Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course. Include both positive and negative aspects of your experience. What might you have done to improve your learning experience? How might the University or your instructor provide additional support for your learning? Were there topics covered that seem particularly relevant or irrelevant to your experiences and to what you expect to come in future courses?
For me, Ethics is exactly the most inspiring topic that someone could wish for on a course, but it is absolutely vital in today's corporate world. Having said that, even though some of the subject matter was quiet dry, especially in the beginning, I found this an enjoyable course. Some of this has to do with the lecturer, Dr. Powers - who seemed to be well on the ball, participating well in the discussions to further them along, and some of it had to do with the more up to date issues we were asked to think about. In particular I enjoyed the discussions on gun control and on world hunger. It never ceases to fascinate me how many people can object to giving, helping or just plain being moral and ethical about hopeless situations.
In all, I think the course will have a fair bit of value in my corporate career. Ethics in large pharma. companies like mine, that do much business in overseas markets are critically important, as recent news stories about Glaxo break in the Chinese press. Being able to show that I have studied ethics at a masters degree level will help tremendously in my future I am sure. I really didn't have much negative to say about the course. I found almost all of it at least enough to peak my interest. Occasionally, some of the brain work was not wholly inspiring, but will still make a good reference tool.
The group work I felt was not weighted properly. When group work counts for such a small amount of the total percentage, members of every group start strong, and then back off. In the group I was in, the total contribution to the entire group project was 300 words - unformatted, with spelling and grammatical errors - yet they benefit from the hard work of just 2 of 5 individuals. Group work is one of the hardest things to do in life, at work and is also true of these courses. Putting a higher value on that work that reflects how important a skill it is to master is very necessary. Percentage wise, poor group performance should make a one grade difference (from an A to a B or a B to a C) as only this way will people realize the perfect 4.0 they are striving for could really be affected by no effort.
In terms of support from the University, there could be better instruction on the Foliotek side of things. Instructional classes advertised on each course would be helpful, especially to those students with 7 or 8 previous courses downloaded to e-portfolio. I know there is a help desk number, but that doesn't suffice always.
Regarding topic relevancy. Initial theories of consequentialism and deontology were super snooze-worthy, and pretty complex stuff to wade through for a thorough understanding, which is critical for better discussion in future weeks and in reference in other papers. I think an more inventive course would have some tasks that helped to separate out these theories better in the students mind and cement their importance to ethics as a whole. I understand the importance of getting the right background, but was never more than 50% certain of each of the theories, I think Initially at least their relevance to real world practical ethics examples was not clear enough, and this didn't help with trying to digest them.
Finally, in future courses I would like to see more group work that deliberately paired groups with opposing views of ethical matters. In week one, each student is asked where they stand on gun control, euthanasia and other contentious ethical issues; and place opposing views together in a group. Then use the group discussion boards in each group to debate topic questions, rather than just discuss both sides. Report could be written on how agreement was reached on the very live topic - and maybe that can be used to suggest ways that governments could proceed. It would be a more dynamic and interesting process than putting together a short report on one subject everyone has to agree on.
May 20, 2014
May 13, 2014
A634.8.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
In Chapter 12, LaFollette (2007) discusses gun control. Do citizens have a right to bear arms? Answer the question in your reflection blog. State your opinion and follow up your position with supporting documentation. Next, present the opposing side to your stance. Use external sources to enhance your claims.
Gun control. One of the most contentious issues - but only in the USA. You might have guessed I'm British, and having lived in a country where gun ownership is much more of a privilege than a right, I can tell you that the debate about gun control in this country raises my eyebrows some the time, and exasperates me the rest of the time. Before we start this proper, lets do the history.
Gun control in the UK.
Summary: If you want a gun, you need to show a reason. Every 5 years a police officer will come to your house, check out you, your background, your history and your medical records. He will check where you keep the gun and the ammunition, and check you are knowledgeable on the law regarding guns. With his sign off, you will get a gun licence. What guns you have, the number and type, your name and current address are all kept on a national registrar. Most guns are disallowed from keeping at home. Essentially, only shotguns and rifles are allowed.
Gun Control In the USA.
Summary: Anyone can buy any gun, from anyone. The only time you get a background check is if you buy from a licensed dealer. The only time you are required to registrar the gun in most states is for open carry of the firearm. There are no records of how many guns you have, no records that trace where the guns are coming from.
