M7 – Mendoza

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world? What obligations do we have to future generations?

As the world’s sole superpower, I feel we bear the responsibility of leading the charge to combat, prevent and reverse the effects of global warming. We should invest in and improve technologies and processes of producing green, renewable energy in order to show the rest of the world that it can be done and how to do it. Now, thinking back to our previous discussion about dumping waste materials in developing countries, I firmly believe that we as a nation should also find ways to recycle our own materials rather than pawn them off on others who don’t have the ability to resist. Learning how to reduce, reuse and recycle efficiently can have a major impact on the environment in a positive way all by itself.

Now, in regards to what obligations we have to future generations, I think it goes without saying that we owe them the world…literally. We may not have caused all the problems we face today, but we are definitely contributing to them and it is entirely possible for us to find the solutions to them. We shouldn’t simply say oh well and pass these issues on as they will only get more complicated and difficult to solve or prevent. If you have kids of your own, I’m sure you don’t want them to grow up in an environment that can harm or kill them by entirely preventable issues such as contaminated water, air, food or what they are exposed to simply by stepping outside.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration?

In regards to this question, I say that both must pay. Perhaps not equally in a 50/50 split, but I’d say in a 70/30 split with those responsible for pollution paying a larger chunk. This would serve to punish those who commit environmental wrongs and may persuade them to seek routes that are cleaner and avoid financial punishment. Those who stand to gain should also have “skin in the game” and pay a portion of the cost as this is not a solution that can be achieved by any one group alone. We must all be vested in the success and implementation of greener policies that will benefit everyone on Earth.

M7 (Wade)

Find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

An article I found that has an opposing view of Climate Change is The Distributional Impact of Climate Change on Rich and Poor Countries. One benefit of climate change is improved agriculture in some high latitude regions. Carbon dioxide, through fertilization, is strictly beneficial and helps forestry and especially agriculture in all regions (Mendelsohn, 2017). It is difficult to find opposing views on Climate Change because most of the impacts negatively affect the environment.

What obligations do we have to future generations?  

I believe we owe it to our future generations to protect the environment. According to Shaw, more than 131.8 million people, roughly 42% of the population – live where the air is often dangerous to breathe. Future generations will be born into a world where air pollution is especially harmful to young children, whose lungs are still developing. Obligations we have to future generations are clean air to breathe, safe drinking water, food without chemicals or pesticides, an environment without pollution and inhumane animal treatment. Future generations deserve a world that is better than the condition it is in today.

Does nature have value in itself?

Nature gives life to humans, animals, plants, bacteria, and many more species. Nature has always provided us with food, water, oxygen, and materials. Only in the past few centuries has man started to produce things not found in nature, but nature is still the great nurturer, even if we have lost our connection or appreciation of it. The Earth also offers us many other gifts, such as music that comes from birds, inspiration, spirituality, and beauty. Nature has value in itself as many of these gifts are given to us freely.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment?

Those who are responsible for causing the pollution should definitely be the ones who should pay for the cost for protecting the environment and restoring the land, sea, and air as it was originally left before their cause of destruction. While companies should pay for their pollution, I also believe most humans have contributed to polluting our home. We should take action to recycle, use more renewable energy, or take part in some way or form to prevent further pollution and to restore Earth’s natural habitat.  


Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., & Williams, L. (2017). The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy,467-486. doi:10.4324/9781315257570-21


M7 (Avise)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

The source that I found shows that most claims made by Al Gore, the leader of the “Climate Change/Global Warming’ prediction are inaccurate. It was originally said as “Global Warming’ until most every prediction was shown as false. Now we have changed the label on the same movement, moving us to “Clean Energy’ with electric cars and different ways of harnessing power. We have yet to see the full effects of these electric cars but have already started to see what the use of rare metals and the extra production of electricity is doing to the planet. An article that I found stated “In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found(So Wade).’ Although we do not know with 100% certainty that these new electric cars pose the same or more of a threat to our environment as their fossil fueled counterparts, is being shown early into their existence that it may not be as “green’ as they are made out to be.

Under Learning Objectives on page 248, find #6 and choose two (2) questions to answer. Be sure to list your questions in your post.

