Dean M12

  1. Why marijuana is illegal. Does Chomsky’s argument about why marijuana is illegal still apply? How might he change his argument now that some states have made it legal?



I really enjoyed the view that Mr. Chomsky holds on marijuana, and I think there are areas of his views that do apply still. This is definitely a market avenue that really potentially has a lot to offer in economic revenue. It’s taxable and states make a considerable amount from its sales once it has been legalized.

Dean Module 7

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment? This is a question of social justice. Two popular answers are currently in circulation:

  1. Those responsible for causing the pollution ought to pay.
  2. Those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration should pay.

I think both ends of the spectrum will have to participate if we intend on seeing a beneficial change in environmental protection. The side that causes the pollution needs to focus on efforts to better their environmental impact and those who support the protection and restoration should help support the transition of industries, groups and companies who want to leave a better imprint on society. It’s very easy to see where people view the polluters as those to pay the cost of environmental restoration, kind of the ‘you break it, you buy it’ idea. If you destroy something or pollute something important in the environment or an ecosystem, then it’s your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, it’s very easy to see the viewpoint from the other side, if the environment is something you want to protect and stand up fir, then you should be the one putting in the time, energy and allocating costs to its survival.  At this point I think we’re still at the ‘finger pointing’ stage so to speak and while the automatic group to blame is the ones who pollute and harm the environment, in the end I think it come down to both groups participating equally.

Dean Module 5 Post

Last week, your assignment was to watch “The Corporation.’   Although this film is over 15 years old, it is my hope it pulled at your heart strings and made you question some things about the corporate world.   This week, our Class Discussion centers around the film.   If you need instructions on creating a post, refer to previous modules.

Complete the following: Everyone must answer question #1 below.   Then you choose either A, B or C to answer (not all three). Copy the question (A, B or C) into your post so your classmates know what you are replying to.

  1. For you, what was the most alarming part of this film?
  2. C) One company in the film stated that “falsifying news is not actually against the law.’ Describe if you think this is an accurate statement in relation to ethical norms.   Defend your position.

Looking at this ethically, it incredibly disheartening to hear that companies or corporations believe that the falsification of news doesn’t constitute as a crime. I think the majority of people today would disagree with this statement, falsifying anything suggests you lied to cover up a darker truth or don’t care about the well-being of those around or who work for you, any kind of falsification is unethical. More specifically it really comes down to what the company/group/corporation is lying about, the more inappropriate areas being those that regard the well-being and safety of their workers, which would be a large reason for companies to silence news or reports to try and avoid further trouble or gaining a tarnished reputation. I think it would be interesting to do a social experiment and interview random people about how honest they think their local businesses and corporations are in several different categories, I think it would be interesting to also see if smaller local businesses have a better wrap than local larger businesses, and people’s overall perception of them. I would hypothesize that a lot of people don’t think about the unethical/honesty factor.