Learning Objectives: � To recognize the

importance of the “24-hour test.”

� To evaluate the ethical dilemma in the case of the Unabomber.

� To appreciate the reason behind the establishment of the CDC panel of ethicists.

� To understand the ethical distinctions between killing and letting die in a medical context.

� To recognize the ethical importance of the story of Alfred Nobel.

The Future Will We Be More or Less Ethical?

The daily course of unhappy human events cansometimes make us cynical about the prospects forethical behavior. Is there any hope in the future for more ethical conduct, more of the time, and by more people?

Can you go for 24 hours without saying anything unkind to anyone or about anyone? This would seem to be a simple task, but it is amazing how many people have trouble accomplishing it. People routinely curse out other drivers or make disparaging comments about coworkers, bosses, friends, or even family members. Just as a person who can’t go for a day without drinking or smoking has

Maybe this world is another planet’s bell. —Aldous Huxley (1894–1953)



M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 135

136 Chapter 10 • The Future

alcohol or nicotine addiction problems, a person who cannot go a day without speaking ill of others has a character problem. The 24-hour test is a good way to begin a baseline ethical test for yourself.


Most decisions involve ethics, although some do not. This book is designed to raise awareness of the pervasiveness of ethics in everyday life. Ethics is not at war with common sense, but it guides our decisions in unclear situations.

In the future, ethical dilemmas will become increasingly complex as individuals become more interdependent as a result of more expedient communications, such as cell phones, e-mail, and the many new cable and satellite television and radio channels. Given these trends, the actions of an individual will become more widely known, and have a greater impact on others, than ever before. Ethical dilemmas become more complicated as the interests of more individuals are involved.

Consider the case of the Unabomber, who killed three people and injured thirty during a 17-year period using mailed packages that contained explosives. The Unabomber wrote letters to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Penthouse Magazine threatening to kill again if his 35,000-word manifesto (on the evils of industrialization) was not published by one of the two newspapers within the next 90 days.

The editors at both the Times and the Post believed there was no journalistic reason to publish the manifesto, but there was a clear public safety concern. The editors at the newspapers talked to the public officials involved, and, at the urging of the U.S. attorney general, the two papers decided to print the manifesto as an eight-page insert. The editors at the newspapers were concerned that other newspapers and television stations would be the victims of future threats such as this, and they asked the FBI to weigh the pros and cons of publication. An FBI spokesman said, “This [the Unabomber] has been going on for 17 years, and until we get this guy and are in a position to ask all the questions, there is no way to predict what he may do.”

Some in the journalism community saw publication of the manifesto as an “outrageous decision.” They believed the Unabomber was a terrorist and that two of the nation’s leading newspapers had succumbed to the demands of a terrorist, which both is a bad idea and sets a dangerous precedent. Also, it is likely the Unabomber was not a rational individual, so there was no clear evidence he would not keep killing.1

Analyzing this situation in ethical terms shows the difficulty of the dilemma. Using a utilitarian rationale, the decision should weigh on the balance struck between the possibilities for positive or negative consequences. If there was a reasonable probability that lives would be saved, then succumbing to the demands of a terrorist would be acceptable. In Kantian terms, however, the question would be whether publication of the manifesto would be a good universal rule, regardless of the consequences. According to virtue ethics, publication would be pursuing a real good (civil peace), but was it in accord with the moral virtues (was it courageous to publish or was it cowardly or rash; was it prudent or was it excessive)? Careful ethical reasoning could lead to different results depending on the perspective taken.

As it turned out, a completely unanticipated result occurred in this case when the Unabomber’s brother saw the published manifesto in the newspaper and recognized some of the writing and phras- ing as resembling his brother’s. He notified the authorities of his suspicions, leading to the apprehen- sion of the Unabomber. This surprising result serves as a reminder of Kant’s warning that the future is so uncertain that it is not wise to make ethical decisions based on predictions of future outcomes.