  1. What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

I think we have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves. For those of you who have not seen the movie Deep Water Horizon I recommend watching it. This is a prime example of the United States company BP making a huge mistake and not properly taking care the mess of this explosion. The book stated, “in the four months it took to cap the well, 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana’ (Shaw246). In the incident involving this oil rig, the problem should have ben handled much quicker rather than it is taking 4 months to get taken care of. The company who caused the pollution should be responsible for cleaning up our environment as well as other countries company’s and/or governments being responsible for cleaning up their environment.

  1. What obligations do we have to future generations?

I think that the biggest obligation we have to future generations is cleaning up after ourselves. I also that that we are using to many pesticides when yielding crops. Theses residues are getting left on the food we eat. A hundred years ago people didn’t know what cancer was, today cancer is well known and lots of people are diagnosed every day. It makes me wonder if these chemicals that we are ingesting through our food are play a role in our heath. I do believe that the use of pesticides needs to be minimized to hopefully create a healthier future generation. As that is something being proven more and more every day. It’s not natural to add in unnecessary hormones and pesticides to make sure we can yield the best crops. It is the farmers duty to refrain from doing these things that are hindering not only the environment but those that are living in it. These effects can be found more and more as time goes on.


Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I am less concerned about the environmental impact of things going on in the world. I find a vast majority of climate change concerns to be purely based on theories with most of it not being proved with hard evidence that stands true years later. I think that who should pay the cost of protecting the environment should be those companies that pose an immediate issue to our environment. If BP has an oil spill, then naturally it is their responsibility to clean it up a pay the cost of it. But opinions on what could possibly be bad for the environment is not something that needs to be paid for and or implemented before we know for sure it’s actually an issue to our future. I also believe that under no circumstance should this be the duty of the American taxpayer to be responsible for. I don’t need a third of my fuel cost to be taxes because of an inability to fund everything that could possibly be “bad’ for the environment.

Works cited

Beauregard, Elmer. “Top Ten Reasons Climate Change Is a Hoax.’ Exposing The Truth About Global Warming Hysteria, 23 Jan. 2015, www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/.

So Wade, Lizzie. “Tesla’s Electric Cars Aren’t as Green as You Might Think.’ Wired, Conde Nast, 10 Jan. 2018, www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/.urces:

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. 9th ed., Cengage Learning, 2017

M6 (Wade)

Kenneth L. Layand and   Jeffrey K. Skilling, the chief executives who guided Enron through its spectacular rise and even more stunning fall, were found guilty on May 25, 2006, of fraud and conspiracy (Barrionuevo, 2006). The Enron Corporation was an American Energy, economic goods, and services company based in Houston, Texas. Enron was founded in 1985 as a combination of InterNorth and Houston Natural Gas. Fortune, an American multinational business magazine, named Enron “America’s Most Innovative Company’ for six consecutive years. At Enron’s peak, its shares were worth $90.75; when the firm declared bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, the company was trading at $0.26 (Segal, 2019). Enron’s leadership mislead regulators with fake holdings and off-the-books accounting practices. The once most innovative company used special purpose vehicles (SPVs), or special purpose entities (SPEs), to conceal its enormous debt and toxic assets from creditors and investors. Also, the firm was found to be guilty of obstructing justice for shredding Enron’s financial documents to conceal them from the SEC. Due to the Enron scandal, in July 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Act intensified the consequences for altering, destroying, or fabricating financial statements, and for trying to defraud shareholders.







Barrionuevo, A. (2006, May 25). Enron Chiefs Guilty of Fraud and Conspiracy. Retrieved June 28, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/business/25cnd-enron.html

Segal, T. (2019, May 29). Enron Scandal: The Fall of a Wall Street Darling. Retrieved June 28, 2019, from https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/