OK, now we have the facts down, lets also consider actualities and dispel some myths. First, the reason the UK and most of Europe wasn't forged with a gun is simply because they were not invented yet. The USA West was tamed with a gun because it was more efficient than using clubs and swords. The UK has seen it's fair share of bloodshed, but most of it was done before the 20th Century. Nobody believes in the UK that they are living in a socialist state, nor that their rights are infringed by registering and having their name on a database if they have a gun. This trade off is perhaps reflected in the deaths per 100,000 by guns. In the UK it is 0.23 deaths. The US - in protection of it's 1787 constitution, accepts 10.23 deaths per 100,000 (GunPolicy.org, 2014). It is number one in gun ownership, deaths, wounding and gun suicides, and yet nobody knows who has what or where or how they are keeping their weapons.
In terms of criminals, criminals have less access to guns in the UK, and consequently there are less armed crimes in the UK. The argument that a criminal in the UK who wants a gun could just as easily get one as in the US does not hold water (Cuccaro, 2013). A criminal in the US just needs to go to gun show and buy one. A criminal in the UK will need to first commit a criminal act to get one, the likelihood he gets caught goes up.
What it, seems to me, gun control comes down to is lobbying. It doesn't have anything to do with facts, because in the cold light of day the facts speak for themselves: guns should be restricted for the good of the many, and most people want more control (Gun control, 2003). Guns are not an inalienable right, just as you cannot shout out Nazi propaganda and racial hated in the USA despite a constitutional right to the freedom of speech (LaFollette, 2007). Where things have gone wrong is that the power to change the constitution to make it that guns laws should be more restrictive is in the hands of the groups that are pro gun. What is even more unintelligible however, is why this is so: "The power of the pistol lobby over politicians is mind-boggling" (Boggling, 2014).
The NRA and other groups like it show no remorse in the wake of national disasters like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Their pro gun arguments are based on freedom rhetoric that doesn't exist or fire up the imagination of the majority of a full scale invasion of Florida by the evil empire or a small scale invasion of your home by the ever lurking criminal element. Guns, they argue, are not only your right, but are absolutely as necessary today as they were in 1787. The argument that if everyone had guns, criminals would be more deterred does not hold water for those bearing arms that are mentally unstable, or in factual accounts of incidents like the Shooting of Senator Gifford where at least two people in the same crowd had concealed weapons but never drew them while the shooter sprayed the crowd.
Where the NRA get the results is by scaring the few: "politicians won't protect Americans because "they're scared of the NRA"" (Boggling, 2014) Not the public, as the public can be a unwieldy beast that can think for themselves. Instead they take aim at the politician. It is far cheaper to scare just one politician into doing nothing than it is to scare the majority of his 200,000+ constituents. And if he or she doesn't scare so easy, they know he always needs funding for something.....
And so the gun control issue rages on - not because the majority doesn't want change, not because the constitution forbids us, as the constitution itself can be amended, not even because more people die in the US from gun violence than any other country that isn't at war. It's not even an issue of whether it is moral or ethical. The ethical debate takes second stage to the other debates. To me LaFollette (2007) is wrong when he says "although I find the idea of a world without hand guns appealing, there are reasons to seek alternatives, especially in countries like the United States with a deeply entrenched gun culture" (p. 194). That's like saying the Russians have a deeply entrenched tank culture because they made so many of them over the years, we should let every Russia own one; or that the UK has a deeply entrenched culture of people owning big cats so we should allow that to continue.
It's an even more pathetic argument when children are allowed access to fully automatic, large clip assault weapons on the excuse that they need this for something other than killing people. At the very least, weapons should be restricted to being properly stored, licensed and the appropriate checks made. There are other solutions. The constitution makes no reference to ammunition being a right. Restricting all ammunition would make guns harmless, but nobody who has made politics their career wants to take a stand and say so.
The argument rages because our political system allows the minority interest groups (the NRA) to effectively bribe it's policies into place for as long as they can keep that bribed official in power. The real answer probably has nothing to do with gun control laws, but more to do with term limits. A representative or senator who can only serve two terms is more likely to do the right thing and more likely to represent the interests of all Americans.