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 136

Chapter 10 • The Future 137

IS THE BAR RISING? The ethical bar will rise in the future because decisions will impact more people. The reasons for this difficulty are advances in technology, increasing life span, and globalization, which allow decisions in one part of the world to affect others thousands of miles away. Therefore, consideration of ethical decisions will have greater consequences than ever before.

Ethics are becoming more relevant than ever in everyday life. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created a panel of ethicists for the first time in its history to help it deal with the life-and-death questions of who should receive flu vaccine after a major shortage of the vaccine occurred.2 The panel was established in recognition of the fact that ethics provides a reasoned and objective basis on which to make important decisions. The decision regarding who should receive priority for vaccination when flu vaccine is scarce is a difficult one because babies, young children, the elderly, health care professionals, the seriously ill, emergency workers, and other groups are all at high risk. The formation of the panel illustrates the direct relevance of ethics in everyday life.

The City of Alexandria, Virginia, had worked for several years to establish a program to provide housing for homeless people who suffered from mental illness. Facing major budget cuts, however, the City realized it could balance the budget if it delayed the start of the housing program. The City had trouble in deciding which programs to cut, and turned to an ethicist for an opinion, so the discussion would not deteriorate into a politicized debate.3 Here again, the impor- tance of ethical thinking is directly relevant to making decisions that affect an entire jurisdiction.

A related major issue is increasing life span and the issue of “quality of life.” Consider the following case, which is based on actual diagnosis and treatment decisions that found their way to the criminal justice system. Timothy Quill, a physician, wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1991 in which he recounted the difficult decisions he made in working with a terminally ill leukemia patient who chose to commit suicide with medication he prescribed. In the article Quill recounted that he was well aware of the patient’s intention in taking the painkiller medication he prescribed and the emotional and physical struggle that the patient experienced in dealing with the disease, its effects, and the decision to end her life prematurely.4

Dr. Quill’s case was brought before a grand jury in New York State where he practiced medicine, but the grand jury refused to indict him for homicide. In New York, as in most states, it is a crime to aid another in committing or attempting suicide, but patients may refuse even lifesaving medical treatment.

In a subsequent case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, Quill and other physicians claimed that terminally ill patients who are suffering great pain and desire a doctor’s help in ending their own lives are deterred from doing so by New York’s assisted-suicide ban, while at the same time the standards of medical practice permit physicians to prescribe lethal medication for mentally competent terminally ill patients. The physicians (together with three terminally ill patients) claimed in court that this was unfair and unconstitutional because the law accords different treatment to those competent, terminally ill persons who wish to hasten their deaths by self-administering prescribed drugs than it does to those who wish to do so by directing the removal of life-support systems. The U.S. Supreme Court held, however, that state law prohibition on assisting suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.5 Therefore, physician-assisted suicide of this nature is still prohibited.

There is heated debate about the desirability of these laws and even whether such personal decisions should be subject to law at all. On the one hand, it is argued that the distinction between killing and letting die is of no moral significance.6 It is said the law’s allowance for one kind of assistance (withholding treatment) and criminalization of the other (prescribing

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 137

138 Chapter 10 • The Future

lethal doses of drugs to be self-administered) is not morally justified, resulting in needless suffering of patients and their families. On the other hand, it is contested that whether active or passive, participation of physicians in ending life is immoral and should not be permitted under law or under medical ethics.7 A utilitarian argument has been made to justify “voluntary euthanasia.”8

How would you assess the moral permissibility of these two types of end-of-life assistance by physicians? To what extent should the desires of the patient be controlling? Ethical reasoning in cases such as these is difficult without knowledge of the facts of the individual cases being decided. Perhaps this is what makes creating generalized legislation or developing guidelines difficult. Nevertheless, these cases illustrate the far-reaching ethical implications of conduct in a world where medicine and technology have the ability to both extend and end life in new ways.