During my research today I learned that there are so many companies that have had to recall products due to safety reasons. For example, the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, Johnson and Johnson Tylenol, Takata airbag recall. However, the one recall that stuck out most to me was Merck’s Vioxx recall. Vioxx entered the market in 1999 and it was a medication for arthritis pain. This medication was later confirmed to cause fatal heart attacks and strokes. Dr. David Graham, that estimated Vioxx had been associated with more than 27,000 heart attacks or deaths linked to cardiac problems. The article had stated that Merck’s dismissed the idea that the drug could result in cardiovascular problems including heart attacks and strokes. The company knew that this drug could cause those risks, yet they decided to look the other way on the issue. In September of 2004 they recalled the drug. I think that this behavior was very unethical because people died from this company’s drug. Due to this unethical behavior, Merck’s company has not strived like it use too, the stock went down, and they have thousands of lawsuits against them for the deaths of so many citizens. There was an article written in spring of 2018, in that article it stated that Merck’s Vioxx recall was the third biggest product recalls of all time.



Below is the article that states this product is the third biggest recall in historyhttps://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T052-S000-10-biggest-product-recalls-of-all-time/index.html

M2 ( Wade)

Last summer I was at a grocery buying a few snacks. As I was walking to the exit, the cashier that rang me up ran quickly to me and gave me the Razzles candy that I purchased. He said he must have forgotten to put them in the bag. I said thank you, as the cashier hurried back to help customers. As I looked inside my paper bag, I saw that my Razzles were in fact there and the one I had in my hand was not purchased for. I quickly walked back to the same cashier and got in line again. I explained that he did put the candy I purchased in the bag and that I wanted to buy the packet of Razzles that he handed to me. I could have walked out of the store with two packets of Razzles and called it my lucky day, but inside me, I knew that was not the right thing to do. I felt a sense of happiness knowing that the cashier wanted to return something to me that he thought I left behind and had paid for. I hope going back to purchase the item gave the cashier a sense of happiness in someone doing the right thing.

Kant’s theory is an individual’s measure of their ethics based on goodwill and using the categorical imperative (Shaw, 2017). Kant held that only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth. Goodwill is the only thing that is good in itself. The categorical imperative describes that we should always act in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to a universal law. My action of going back and purchasing what the cashier thought he forgot to bag, is an act Kant’s categorical imperative theory.


Shaw, William H.. Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases Cengage Learning.

M2 (Mendoza)

During my time as a medic in the Army, my work environment was definitely one of impersonal egoists, myself included. No one was out to be cutthroat or sabotage others, but competition was extreme to be recognized as the best at their job. We had a common agreement that every person must look out for themselves as no one else would be more invested in your own self interests than you would be. This may sound like a place that could be hostile, but we had great comradery and a close brotherhood. But like I said, in terms of professional development and success, no one came before self. I would even say it made us better medics, as the desire to be the best pushed us as individuals to seek the latest training and education.

For me, this is a great example of how egoism isn’t necessarily an evil or morally wrong mindset to abide by. Of course we cared about the well-being of the medics in our section and the people we were medically responsible for, that went without compromise. The difference was that we simply had to look out for ourselves at the end of the day, and though it may be difficult for some to understand as many people are stuck in the “team” mentality, you’ve got to realize this method worked for us. We were competitive, and we were better for it.

M1 (Wade)

Ethics can be developed in several methods, ranging from childhood upbringing, religious beliefs, cultural values, and consciousness or the gut feeling of what is right from what is wrong. Ethics is developed during childhood from one’s upbringing. Parents teach their children their own ethical morals through their use of words, and importantly in their actions. Parents tell us right from wrong and discipline their children through the use of their words and or actions. A person can also develop their ethics through religion and religious beliefs. Shaw states that “any religion provides its believers with a worldview, part of which involves certain moral instructions, values, and commitments’ (Shaw, 11). One example of the mandate “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ This “Golden Rule’ is found in several of the religions in the world, including Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam) representing one of humankind’s highest moral ideals. As I believe your ethics can be shaped from many these ways, I also believe it is ultimately your decision to choose which morals you want to carry with you.

An ethical stance is when a person takes a position on a topic based on defined ethical principles as determined acceptable by the person. A person keeps their ethical stance because their morals may be so strong they feel the need to take action on what they believe is the right thing to do.

