M12 – Stoltzfus

The Drowning Child. Isn’t there a question about what we should spend our money on? Are we able to think whatever we want about right or wrong?

How a person spends his or her money should be up to themselves. They should of course be ethical about it and consider the points Peter Singer brings up in this video. Living a truly ethical life would involve giving back if you have the means, but there isn’t a way to ethically force people to spend their money to help others.

This video did make me think of taxes and the government assistance programs that they fund. These programs are in a sense a way that people who live more comfortably give to those less fortunate. I don’t think that is what Singer had in mind but it is a decent point towards socialism and things like universal health care.

We are free to make our minds about right and wrong but only within a range. Most situations have grey area that can be debated, but most also have some clear white and black areas that can not. Killing another human is wrong. Saving someone for unnecessary harm is right. Euthanizing someone with a painful illness is in that grey area where, as long as there is some thought and reason, a person could think whatever they want about whether it is right or wrong.

M9 – Stoltzfus

I am currently working as a barista at a local chain coffee shop. My manager also manages another location close by. When I started in this job, the manager was rarely present at either locations and we would go a week or more at a time without hearing or seeing her. She was at times hard to get in contact with even by phone. Then a few months ago, she was replaced with my current manager. She splits her time evenly between the locations and we do not usually go more than a day without her checking in. Even though she has given us more work, like scheduling daily deep cleans, it has made for a much better work environment. Just as the Hawthorne Effect states, productivity increased with someone caring for our workplace.

I was a waitress at a restaurant with very poor supervisors. The managers had very blatant favoritism and only punished the employees who were not their friends. One server was fired for changing credit card tips, but was rehired a few months later and everyone was told not to talk about it. Then another waitress, who had not had any other problems, was fired for calling out once. I was very glad to leave that job and the toxic environment. Having supervisors who were inconsistent was nerve raking and made every work day painful.

M8 Stoltzfus

Legally and morally, I do not think employees have a right to keep guns in their cars. As Case 8.4 stated, the workplace is private property and thereby the owner of the land, in this case the employer, can determine legally whether or not guns maybe allowed on the campus. With an employment at will contact, the employee is agreeing to adhere to company policy. While firing someone for simply having a gun in their car in the parking lot seems not quite right, if it was explicitly stated that it was against company policy, it is not unjust for them to be excused. Companies are right to be concerned about guns on work property. A locked car is not a vault. They are broken into a robbed frequently and to have the liability of a stolen gun is much worse than most other thing that would be left in a car. A weapon so easily accessible would not be safe. If a company did determine that their employees were significantly safer going to and from work with a gun and allowed guns on in the parking lot, I could see the value in that as well. Ultimately, the employer should get to determine and uphold a gun policy because it is company property and there are many employee’s safety to consider.

The Second Amendment states the right to bear arms is to form a militia to ensure a free state. A militia is a citizen made army for the purpose of either supplementing the national army or to protect the people from it’s own government if that government abuses it’s power. In either case, there would more than likely be advance notice to forming this militia. I would not expect people to have to leave their work place at a moments notice with their weapons to defend the people. The NRA has construed the Second Amendment to mean that citizens should be able to have a gun anytime and anyplace. They are definitely guilty of politicizing most gun issues. I think the state is right create restriction on guns in terms of purchasing and things of that sort. But in this case of guns in parking lots, it should be left to the companies and employees to determine themselves individually.

Allowing any guns, even or especially  handled by teachers, into a school of defenseless children does not make any sense to me. Guns are deadly and unpredictable. Just a few week ago, a gun-trained teacher’s fire arm accidentally went off and injured a student. If teachers had gun, there would be a greater opportunity for a untrained student to get a hold of one and create damage. Claiming that these teachers would be highly trained in impractical. Most of the teacher I know barely have time for themselves between classes, lesson planning, and grading assignments. To expect them to fit enough training and practice time with a gun to be proficient enough to only shoot an attacker is unfair. In a video I recently watched (and can unfortunately not find to reference it) a reporter from a well know new agency visited a facility where teachers were being trained to use guns in schools. In a simulated school shooter situation, one of the teachers shot a fake innocent student. When the reporter asked to trainer about it, he said that was expected and acceptable because it would save the lives of the other children. Do we really want to put teachers in the position where they are shooting students, even if it is in the crossfire with an attacker?