In a recent twist on this dilemma, several states have passed laws that permit a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds. The laws are directed primarily at contracep- tives, but they also may include drugs that could be used for assisted suicide. One woman who was denied a prescription said of the pharmacists, “Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It’s just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician.”9 The American Pharmacists Association already has a policy that allows druggists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements for the patient to obtain the prescription somewhere else. In several instances, however, this has not occurred. In Wisconsin, a pharmacist would not return a prescription to a woman seeking birth control pills, and he would not transfer it to another druggist because of his religious views. Is this morally permissible? From the viewpoint of the pharmacists, how would you evaluate their decisions from the perspectives of virtue, formalism, and utility?


Harold Kushner, author of When Everything You Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough: The Search for a Life That Matters, believes that we all have a yearning to make some kind of difference through our conduct. “Our souls are hungry for meaning, for the sense that we have figured out how to live so that our lives matter, so that the world will be at least a little bit different for our having passed through it.”10 Yet at the same time, we continue to see instances of people who attempt to exploit the system for selfish ends. For example, a Tennessee woman sued McDonald’s, claiming she was badly burned on the chin by a hot pickle after biting into a McDonald’s hamburger.11

Simple methods are sometimes used to remember the meaning of ethics in everyday decisions. An example is expressed as follows:

E Everywhere

T all the Time

H be Honest

I act with Integrity

C have Compassion

S —for what is at Stake is your reputation, your self-esteem, and your inner peace.

This is one way to remember our ethical mandate as human beings.12 Moral conviction is not a matter of personal taste; it is a matter of judgment and actions according to objective principles.

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 138

Chapter 10 • The Future 139


Stephen Covey has described character as consisting of integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality. Integrity is making and keeping promises (to yourself and to others). Maturity is the ability to balance courage and kindness. Abundance mentality involves realizing that the ability to accomplish great things is limitless; excellence and virtue are achievable by everyone, and everyone should be encour- aged toward them. As Covey explains, “most people are deeply scripted in the scarcity mentality. They see life as a finite pie: If another person gets a big piece of the pie, it means less for them and for everyone else. They have a zero-sum attitude toward life.”14 This causes them to have a difficult time in sharing recognition or to be genuinely happy for those who perform well. Without integrity, maturity, and abundance mentality, it is difficult to follow the moral virtues and be of good character.

It has been argued that criminal justice professionals should ask the following questions when faced with a decision or dilemma: What does the law require? What does departmental policy require? What do personal ethics require?15 Perhaps these questions are in the wrong order, however, because ethics precede policy, which precedes law. In other words, ethics provides the principles on which all decisions should be framed. Department policies and laws address specific situations, but they cannot anticipate all the possibilities. Therefore, a grounding in ethics helps the professional frame all situations, regardless of whether they are anticipated, in moral terms ensuring a rational and principled response, rather than a decision based on mere emotion or self-interest.

Think for a moment about what will be said about you when you die. Write what you might wish to appear on your tombstone. How would your inscription be different if you were utilitarian, Kantian, or Aristotelian? Such an exercise helps you clarify and prioritize central ethical principles in your life.

Consider the story of Alfred Nobel, a chemist best known for inventing dynamite. His brother died while Alfred was still alive, and the newspaper inadvertently printed Alfred’s obituary instead of his brother’s. He read an obituary that saluted him as the inventor of dynamite (perhaps the most destructive explosive of his time) and described how he made a lot of money in the process. He was horrified by his own obituary and resolved to establish a different legacy. So he gave away his wealth and established the Nobel Prize for achievement in various fields.

What will be said about you in your obituary? As it was once said, if you want to know how to live your life, think about what you’d like people to say about you after you die—then live backward.


A letter to advice columnist Ann Landers illustrates that ethical questions are persistent. A retired man, living on a fixed income, enjoyed going to auctions and garage sales to purchase household items inexpensively. On one occasion he purchased items from a dealer who had bought an entire houseful of furniture and clothing from a man whose wife had died. The widower wanted to sell all the house’s contents and move away. Included in the purchase from the dealer was a bathrobe. Back home, the retired man went through the goods he

bought and was stunned to find large wads of bills in the pocket of the bathrobe. He wrote to Ann Landers for advice; his wife thinks he is morally obligated to return the money because it wasn’t an intended part of the purchase. He believes he should keep the money because he bought the bathrobe from a dealer and doesn’t believe the dealer would return the money to the owner.13

Applying ethical principles, which course of action is morally correct for the retired man?

