legitimate parts of the project.

The recent proposed Florida Curriculum on Black History contained one line out of 191 points stating that slaves sometimes learned skills that helped them. Representing one half of one percent of the total content, that single line was characterized as claiming that slaves benefited from slavery and was used to discredit the entire body of work. As a footnote, that line was included by a black member of the curriculum commission.

Florida legislation to restrict mention of sexual identity in classrooms grades three and below were defended by supporters as ensuring age-appropriate education while condemned by opponents as homophobic and transphobic. It was branded the “Don’t say gay” bill.

Also in Florida, despite state law requiring African American studies, the government rejected a national AP curriculum, arguing that it advocated such positions as slave reparations and abolishing prisons, as well as emphasizing intersectionality, feminism, and gender identity with an intent toward indoctrination.

In our polarized society, many of us eagerly accept accounts and reports from news outlets we choose based on our political leanings, which makes it difficult to base our opinions on complete or even accurate information. What steps can we take to restore integrity to our education system while respecting the sensitivities of both sides of the political spectrum and promoting a civil and informed national debate?

Meet the panel:

 Jeff Ikler is the director of Quetico Executive Career and Personal Leadership Coaching, host of the podcast "Getting Unstuck–Cultivating Curiosity," and the co-host of the podcast "Cultivating Resilience--A Whole Community Approach to Alleviating Trauma in Schools."


Kim Pries is co-founder of Counselor Connection, LLC. He teaches Computer Programming, Mathematics, Engineering, and Biotechnology, and he thrives on professional problem solving.


Stewart Wiggins is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

#ethics #education #culture #perspective #grappling

Does anything go for a good cause?  Do the ends justify the means?

These are the questions that arise on this episode of Grappling with the Gray when Kimberly Davis, Diane Helbig, and Annette Taylor join the ethics panel.

Here is our topic:

For years, I’ve been an avid fan of behavioral economics professor Dan Ariely. I’ve often referenced his work on ethics and morals in my articles and discussions.

However, he is now under fire, accused of falsifying his research for a paper about how to make people more honest, on which he collaborated with Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino. Professor Ariely insists that he did not manipulate the data in developing his thesis. Hartford Insurance, which provided the data, asserts that he did just that.

As the story unfolds, an investigative committee found Professor Gino guilty of misconduct. She has been placed on leave and faces the unprecedented possibility of being stripped of tenure. She has responded by launching a lawsuit against the three researchers who exposed her manipulated data, as well as against the Dean of HBS, all of whom now face paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, even if they are exonerated.

This sad story raises a variety of issues. Presumably, ethics scholars should demonstrate a higher standard of ethical behavior. So why does research indicate virtually no difference between ethicists and anyone else?

If researchers are accused of misconduct, shouldn’t they demonstrate the integrity of their research before their colleagues rather than resort to civil litigation? In general, haven’t lawsuits and legal expenses become a weapon to coerce legitimate claimants to keep silent?

Finally, should colleges reconsider the institution of tenure, considering how difficult it is to dislodge professors who are no longer worthy of their positions?

Perhaps most important of all, we’ve begun to expect these kinds of stories and scandals. Can a society survive when we lose trust in our institutions and in one another? And what can we do to reverse the trend?

#ethics #education #research #integrity #grappling

Are we willing to confront the apparent inconsistencies of our own beliefs? If you don't think so, then this episode may not be for you.

Ethics requires us to ask ourselves difficult questions and consider answers that might make us uncomfortable.

Fortunately, I was able to find three guests who have the courage to do just that as the panel convenes to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is the scenario we’ll be discussing:

Two of the most contentious issues today are abortion rights and capital punishment. Abortion advocates are willing to take the life of unborn children to protect the well-being of the mother. Capital punishment advocates are willing to take the life of violent criminals to protect the well-being of society.

According to the Wall Street Journal, there is virtually no correlation between support for abortion rights and support for capital punishment, or vice versa. How can we understand two groups so deeply divided, with many endorsing the taking of life on the one hand while condemning it on the other?

A 2022 opinion piece in the Daily Iowan asserted that both pro-life and pro-capital punishment advocates suffer from a lack of empathy. Can this charge be defended more than the reverse?

One columnist in the Daily Beast argued that we should take into consideration the social and environmental causes that contribute to violent crime. Many argue that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, although one could argue back that incarceration among other violent criminals might be more so.

Is it hypocritical to hold these seemingly conflicting views on the sanctity of life? If so, does the hypocrisy flow in both directions?

Meet this week’s panelists:

🔆 Anne Nevel, CAE is the Vice President of Education for a trade association and enjoys connecting the right people to the right projects to promote successful collaboration and partnership.

🟦 Mark O'Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.

Annette Simmons is a speaker, trainer, consultant, and author of The Story Factor -- named one of the 100 Best Business Books of All Time.

#ethics #values #culture #politics #grappling