M9 (Hansen)

As you will learn in your careers, your management style will grow and adapt based on who you are and who you supervise. You will also pick up and learn things (good and bad) from your past or current supervisors. For this week, what, if any, has been your experience with the Hawthorne effect on a job?  Answer this question and then choose one of the following to answer:  1) Describe a supervisor who inspired and motivated you – what were their characteristics or actions that made such a positive impact?  2) Describe a supervisor who was a poor supervisor (un-motivating, indecisive, uncaring, etc.) – what were their characteristics or actions that made you feel that way?


Generally speaking, when I am being observed I tend to feel a bit paranoid or get the feeling like I’m being tested or scrutinized. My work doesn’t necessarily suffer, but my ability to enjoy my job decreases drastically.

I had a boss in the Navy who was the worlds greatest asshole. No one liked him, but due to his stellar performance in class, and on tests, he’d continuously excel while taking as much credit as possible for jobs he supervised. He was incredibly toxic, even going so far as to dog whistle his workers. He would routinely question your motives and abilities even to the point of grilling you for information that had nothing to do with the job until he could find something to lord over you. He would expect more work than one is able to give in a 12 hour period, including singling out pregnant women and denouncing them as lazy. He’d even call you across the building to get him a glass of water (which I can neither confirm nor deny had been urinated in).
He is the perfect example of how not to lead, and every morning I wake up I can be happy that I’m not him.

M8 (Hansen)

2. I do think that employees should be able to keep firearms in their car, and while suspicion by their employers may be warranted, that means that there is probably an employee who they feel unsafe around. Maybe firing the individual who is being confrontational and impulsive would be a better way to handle the situation rather than have them stay on and continue creating issues. I think guns should be kept in the vehicle, and if the companies have hired stable individuals than there should be nothing to worry about.

3. No. The NRA is a cancer on the gun community for politizing EVERYTHING related to guns, then barring the CDC from doing any research that may cast guns in a bad light. They completely blew the issue out of proportion, and the ultimate decision should lay with the individual on whether or not there should or shouldn’t be a gun in their vehicle. If a company has an issue with an individual having a gun in their car, then they should look into what makes them feel that way.

4. A parking lot is fine, again as long as the vehicle remains secure. However, I would be concerned about a child getting his hands on a weapon, or accidental discharge of the firearm injuring a student. I think the presence of a gun within the walls of a school should not even be considered due to the HIGH potential for mishap. If a gun were to make it into the school, it would need to be by the hands of a professional.


M7 (Hansen)


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.

Comment on which of these answers you feel is the most accurate, or if you propose a third possible answer.   Be sure to back up your argument with facts, references and sound reasoning.



Oh boy, here we go.


There is a LOT of ‘he said, she said’ on this topic. I did one (1) google search and there are THOUSANDS of articles on the subject. Most of them point the finger at big businesses like oil, chemical plants, and coal who contribute a vast of amount pollution in comparison to the average person. These articles state that the businesses should take care of any damages to the environment, and be highly involved with its upkeep. We’ve attempted to put regulations into our government to clearly define what is and isn’t allowed for the sake of the environment, yet lo and behold, the large corporations lobbied those regulations out. Also, with the new administration (regardless of what you think of it) has effectively defunded the EPA, backed out of the Paris Agreement, and slashed NASA’s Earth Science budget so hard that they might have a better chance for a budget turning tricks on the sidewalk outside Kennedy Space Center. To wit, this has clearly backfired.

As LITERALLY everyone stands to benefit from protecting the environment, asking the common man to do something is a bit of a stretch when the powerful (the top 1% and government officials) won’t lift a finger without slamming you with paperwork, jail time, or some other bureaucratical nonsense. There is, however, as mentioned above, the third option.

Kill everyone.

Humans are the worst offenders when it comes to global warming which causes a multitude of issues and has been cited by the DOD in 2015 as the ‘greatest threat to humanity’. According to NASA’s climate website: “The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there’s a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.” [sp]

If humans were completely absent from the planet, then the threat of an environmental hazard to the DOD would immediately cease, once again, taking care of the ‘largest threat to worldwide national security.’ Also, this would minimize humans effect on the environment to nearly zero. There would be lingering effects, though eventually, Mother Nature would catch up, and those would be rendered inert within a few decades.

There are many who would say that this plan is nonsense and that by even posting this, I’m being a real asshole, and not taking the assignment seriously, however, I challenge anyone replying to this to find more than the obvious 1 downside (?). I would argue that the hundreds of downsides and the sheer amount of time it would take to implement any other plan would and could have the potential to come undone by greed, or by selfish internal manipulation.

On a more personal level; is it really THAT bad if we don’t all go to work tomorrow?












1. For you, what was the most alarming part of this film?

The Corporation had a varying number of moments where I was alarmed, though that’s, not saying much, as the documentary is full of information that the public has a right to know, but for the most part, remains ignorant. I would say the most alarming though was when in Feb 21, 1999 when Monsanto was able to bully FOX out of reporting on MAXIM-100 Bovine Growth Hormone and it’s links to cancer.


A) Do you believe corporations are legal persons? Why or Why Not?