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 139

140 Chapter 10 • The Future


Ethics is everywhere, even in the books we read, which sometimes are written without ethics specifically in mind. Here is a summary of a book that looks at actions that affect others, followed by questions that ask you to reflect on the ethical connections.

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil

Philip Zimbardo (Random House, 2007)

Philip Zimbardo is a psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University. He is best known as the creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971, which used a simulated prison involving student volunteers who were randomly chosen to be “guards,” while others became “inmates.” Within a week, however, the experiment had to be abandoned, as the student volun- teers who were guards became cruel and sadistic, and those playing inmates became seriously depressed and emotionally distraught.

This book contains a complete and detailed description of the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the author compares it with what occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq in 2004, where U.S. soldiers treated Iraqi inmates in brutal fashion. Zimbardo was called as an expert witness for one the Abu Ghraib trials. He believes that the “experimental dehumanization” of the Stanford Experiment is instructive in understanding the abusive conduct of guards at Abu Ghraib.

Zimbardo finds that the abusing persons in these situations were not “bad apples,” but instead were products of a “bad barrel”—the social setting they were placed in contaminated the individual. He concludes that we must give “greater consideration and more weight to situational and systemic processes than we typically do when we are trying to account for aberrant behaviors and seeming personality changes. Human behavior is always subject to sit- uational forces.” The author finds fault with the military and political leadership who were “complicit in creating the conditions that in turn made possible such wide-ranging wanton abuse and torture” in U.S. military prisons. Ironically, the United States decided to shut down the prison at Abu Ghraib, for the same reasons the Stanford Prison Experiment was ended three decades earlier.

Zimbardo does not excuse individual misconduct however: “the view I have provided does not negate the responsibility of these MPs (in Abu Ghraib Prison), nor their guilt; explanation and understanding do not excuse such misdeeds. Rather, understanding how the events happened and appreciating what were the situational forces operating on the soldiers can lead to proactive ways to modify the circumstances that elicit such unacceptable behavior. Punishing is not enough. ‘Bad systems’ create ‘bad situations’ create ‘bad apples’ create ‘bad behaviors,’ even in good people.”

Zimbardo ends the book with a chapter on heroism, involving a number of case studies. He observes that thousands of ordinary people make the decision to act heroically in the face of “situational and systemic forces that propel some of us toward social pathology.” Although he does not offer an answer to this dilemma, he does recognize the fundamental issue: “the decisive question for each of us is whether to act in helping others, to prevent harm to others, or not to act at all. We should be preparing many laurel wreaths for all those who will discover their reservoir of hidden strengths and virtues enabling them to come forward to act against injustice and cruelty and to stand up for their principled values.”

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 140

Chapter 10 • The Future 141


1. If the decision to engage in deviant or criminal conduct is strongly influenced by situational factors, how should we balance our crime prevention efforts between attention to ethical (personal) versus situational (social) factors?

2. What would the major ethical perspectives (of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill) say about the difficulty of ethical conduct in the face of situational pressure to be unethical?


Movies seek to entertain and inform the audience about a story, incident, or person. Many good movies also hit upon important ethical themes in making significant decisions that affect the lives of others. Read the movie summary here (and watch the movie if you haven’t already), and answer the questions to make the ethical connections.


Andrew Niccol, Director (1997)

Gattaca is a science fiction thriller about the near future when we reach the point where we can correct our defects through cloning and DNA manipulation, and the decisions that such a situation would force upon us. Vincent (Ethan Hawke) works as a maintenance man at the space center. Genetic tests show he has bad eyesight, heart problems, and should die by age 30. Vincent does not accept this fate and dreams of becoming a crew member on a planned expedition to the moons of Saturn.

