State of the Union

I hope all of you watched the State of the Union address this past Tuesday. Democracy only works correctly when those that it represents are actively engaged and aware. The State of the Union address is a great way to get a picture of what the President aspires to do and I think that is something that every citizen should be aware of whether you agree with him or not.

While watching the speech I identified several topics that the President talked about that I think have ethical impacts for the country as a whole and those in the field of public administration.  The first subject (and these are not in any particular order) is the closing down of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The U.S prison that resides in Cuba is like an ethical black hole. The prison exists off of U.S. soil as a way to avoid having to follow the laws of this country. Gitmo as it is referred to has been the home of some really terrible people and has been the site of really terrible actions. Call it what you will, enhanced interrogation, torture, legal or not it is most definitely unethical in my opinion. Sometimes it is hard to believe that a country such as ours that prides itself in being a beacon of morality and ethical correctness could ever have created a place like Gitmo. This country is one that believes in the rule of law so having a place where the laws do not apply is perplexing. We could get into a debate about torture and whether or not torture can ever be justified but let's leave this one here for now.

Another significant topic that President Obama touched upon was the beginning of talks between the U.S. and Cuba. It has been 50 years since the U.S. severed political and economic ties with Cuba in hopes that they would abandon communism it it is abundantly clear that the policy like all of our other attempts to change Cuba's political structure failed. As a result of the long standing restrictions we have kept families apart and Cubans from being able to enjoy a stronger economy. I think both of these things are unethical. China became a communist nation 10 years earlier than Cuba did but our policies could not be more different. Is it right to treat one country differently and subject its people to even worse conditions than they already are stuck with just because that country is smaller and less powerful? China has treated its people far worse than Cuba ever did but since we need them we can overlook their actions? That hardly seems ethical to me.

Yet another topic that was discussed in the speech is the proposal to require employers to provide paid sick leave. We are lucky enough to live in one of the most advanced and powerful nations on earth and yet we are the only advanced country that does not treat it's workers accordingly. President Obama stated that 43 million Americans that work in the private sector do not get paid sick leave. Is it ethical to make a parent decide whether it is more important to go to work and be able to afford rent, food, medicine or stay home with a sick child? Again, I think not.

The last topic I would like to discuss is that of the proposed tax reform child credit. Again, this country prides itself in being pro family and yet the current tax code penalises most dual income families. The aptly named marriage penalty is in complete disagreement with the values we hold in this country. A long time ago it was possible for a single income household to thrive but that is no longer the case and the only way to live comfortably is for both parents to work. It is unethical for the government to punish middle class families that are doing what they have to to support themselves. The tax credit will not fix this problem but it will provide some relief to those families with children and that is a good place to start.

So there are a number of different philosophical frameworks for ethics divine law, natural, law, social contract, utilitarianism and impartiality. I subscribe to the latter. Impartiality is vary similar to utilitarianism in that they both have the same central premise. It is actually a combination of three ideas: first in determining what to do we should be guided by the expected outcomes of our own actions, we should do whatever will have the best outcomes. Second in determining which outcomes are best, we should give the greatest weight to the happiness or unhappiness that would be caused, we should do whatever will cause the most happiness or the least unhappiness. And finally, the principle assumes that every one's happiness is equally as important as anyone else's. Where Impartiality differs is when it comes to personal relationships and decision making. This framework permits for one to make a decision that may not be for the greater good but it does serve one's own needs better. This might help you get a better picture of how I approach decisions and ethics in general. If you would like to find out what framework you match up with click here and complete the philosopher quiz, it is not perfect but it does a pretty decent job.

Thanks for reading.