References:
Boggling. (2014, Mar 26). The Charleston Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1510222250?accountid=27203
Cuccaro, M. (2013). Independently armed - a warning for liberals. [web log comment]. Retrieved from: http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/3149/Independently-Armed.html
GunPolicy.org. (2014). Comparison of Uk and USA gundeaths per 100,000 people. Retrieved from: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/280,194
Gun control. (2003, Fall). Contexts, 2, 60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2003.2.4.60
Gun control. One of the most contentious issues - but only in the USA. You might have guessed I'm British, and having lived in a country where gun ownership is much more of a privilege than a right, I can tell you that the debate about gun control in this country raises my eyebrows some the time, and exasperates me the rest of the time. Before we start this proper, lets do the history.
Gun control in the UK.
- In the United Kingdom, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
- Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in the United Kingdom are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting or collection.
- An applicant for a firearm licence in the United Kingdom must pass a background check which considers criminal, mental and addiction records
- In the United Kingdom, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required
- Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in the United Kingdom stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
- In the United Kingdom gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every five years
- In the United Kingdom, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition
- Licensed firearm owners in the United Kingdom are permitted to possess only an approved number of firearms
- In the United Kingdom, carrying a firearm in plain view or carrying a concealed firearm in a public place is prohibited
Summary: If you want a gun, you need to show a reason. Every 5 years a police officer will come to your house, check out you, your background, your history and your medical records. He will check where you keep the gun and the ammunition, and check you are knowledgeable on the law regarding guns. With his sign off, you will get a gun licence. What guns you have, the number and type, your name and current address are all kept on a national registrar. Most guns are disallowed from keeping at home. Essentially, only shotguns and rifles are allowed.
Gun Control In the USA.
- In the United States, the right to private gun ownership is conditionally guaranteed by the US Constitution, as limited by federal law. For similar local rights, see each state.
- In the United States, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, sawn-off shotguns and rifles, silencers, and armour-piercing ammunition without appropriate registration
- In the United States, private possession of fully automatic weapons is permitted subject to federal licensing and registration
- In the United States, non-prohibited persons of minimum age may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition without a licence in the majority of states.
- A non-disqualified individual wishing to possess a firearm in the United States must pass background checks which consider criminal, health and mental records, only if the supplier is a licensed firearm dealer
- In the United States, authorities do not maintain a record of individual civilians permitted to acquire, possess, carry, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition and the law does not require that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.
Summary: Anyone can buy any gun, from anyone. The only time you get a background check is if you buy from a licensed dealer. The only time you are required to registrar the gun in most states is for open carry of the firearm. There are no records of how many guns you have, no records that trace where the guns are coming from.
OK, now we have the facts down, lets also consider actualities and dispel some myths. First, the reason the UK and most of Europe wasn't forged with a gun is simply because they were not invented yet. The USA West was tamed with a gun because it was more efficient than using clubs and swords. The UK has seen it's fair share of bloodshed, but most of it was done before the 20th Century. Nobody believes in the UK that they are living in a socialist state, nor that their rights are infringed by registering and having their name on a database if they have a gun. This trade off is perhaps reflected in the deaths per 100,000 by guns. In the UK it is 0.23 deaths. The US - in protection of it's 1787 constitution, accepts 10.23 deaths per 100,000 (GunPolicy.org, 2014). It is number one in gun ownership, deaths, wounding and gun suicides, and yet nobody knows who has what or where or how they are keeping their weapons.
In terms of criminals, criminals have less access to guns in the UK, and consequently there are less armed crimes in the UK. The argument that a criminal in the UK who wants a gun could just as easily get one as in the US does not hold water (Cuccaro, 2013). A criminal in the US just needs to go to gun show and buy one. A criminal in the UK will need to first commit a criminal act to get one, the likelihood he gets caught goes up.
What it, seems to me, gun control comes down to is lobbying. It doesn't have anything to do with facts, because in the cold light of day the facts speak for themselves: guns should be restricted for the good of the many, and most people want more control (Gun control, 2003). Guns are not an inalienable right, just as you cannot shout out Nazi propaganda and racial hated in the USA despite a constitutional right to the freedom of speech (LaFollette, 2007). Where things have gone wrong is that the power to change the constitution to make it that guns laws should be more restrictive is in the hands of the groups that are pro gun. What is even more unintelligible however, is why this is so: "The power of the pistol lobby over politicians is mind-boggling" (Boggling, 2014).
The NRA and other groups like it show no remorse in the wake of national disasters like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Their pro gun arguments are based on freedom rhetoric that doesn't exist or fire up the imagination of the majority of a full scale invasion of Florida by the evil empire or a small scale invasion of your home by the ever lurking criminal element. Guns, they argue, are not only your right, but are absolutely as necessary today as they were in 1787. The argument that if everyone had guns, criminals would be more deterred does not hold water for those bearing arms that are mentally unstable, or in factual accounts of incidents like the Shooting of Senator Gifford where at least two people in the same crowd had concealed weapons but never drew them while the shooter sprayed the crowd.