Vincent makes a deal with Jerome (Jude Law), an illegal DNA broker, who possesses the correct genes but was paralyzed in an accident. Using Jerome’s blood, urine sample, and identity, Vincent “becomes” Jerome and thereby becomes a finalist for the space mission. There is great tension in Vincent as he protects his new identity as Jerome.

Tension is also caused by the murder of the director of the space center, who questioned the wisdom of the mission to Saturn. The detective (Alan Arkin) may stumble on Vincent’s fraud, and his interest in Irene (Uma Thurman) who works at the space center is also threatening because it is common in this future world of DNA for a woman to have a man’s saliva swabbed from her mouth after kissing him to determine his genetic prospects. In this future society, genetic discrimination is prohibited by law, but in practice a person’s genotype is easily profiled, so the “Valids” qualify for the best jobs, while the “In-Valids” are relegated to menial jobs because they have genetic defects of some kind.


1. Cloned sheep and tomatoes have already been developed with ideal traits for food produc- tion. If it became scientifically possible, would it be morally permissible for a parent to order a “perfect” baby (genetically)?

2. In today’s society, a person can be prevented from pursuing certain careers if they have physical defects. What are some examples? How is this justified in moral terms?

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 141

142 Chapter 10 • The Future

Discussion Question

If your obituary was to be summarized in two sentences, what would it reveal about you?

Critical Thinking Exercises

All ethical decisions affect others (by definition) and, as Aristotle points out, ethical decision making is achieved con- sistently only through practice. Given the outline of virtue ethics, formalism, and utilitarianism, evaluate the moral permissibility of the conduct in question in each scenario.

Important note on method: Critical thinking requires the ability to evaluate viewpoints, facts, and behaviors objectively to assess information or methods of argumentation to estab- lish the true worth or merit of an act or course of conduct. Please evaluate these scenarios, first analyzing pros and cons of alternate views, before you come to a conclusion. Do not draw a conclusion first, and then try to find facts to support it—this frequently leads to narrow (and incorrect) thinking.

To properly evaluate the moral permissibility of a course of action using critical thinking skills:

1. Begin with an open mind (no preconceptions!), 2. Isolate and evaluate the relevant facts on both sides, 3. Identify the precise moral question to be answered, and 4. Apply ethical principles to the moral question based on

an objective evaluation of the facts, only then drawing a conclusion.

10.1 Both Sides of Genetic Testing

Gary works for the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad as a tracklayer. It is a physically demanding job requiring exten- sive use of both hand tools and heavy machinery. Sometimes, workers such as Gary develop a condition called carpal tunnel syndrome, which is a musculoskeletal disorder caused by repetitive and strenuous hand motions that result in nerve damage, causing weakness or disability in the use of the hands or wrists.

After he had returned to work from time off for carpel tunnel–related surgery to reduce pressure on the median nerve in his arm, Gary received a letter from his employer directing him to get his blood tested. His wife called the employer and discovered that the purpose of the blood work was genetic testing. Gary refused to submit to the blood test, and the first federal suit against a private company resulted, charging that such secret genetic testing violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws barring DNA testing of employees.

Some industry and insurance officials claim that such genetic testing could reveal genetic defects that predispose a person to the syndrome. Thus, preventive treatment or job accommodations can be made, lowering company insurance premiums. However, there have been cases where workers were denied disability insurance or health care coverage based on the results of positive blood tests, which were interpreted as a “preexisting condition.” Similarly, there are fears that hiring or promotions may be blocked based on the results of a genetic test. Some scientists are skeptical of genetic testing because so little is known about the role of genes in most diseases, most tests are inconclusive, and the comparative impact of environmental factors on disease is still hotly debated.16

• Is it morally permissible for Gary’s employer to require a blood test for genetic testing?

• Understanding the company’s purposes in requesting a blood test, is it morally permissible for Gary to refuse to submit to the test?

10.2 Transplant or Prosecute?

Michael Costin was knocked unconscious during a fight at a hockey rink and died. He had indicated that he wanted his heart donated as an organ transplant on his death, but the district attorney (DA) blocked the donation.