M8 (Boyd)


2. I feel that employees should have a moral right to leave their weapons in their vehicles at work. At my current job they ask that there are no weapons on the premises. Though there is no way to enforce this, without the invasion of person property, I feel weapons should be aloud in personal vehicles as long as they are secured. This could be the matter of life and death for an employee. I recently received an email at my job of another manager in the lower 48 being stabbed multiple times after being hit from behind by a customer. With robbers and customers bearing weapons I feel we should have the right to keep weapons in our own vehicles for our protection as long as they are secured. The difference it could have made for another employee to have a weapon they could have gotten to defend the manager could have lessened his injuries dramatically. I believe companies have no right to ask employees to remove their weapons from personal vehicles. None company vehicles are private property and would take away the rights to a person owning the car to tell them they can not store weapons. I do not feel companies have good grounds to this due to cars being personal property.

3. I agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots would cause a major hit to the second amendment. People have a right to bare arms, I feel being asked to leave a weapon in my vehicle is a reasonable way to keep weapons out of the work place. Many people carry weapons in self defense, and I feel having to leave a weapon at home puts employees at extreme risk. People have a right to protect themselves, having no access to a means of protection for 40 hrs a week when their is most likely to be a need for said protection does not seem right in my eyes. I feel state legislatures have a right to get involved due to the matter affecting the second amendment. This controversy has a direct effect on our second amendment and should not be left up to the jurisdiction of a company.

4. I feel their are circumstances that teachers should be allowed to bring weapons to schools. Granted I feel they should have to take advanced safety courses, check in and out all weapons, and have a military grade security system for storing all weapons. I feel teachers should be able to have weapons as long as the school ensures the safety of the “learning environment”. Theses weapons should be assigned to qualified teachers and the school should ensure that in no way possible a student could gain access to these weapons. I feel it is very reasonable for teachers to carry weapons under the right circumstances.   Regarding schools though I feel that other aspects should also be taken such as bullet proof doors/rooms, better monitoring systems, stricter regulations on what is aloud within the school, and more checks to ensure all policies are being followed.


Read Case Study 8.4 “Have Gun, Will Travel….to Work’

Answer the following questions in your post:   Questions 2, 3 and 4 at the end of the Case. For question 4, since it is being debated at the state and federal levels, answer it in relation to schools and teachers. Question 4 could be as follows:

A  school  could choose, if it wished, to allow  teachers  to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the  school  itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of  students or other teachers  to be guaranteed a safe  learning environment?   Feel free to comment on other aspects of having controlled guns in schools.

  1. In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot?   If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers?   If employees don’t have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them stow guns in their cars anyway?   Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots?

I think the area needs to be considered, and company policy should dictate the work environment. If an employee is on company grounds, and they do not allow guns, then no. If the company says it’s okay to have a gun for travel safety and they can secure the parking lot, then that is the companies will. I used to live in a rural area in Northern California, and my commute was ten miles of winding, mountain roads. As a woman traveling alone, without a cell phone signal, it could have been dangerous for me if my truck happened to break down. I carried a handgun in my truck for my personal safety and am trained in its use. In fact, knowing that I was a city girl, my employer suggested that I have one for my own protection. My employer also had guns in the store, and I did not feel uneasy or threatened at all. I was in the country and everyone I knew up there carried guns, it was common, nobody made a big deal out of it. We had nine employees in this general/hardware store. I would have been more concerned about someone coming into the store to commit robbery and using a gun on us. In the three years that I worked there, nobody attempted a robbery, I felt safer at work there. In the SF Bay Area, I was involved in some instances where my store got robbed and I did not feel safe there. When you work retail, the potential for robbery is a real danger, especially in a large city like Oakland, it’s not a safe place to be. I would not have had a gun in my car that was parked in Oakland. Cars were broken into all the time, so a gun could not have been secured. We had a security guard that walked us to our cars if we wanted, and I did that. I did not worry about my commute since I was less than a mile from the freeway and I knew the bad areas where I should not drive.

  1. Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would “take a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment’ or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self-defense?   Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing this issue? Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle?