Where the NRA get the results is by scaring the few: "politicians won't protect Americans because "they're scared of the NRA"" (Boggling, 2014) Not the public, as the public can be a unwieldy beast that can think for themselves. Instead they take aim at the politician. It is far cheaper to scare just one politician into doing nothing than it is to scare the majority of his 200,000+ constituents. And if he or she doesn't scare so easy, they know he always needs funding for something.....
And so the gun control issue rages on - not because the majority doesn't want change, not because the constitution forbids us, as the constitution itself can be amended, not even because more people die in the US from gun violence than any other country that isn't at war. It's not even an issue of whether it is moral or ethical. The ethical debate takes second stage to the other debates. To me LaFollette (2007) is wrong when he says "although I find the idea of a world without hand guns appealing, there are reasons to seek alternatives, especially in countries like the United States with a deeply entrenched gun culture" (p. 194). That's like saying the Russians have a deeply entrenched tank culture because they made so many of them over the years, we should let every Russia own one; or that the UK has a deeply entrenched culture of people owning big cats so we should allow that to continue.
It's an even more pathetic argument when children are allowed access to fully automatic, large clip assault weapons on the excuse that they need this for something other than killing people. At the very least, weapons should be restricted to being properly stored, licensed and the appropriate checks made. There are other solutions. The constitution makes no reference to ammunition being a right. Restricting all ammunition would make guns harmless, but nobody who has made politics their career wants to take a stand and say so.
The argument rages because our political system allows the minority interest groups (the NRA) to effectively bribe it's policies into place for as long as they can keep that bribed official in power. The real answer probably has nothing to do with gun control laws, but more to do with term limits. A representative or senator who can only serve two terms is more likely to do the right thing and more likely to represent the interests of all Americans.
References:
Boggling. (2014, Mar 26). The Charleston Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1510222250?accountid=27203
GunPolicy.org. (2014). Comparison of Uk and USA gundeaths per 100,000 people. Retrieved from: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/280,194
Gun control. (2003, Fall). Contexts, 2, 60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2003.2.4.60
May 11, 2014
A634.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Watch theses two videos from business ethics speakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ
and discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.
Values at Merck are important, of that there can be little doubt. They are printed in multiple formats and pinned to every company pin board, they adorn the bottom of every PowerPoint presentation as a tag line, they are emphasized in every employees' development plan as headings under which you should find things to improve, and they are clearly stated at every meeting. Two things stand out though. If asked, I could recite the cub scout promised that I learnt over 30 years ago and was a part of for about 4 years of my life. If asked, I couldn't tell you one of Merck's values from the top of my head - and I've seen them for 5 years also.
What does that tell you about Merck's values. For me it means that they are just tag-lines, they are words with no connection, they are ineffective and therefore useless. I bet on a pop quiz almost all employees at Merck couldn't get more than three total and yet could recite something like the cub scout promise straight away. Other authors agree: "only 58 percent [of employees] thought their organization communicated its values clearly" (Company Values, 2005). Is this important? I think so. If people don't know the values in everyday life at work, what makes you think that any of them would know when what they do do not uphold those values? I think if you are going to have a set of values you should at least make sure their is a connection to all employees with them. Merck has spent a long time doing some good things, but it has spent far longer disassociating itself with it's own employees. Curing river blindness is a very laudable project, one which has not benefited Merck financially but has given employees something at least they could remember about what Merck does. I still am not convinced that even in that great example, Merck employees are connected to river blindness though.
The second and most real problem is that the values are not lived up to by anyone. It is forgivable that the lowest employee on the totem pole has not yet grasped the seriousness of not giving his all every day, or perhaps the middle manager who employs his friend rather than the best person for the job. What is totally unacceptable is the way the executives behave, and it seen across all companies. A recent survey suggested that "Fewer than half of respondents (45 percent) think management behaves in away that's consistent with organizational values" (Company Values, 2005).
While workers are strictly budgeted to specific hotels and only allowed certain amounts of money for breakfast, lunch and dinner - the executive committee only ever stay in the most expensive hotels, blow more money on dinner for themselves than I could get through in a year and never bat an eyelid. Meanwhile, the company also cuts thousands of jobs in the best interest of stakeholder returns and reduce pay and benefits for employees across the board.