Costin’s death at the hockey rink resulted in a criminal prosecution of the other “hockey-dad” who assaulted him. On Costin’s death, the charge against the defendant became manslaughter. The DA blocked the heart donation because she didn’t want the defendant to claim at trial that Costin died of a preexisting heart condition rather than from the fight.

The result of this decision was that it may have cost a heart patient the opportunity for a life-saving transplant. Doctors claimed that preserving (and not transplanting) Costin’s heart offered little medical evidence because it was healthy—the heart would have been rejected if it was defective in any way. Several doctors believed it was clear that Costin died from head trauma and that his heart was fine. One physician declared, “It’s very, very likely that, because of this decision, someone with heart disease died.”

However, a professor argued, “there is also the interest in making sure we have all the evidence necessary so that

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 142

Chapter 10 • The Future 143

justice is served.” The DA said that according to an EMT at the fight scene, “it was a possible heart attack [and] we didn’t want to give the defense an issue at trial to allow them to say, ‘We really don’t know the cause of death’ ” to raise doubt in the minds of jurors.17

• Assess the moral permissibility of the DA’s decision. • Should the wishes of the family play a role in assessing

the morality of this decision?

10.3 A Marriage Proposal

Oklahoma has the second-highest divorce rate among U.S. states. This led the governor to initiate a program to reduce divorces there. He requested that churches mandate premarital counseling. In addition, Oklahoma funded “relationship-skills” education for welfare recipients, promarriage rallies led by hired “marriage ambassadors,” and prenuptial counseling classes for couples who could not afford private counseling.

President George W. Bush liked the Oklahoma programs and presented a plan to spend $300 million to promote marriage. According to Bush, “Strong marriages and stable families are incredibly good for children, and stable families should be the central goal of American welfare policy.” His proposal called for premarital education, rela- tionship counseling, and publicity to convince high-risk groups that “marriage is cool.”

Critics call the Oklahoma and Bush plans a “conservative version of big-government social engineering.” They also raise questions about the proper role of government in the private lives of its citizens. At the same time, however, states spend millions of dollars on services such as child support enforcement, child abuse response, and divorced persons driven to welfare because of financial problems. It is argued that some government-funded promarriage programs ultimately could reduce the human and social costs brought about by failed marriages.18

• Assess the moral permissibility of a mandatory promar- riage program.

10.4 Good Warrant, Wrong House

Los Angeles County Sheriffs obtained a search warrant for the home of four black suspects in an identify-theft fraud scheme. When police went to the home, a white teenage boy answered the door and was ordered to lie facedown on the floor, while police went into the bedroom and ordered the two naked white people in it to stand naked next to the bed, while police searched the home.19

It turned out that the black suspects had moved 3 months earlier. The couple sued the police, contending the search was an unreasonable invasion of privacy, as the color of their skin should have immediately tipped police that they were not the suspects and that the premise for the search (the warrant) was flawed.

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the couple holding that valid search warrants will sometimes result in innocent people being searched, “and people like [the couple] unfortunately bear the cost.” Assess the moral permissibility of this finding.

• If police discovered unrelated incriminating evidence dur- ing their search of the couple’s house (e.g., drugs), would it be morally permissible to use it against them in court?

10.5 Monitoring Workers on Social Networks

As more employees start to use Twitter and Facebook, executives are becoming increasingly concerned with the message their digitally savvy workers are conveying to the public. A new survey underscores the growing role of social networks and the dilemma they present for corpora- tions that spend huge amounts on their image. The survey found that 60 percent of the executives interviewed believe they have a right to know how employees portray themselves and their organizations. Employees, on the other hand, bristle at the thought that employers would monitor their online activity. Overall, about 53 percent say their social networking activities should not be any concern of their employer, although about 74 percent recognize that social networks make it easier to damage a company’s reputation.

Few companies have given employees guidelines about how to use social networks. “We found a high percentage of employers who are thinking about what they should do but not a high percentage of employers who have concluded what those procedures and policies should be,” says Deloitte chairman Sharon Allen.