Again, I think this depends on the area, rural or urban. Individual companies should have the right to dictate their own policies since they are ultimately legally responsible for anything that happens on their own property. However, if guns are not allowed, and someone feels threatened walking to their car, then the company has a responsibility to keep their employees as safe as possible. My store in Oakland provided a security guard as an escort and most of the women I worked with asked for protection since our store had the highest crime rate. Government involvement in gun laws do not allow for considerations of the area, rural or urban. The two cultures are radically different, and one law concerning guns does not fit all circumstances. Every state has their own gun laws and if you choose to live in that state, then the laws should be respected. The gun laws in my state prohibit me from open carry, and when I move, it will be to a place where I can protect myself.

  1. A  schoolcould choose, if it wished, to allow  teachersto bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the  school  itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of  students or other teachers  to be guaranteed a safe  learning environment?   Feel free to comment on other aspects of having controlled guns in schools.

Many of my personal friends are teachers in elementary schools in California. I asked them on Facebook to personally message me their thoughts on guns on the classroom. I asked for private messaging because my range of friends go from very liberal to very conservative and I did not want a heated public debate on my wall. I wanted to hear only from the teachers that are in the classroom and they respected that. Due to the recent school shootings, training is being provided for all school personnel in how to handle a shooter situation. One friend completed her training last week. She was told in training that in all the school shootings, that the actual shooting is over within 5 minutes or less. The length of time for the Sandy Hook shootings was 3 ½ minutes. If guns were in the classroom, there would not be adequate time for a teacher to hide the children and retrieve a gun since it must be secured to keep the children safe. At her training, a game plan not involving firearms was put into place, a way to protect the children and themselves. She does not think that guns should be allowed in the classroom. This is an individual who goes to the shooting range for target shooting. She is not anti-gun for private citizens, just not in the schools. “Another point that came from the training is that all these mass shootings were not the result of bullying but that the shooters were all psychopaths.’ (Direct quote).

Another teacher told me a gun in the classroom is an accident waiting to happen. Teachers are hired to teach and that having a gun in the classroom would stress her out because she would always be afraid that the gun was not 100% secure. The classroom environment would be unsafe for students and teachers with a gun, she said guns have no place in the classroom. Her daughter, also a teacher in California, recently completed her training and believes that guns should be not be in the classroom.

Another friends response is from a retired California teacher now living in Fairbanks. She wonders why there are more shootings in urban areas as opposed to rural. After researching statistics on school shootings in Alaska as compared to the rest of the US, she saw that there are far fewer shootings in Alaska where guns are more prevalent. Her granddaughter attends public school in Fairbanks where the class size is 20-25 students per classroom. When my friend taught in a low income, urban area in California, the class size was 32-37 students per classroom. She wonders if overcrowding affects humans the same way it does rodents in mice studies where they cannibalize each other. This is something to consider if overcrowding does indeed create psychopathic behavior, I had not thought of that. Her vote is for no guns in the classroom. She suggests that there are already procedures in place to protect the children and staff. She would feel unsafe knowing that there were guns on campus. “I am one of those who say to politicians, rather than spend money on weapons and military training, please spend money on lower class sizes, arts and music programs, and on basic classroom supplies so us teachers don’t have to buy them ourselves.’ (Direct quote).

Now for my personal opinions on school shootings. After the Columbine tragedy, the music of Marilyn Manson was blamed for negatively influencing the high school shooters as well as violent video games. This accusation had a great impact on his career. His concerts were protested by Christians and his income suffered. It came out two years later, that the shooters didn’t even like his music, never even listened to him. In the movie, Bowling for Columbine’, Manson was interviewed and was asked what would he say if he could talk to the kids at Columbine? He said that he wouldn’t say a word, just listen to what they had to say. This is something that nobody did. The issue I have with school shootings are not about the guns, bullying, music, or violent video games. I believe it is about the lack of adequate mental health treatment. The school shooting in Parkland, Florida by Nikolas Cruz was especially heartbreaking. Authorities and many people in his life saw signs of serious mental problems yet took no action. Nobody listened to him.

Ovalle, David. “Florida School Shooting Suspect Was Ex-Student Who Was Flagged as Threat.’  Miamiherald, Miami Herald, www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200126034.html.

yamayurikai.  Interview with Marilyn Manson – Bowling for Columbine. 20 Nov. 2009, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHFB2KP8fc. Accessed 26 Mar. 2018.