The results of poor value adherence is obvious. The talent pool decreases, the ability to attract new talent becomes harder, and the morale shoots downwards quicker than a roller-coaster on the flip side of the lift hill. "If a leader is out of tune with his/her employees and clients, then companies experience a high people turnover as employees flee the company like rats abandoning a sinking ship" (Sylvestre-Williams, 2012). Very soon, even the shareholders are dissatisfied because the company, having cut it's way to profits, no longer has the talent to produce the innovation it strives for in it's values. The vicious circle is so pervasive it is almost unstoppable. A change in leadership - one that understands the importance of ethics, the centrality of values and the absolute recognition that every employee must have a connection to the company's values and standards.
References:
Sylvestre-Williams, R. (2012, Oct 06). Company values are necessary. Prince George Citizen Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1095469895?accountid=27203
COMPANY VALUES COMMUNICATED BADLY. (2005). The Business Communicator, 6(5), 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/221226343?accountid=27203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUJ00vNGCPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLxbHBpilJQ
and discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.
Values at Merck are important, of that there can be little doubt. They are printed in multiple formats and pinned to every company pin board, they adorn the bottom of every PowerPoint presentation as a tag line, they are emphasized in every employees' development plan as headings under which you should find things to improve, and they are clearly stated at every meeting. Two things stand out though. If asked, I could recite the cub scout promised that I learnt over 30 years ago and was a part of for about 4 years of my life. If asked, I couldn't tell you one of Merck's values from the top of my head - and I've seen them for 5 years also.
What does that tell you about Merck's values. For me it means that they are just tag-lines, they are words with no connection, they are ineffective and therefore useless. I bet on a pop quiz almost all employees at Merck couldn't get more than three total and yet could recite something like the cub scout promise straight away. Other authors agree: "only 58 percent [of employees] thought their organization communicated its values clearly" (Company Values, 2005). Is this important? I think so. If people don't know the values in everyday life at work, what makes you think that any of them would know when what they do do not uphold those values? I think if you are going to have a set of values you should at least make sure their is a connection to all employees with them. Merck has spent a long time doing some good things, but it has spent far longer disassociating itself with it's own employees. Curing river blindness is a very laudable project, one which has not benefited Merck financially but has given employees something at least they could remember about what Merck does. I still am not convinced that even in that great example, Merck employees are connected to river blindness though.
The second and most real problem is that the values are not lived up to by anyone. It is forgivable that the lowest employee on the totem pole has not yet grasped the seriousness of not giving his all every day, or perhaps the middle manager who employs his friend rather than the best person for the job. What is totally unacceptable is the way the executives behave, and it seen across all companies. A recent survey suggested that "Fewer than half of respondents (45 percent) think management behaves in away that's consistent with organizational values" (Company Values, 2005).
While workers are strictly budgeted to specific hotels and only allowed certain amounts of money for breakfast, lunch and dinner - the executive committee only ever stay in the most expensive hotels, blow more money on dinner for themselves than I could get through in a year and never bat an eyelid. Meanwhile, the company also cuts thousands of jobs in the best interest of stakeholder returns and reduce pay and benefits for employees across the board.
The results of poor value adherence is obvious. The talent pool decreases, the ability to attract new talent becomes harder, and the morale shoots downwards quicker than a roller-coaster on the flip side of the lift hill. "If a leader is out of tune with his/her employees and clients, then companies experience a high people turnover as employees flee the company like rats abandoning a sinking ship" (Sylvestre-Williams, 2012). Very soon, even the shareholders are dissatisfied because the company, having cut it's way to profits, no longer has the talent to produce the innovation it strives for in it's values. The vicious circle is so pervasive it is almost unstoppable. A change in leadership - one that understands the importance of ethics, the centrality of values and the absolute recognition that every employee must have a connection to the company's values and standards.
References:
Sylvestre-Williams, R. (2012, Oct 06). Company values are necessary. Prince George Citizen Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1095469895?accountid=27203
COMPANY VALUES COMMUNICATED BADLY. (2005). The Business Communicator, 6(5), 3. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/221226343?accountid=27203
May 4, 2014
A634.6.3.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Benjamin Franklin's self-improvement program included 13 virtues that he felt were important guides for living along with principles for each that would, in his opinion, define a person of good character. He developed a scorecard for evaluating how well he measured up to his own ideals. Throughout his life, Franklin tried to live by these virtues though not always successfully.