Corporations should not be legal persons. How does one give a building rights? Or a piece of paper? These are things that cannot think, nor can they feel, thus lack the inherent ‘thing’ that makes life, life. There seems to be only one TRUE rule in the corporate world: the bottom line. Money. Profit. Call it what you will, but all evils that these corporations commit stems from that one rule. This fact is even held up by law, as stated in the documentary at around 15:30.

One who pushes for the bottom line only, is not human. It is a machine with a singular purpose, and it should be treated as such. What does one do with a broken or flawed machine?

M4 Hansen

  1. How can you justify the role of “sweatshops” after reading “In Defense of International Sweatshops?”
  2. Do some research and read at least one other article(s) with the opposing view.  What are the arguments against sweatshops? Provide the reference.
  3. What should large conglomerates do regarding the use of “sweatshops?”


  1. The justification for sweatshops comes from the fact that there are very little means to make an income beyond them. As the article stated, many child workers that had gotten laid off turned to prostitution.
  2. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/28/sweatshops-supplying-high-street-brands                                 This article states that out of 10,000 workers, over three factories, none were paid a living wage. Many were given impossible deadlines, then punished for their not being able to meet that goal, including restricted bathroom breaks and unventilated hot rooms. Many practices the companies used were against that nations law, including paying by ‘productivity targets’, forcing overtime without sufficient pay or compensation, and  “are routinely breaking every rule in the book when it comes to labour rights”.
  3. This is a complicated issue. It comes down to losing the individual’s source of income, and potentially dooming them to extreme poverty, hunger, or worse against corporate profiteering and blatant human rights abuses. When difficult issues like this are presented, I tend to break the issue down to it’s barest bone, then work up to solve the problem. There’s obvious cruelty to both sides, but I think the large conglomerates should pressure the countries who promote this to take action against these companies with EXTREME prejudice. There will be fallout, and there will be suffering, however, the long-term gain, I believe, would be worth the cost.

M2 (Hansen)

At some point in your life, I hope you have observed some of these normative theories in action.  Choose a situation from your life and describe how it applies to one of the theories we have studied in Chapter 2 (Kant, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Good Will, Prima Facie Obligations, others, etc.). Discuss why you identified that particular situation with the stated theory. Be sure to describe the situation or example.  If you have not observed a theory in action in your life, find an example in our history and discuss how the theory applies to the situation.

When I was looking at going to college in 2010 I quickly realized that I had no money or income to speak of. I had worked summer jobs and weekend jobs since I was 14 but had largely used that money paying for a used car (that barely held itself together) a custom built PC, and other teenage triviality’s. All the job’s I wanted were completely closed off due to the fact that I had no certifications or higher education to speak of, and despite building PC’s since age 12 and holding a weekend internship for several years doing that exact thing, not one shop would hire me on even at the lowest position. I was determined to not put myself through fast food hell, and go into an extreme amount of debt just to get an education, so I had a choice to make.I needed to either suck up the fact that I was going to be in debt for a very long period of time, or I could join the military (as my Dad, who had also served, had insisted previously). After picking up a construction job and thinking for a few months on the topic, I decided to join up with the Navy on the condition that I got a job involving computers and that this was to be a temporary thing, and that I was not going to spend my life working for ‘The Man’. The six years I endured were very painful, and very much outside the bell curve of a standard military experience, however with that pain (and some careful planning, and bending of the rules) I was able to take advantage of a lot of the hidden benefits that the military offered. I was able to get my AA through the University of Maryland while on Active Duty at very little cost to myself, as well as numerous certifications, and complete 4 separate apprenticeships along my tenure as an active duty member. Despite the good, there were very few days that went by where I wished I could simply walk out and never look back, but I needed to be patient; at the end of the road was the GI Bill and my ticket to debt free education. In light of that, I bode my time and finally in November of 2017 I was done.
I got free* college for selling my soul for 6 years, and I’ve got more qualifications then I need to get any computer repair job that I want in Fairbanks.
This example ties into Brant’s Rule Utilitarianism, given the proposition that success and progress leads to happiness in those involved, or those who are eventually affected by said success (I.E. If I were to invent new medical equipment, or legalize marijuana). The idea that joining the military to get a step ahead, and free up my finances, allows me to optimize my efforts into other ideas or projects. While most the ‘most good’ as the text suggests, within my circle and my own agency, using the military as a utility (though not a single action) for my personal success and financial freedom was the clearest path to happiness that was available to me at the time.

M1 (Hansen)

How do we develop our ethics? What are the primary sources for us to develop our ethical position?


Humans develop ethics throughout their lives based on the treatment they receive and they way that the individual would like to be perceived. In example, if one is raised learning that cooperation is key to one’s survival, the individual will most likely develop ethics around the concepts of teamwork and community. This can be strengthened by other people we meet in life (particularly during developmental and formative years) either by challenging or securing our belief in those ideals. As generations pass, these ethics evolve with each successive generation constantly shifting to fit the needs and attributes of it’s members.

More then likely, each individual will gain a platform for their individual ethics from their parents, or other mother/father figures. Again, as expressed above, these can be challenged by world experiences (visiting a new culture, being included in a new demographic) and those we choose to spend time around or, can cement them. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual’s sense of justice and their perception of the world around them that culminates into their eventual ethical stance.