Some news organizations have issued guidelines, but there’s little agreement about what those rules should be. Last week, my colleague Diane Brady wrote about The Wall Street Journal’s ground rules for how employees should use social networking sites such as Twitter. Editor & Publisher noted that the WSJ guidelines included the warning that “business and pleasure should not be mixed on services like Twitter.” Editor & Publisher followed up with a report on how different newspapers have issued a variety of guide- lines and quoted this policy from the Los Angeles Times, “Assume that your professional life and your personal life merge online regardless of your care in separating them.

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 143

144 Chapter 10 • The Future

Don’t write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise your ability to do your job.”

Having my colleagues follow me on Twitter and Facebook probably makes me more cautious. But, I’m not yet ready to abandon my personal life when I tweet. My

personal life is what it is, and if people know I’m a geek who saw Star Trek or The Notebook on opening day, it does- n’t compromise my ability as a worker.20

• Evaluate the moral permissibility of employers having a say in what workers share on social networking sites.

Key Concepts

24-hour test 136 Unabomber 136 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) panel of ethicists 137

Distinction between killing and letting die 137

Scarcity mentality 139 The story of Alfred Nobel 39


1. Alexandra Marks, “Ethics of Publishing Terrorist Tracts,” Christian Science Monitor (September 20, 1995), p. 1.

2. Gardiner Harris, “U.S. Creates Ethics Panel on Priority for Flu Shots,” The New York Times (October 28, 2004), p. 1.

3. Laura Olson, “In Alexandria, Va., Weighing Ethics in Decisions about Budget Cuts,” The Chicago Tribune, (January 1, 2009).

4. Timothy E. Quill, “Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 324 (March 7, 1991), pp. 691–694.

5. Vacco v. Quill, 117 S.Ct. 2293 (1997). 6. James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthansia,” The

Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1986), pp. 90–103.

7. Daniel Callahan, “Killing and Allowing to Die,” Hastings Center Report, vol. 19 (January/ February 1989), pp. 5–6.

8. Peter Singer, “Justifying Voluntary Euthansia,” Practical Ethics (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 176–200.

9. Charisse Jones, “Druggists Refuse to Give Out Pill,” USA Today (November 9, 2004), p. 3.

10. Harold Kushner, When Everything You Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough: The Search for a Life That Matters (New York, NY: Fireside, 2002).

11. John Leo, “Victims of the Year,” U.S. News & World Report (December 4, 2000), p. 24.

12. Wayne Dosick, “Love Your Neighbor,” in M. Josephson and W. Hanson, Eds., The Power of

Character (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998), p. 293.

13. “Ann Landers: Stuck with a Bathrobe,” The Buffalo News (December 30, 1992), p. B10.

14. Stephen R. Covey, “Growing Great Children,” in M. Josephson and W. Hanson, Eds., The Power of Character (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998), p. 104.

15. Jocelyn Pollock and Ronald Becker, “Ethical Dilemmas in Police Work,” in M. Braswell, B. McCarthy, and B. McCarthy, Eds., Justice, Crime and Ethics (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing, 2002), p. 101.

16. Dana Hawkins, “The Dark Side of Genetic Testing,” U.S. News & World Report (February 19, 2001), p. 30; Dana Hawkins, “Guard Your Genetic Data from Those Prying Eyes,” U.S. News & World Report (March 5, 2001), pp. 59–60.

17. Sean P. Murphy, “Heart Transplant Was Blocked by DA in Junta Case,” The Boston Globe (January 25, 2002), p. 3.

18. Michael Schaffer, “Marriage Proposal: Should the Government Spend Your Tax Dollars to Encourage Holy Cows,” U.S. News & World Report (March 11, 2002), p. 26.

19. Los Angeles County v. Rettele, no. 06–605 (decided May 21, 2007).

20. Rachael King, “Companies Want to Monitor Workers on Social Networks,” Business Week (May 17, 2009); John Schwartz, “For Judges on Facebook, Friendship has Limits,” The New York Times (December 11, 2009).

M10_ALBA5659_03_SE_C10.QXD 10/29/10 3:06 PM Page 144