Review Ben's 13 Virtues (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html) and take the Virtue Quiz (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html) to find out how you measure up against Franklin's virtues.
Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?
Taking the quiz was actually quiet enlightening because it gave the three virtues that I need to work on more, so we will discuss these here. Firstly, this is how I measured up to Mr. Franklin's set of virtues:
"You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement."
Having read the list of virtues, I do think they are all very laudable. How easy it is to live up to that list is hard to say, and will depend greatly on the individual, but also on the time period that they are living in. I say this because this obviously wasn't the easiest thing to accomplish in Ben's day - even he gave up on one of the virtues. Today's society has changed much since then - there are far more distractions, working days are longer, both parents usually work now, and we keep our kids at home longer - sending them through the education system rather than putting them to work. There seems to be more to be done today than even there was 60 years ago when the women were still expected to raise the family while the husband earned the income.
Living up to Ben's virtue may well produce a much more satisfying life though. Not sweating the small stuff, being always mindful of others really is just a list of 'you will reap what you sow'. Again, this isn't easy, as sometimes the harder route is the one that is less travelled, and with added peer pressure, and the need in modern society to get on and be liked is hard to accomplish while always being that pious. The three virtues to work with though were as follows:
Resolution:
"Ben believed that resolutions were meant to be kept. You should consider a plan to better keep yours next New Year". This is very good for me. I can keep resolutions, but I rarely need to make them. When I do, I try very hard to follow them through to the end, but much of this depends greatly on fitting it all in to a busy schedule. I once decided I needed more exercise and started 30 minutes of hell every morning at 6am with Gillian Michaels. That witch really laid it on thick, but after a couple of days I was feeling better and could feel I had more stamina and felt much healthier. After 9 weeks into the 12 week course I was doing well - but my schedule at work changed and I didn't finish it. As usual I spent a week kicking myself for not doing so and then quickly forgot about the whole thing. Funny thing was that after 9 weeks I didn't lose 1lb. I guess the food you eat while you exercise is more or just as important.
Sincerity:
Ben would support the saying, "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". He believed one should think innocently and justly. Rather than participating in potentially harmful gossip, try talking about ideas more and other people less.
I'm terrible at participating in gossip - harmful or otherwise. I know it is a fault, and I guess I use it as a way of gaining trust more than anything else in a perverse sort of way. I know it is an area I should do better on and will have to if I am to be seriously considered again as the replacement for the Chief Pilot. Don't get me wrong - I'm not the one for embellishing the truth, but I'm not afraid of the truth either. Most of the gossip for pilots revolves around decision making: i.e: who can make a decision in a timely manner and who cannot. I don't suffer fools lightly, and I also won't say anything I would repeat directly to their face. I think this gives me an image of being a bit hard, bordering on a little hurtful, but the truth sometimes does hurt. I'm not going to bully someone with the truth, if they want I'll help them remedy the situation and support them while they do it. The problem is, if they don't think you are sincere in the first place they are hardly likely to ask.
Tranquility:
Ben didn't sweat the small stuff. Think about what's REALLY important to you in life, and worry less about the smaller annoyances.
I won't sweat the small stuff, but I will worry about smaller annoyances. Take the car for example. I like my car just the way it is, and I can be fussy about the kids not bringing in juice boxes, cookies and chocolate into the car, where invariably it ends up all over the seats. My kids know the rules - no food without prior approval in dad's car. I'll get annoyed if my wife overrides me and gives me "the look" when I wont let anyone get in the car fully loaded down with half melted ice cream cones. But I stick to my guns, which is annoying to them, but keeps my car looking good. My wife's car by contrast probably could sprout legs and walk off at any time, the mutated pieces of food and drinks bottles all gelling together in that primeval soup she calls a foot well and taking flight. Is the foot well REALLY important - no. Will I stay up all night worrying if the wife borrows my car? - no. My car is the last spot where I really am in control, and I'm clinging to it for dear life!
As for the other virtues, I think I'm including them all in my daily life to at least a good extent.
Temperance, Silence, Order, Frugality, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Chastity and Humility are all brought about through marriage, kids and the church in that order - so I don't think I've got too much to work on. Having just said that, perhaps a bit more on the humility side would be good!
Review Ben's 13 Virtues (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_virtues_list.html) and take the Virtue Quiz (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/exp_virtue.html) to find out how you measure up against Franklin's virtues.
Select three of Franklin's virtues and reflect upon them in your blog. Ask yourself, how can I include them in my daily life?
Taking the quiz was actually quiet enlightening because it gave the three virtues that I need to work on more, so we will discuss these here. Firstly, this is how I measured up to Mr. Franklin's set of virtues:
"You're on the right path. Even though you made a few choices that didn't reflect Ben's plan for becoming more virtuous, overall you scored pretty well. Although Franklin gave up on his formal effort to be more virtuous, he devoted much of his life to self-improvement."
Having read the list of virtues, I do think they are all very laudable. How easy it is to live up to that list is hard to say, and will depend greatly on the individual, but also on the time period that they are living in. I say this because this obviously wasn't the easiest thing to accomplish in Ben's day - even he gave up on one of the virtues. Today's society has changed much since then - there are far more distractions, working days are longer, both parents usually work now, and we keep our kids at home longer - sending them through the education system rather than putting them to work. There seems to be more to be done today than even there was 60 years ago when the women were still expected to raise the family while the husband earned the income.
Living up to Ben's virtue may well produce a much more satisfying life though. Not sweating the small stuff, being always mindful of others really is just a list of 'you will reap what you sow'. Again, this isn't easy, as sometimes the harder route is the one that is less travelled, and with added peer pressure, and the need in modern society to get on and be liked is hard to accomplish while always being that pious. The three virtues to work with though were as follows:
Resolution:
"Ben believed that resolutions were meant to be kept. You should consider a plan to better keep yours next New Year". This is very good for me. I can keep resolutions, but I rarely need to make them. When I do, I try very hard to follow them through to the end, but much of this depends greatly on fitting it all in to a busy schedule. I once decided I needed more exercise and started 30 minutes of hell every morning at 6am with Gillian Michaels. That witch really laid it on thick, but after a couple of days I was feeling better and could feel I had more stamina and felt much healthier. After 9 weeks into the 12 week course I was doing well - but my schedule at work changed and I didn't finish it. As usual I spent a week kicking myself for not doing so and then quickly forgot about the whole thing. Funny thing was that after 9 weeks I didn't lose 1lb. I guess the food you eat while you exercise is more or just as important.
Sincerity:
Ben would support the saying, "He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". He believed one should think innocently and justly. Rather than participating in potentially harmful gossip, try talking about ideas more and other people less.
I'm terrible at participating in gossip - harmful or otherwise. I know it is a fault, and I guess I use it as a way of gaining trust more than anything else in a perverse sort of way. I know it is an area I should do better on and will have to if I am to be seriously considered again as the replacement for the Chief Pilot. Don't get me wrong - I'm not the one for embellishing the truth, but I'm not afraid of the truth either. Most of the gossip for pilots revolves around decision making: i.e: who can make a decision in a timely manner and who cannot. I don't suffer fools lightly, and I also won't say anything I would repeat directly to their face. I think this gives me an image of being a bit hard, bordering on a little hurtful, but the truth sometimes does hurt. I'm not going to bully someone with the truth, if they want I'll help them remedy the situation and support them while they do it. The problem is, if they don't think you are sincere in the first place they are hardly likely to ask.
Tranquility:
Ben didn't sweat the small stuff. Think about what's REALLY important to you in life, and worry less about the smaller annoyances.
I won't sweat the small stuff, but I will worry about smaller annoyances. Take the car for example. I like my car just the way it is, and I can be fussy about the kids not bringing in juice boxes, cookies and chocolate into the car, where invariably it ends up all over the seats. My kids know the rules - no food without prior approval in dad's car. I'll get annoyed if my wife overrides me and gives me "the look" when I wont let anyone get in the car fully loaded down with half melted ice cream cones. But I stick to my guns, which is annoying to them, but keeps my car looking good. My wife's car by contrast probably could sprout legs and walk off at any time, the mutated pieces of food and drinks bottles all gelling together in that primeval soup she calls a foot well and taking flight. Is the foot well REALLY important - no. Will I stay up all night worrying if the wife borrows my car? - no. My car is the last spot where I really am in control, and I'm clinging to it for dear life!
As for the other virtues, I think I'm including them all in my daily life to at least a good extent.
Temperance, Silence, Order, Frugality, Industry, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Chastity and Humility are all brought about through marriage, kids and the church in that order - so I don't think I've got too much to work on. Having just said that, perhaps a bit more on the humility side would be good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)