Marketing and Diet

When the first caveman made the first spear he had to sell the idea to other cavemen and thus marketing was born. While I sincerely doubt that is the how the development of spears occurred the basic idea remains the same. Marketing has been around for as long as one group of people had to convince some other group of people that their ideas or products where the way to go. When we talk about marketing we often think of the traditional advertising and selling. Television advertisements, billboards, Times Square and the multitude of images on buildings, and even online advertisements can all be considered traditional or mainstream. Marketing also comes in many other forms. Job interviews are a type of marketing…you are selling yourself to a potential employer and in some cases they are selling themselves to you. The rise of online dating could even be considered marketing, you create a profile on a website and fill it with (hopefully true) things about yourself in an effort to entice someone to respond to your advances.

But is it evil as the title of this week’s assignment suggests? The low hanging ethical fruit of deceptive marketing is of course considered unethical as deception for profit is hard to justify and we will identify an egregious example below. Outright fraudulent statements about competitors are likewise hard to justify but are also low-hanging fruit when it comes to marketing ethics. The Small Business Administration provides resources to the numerous laws governing marketing on their website www.sba.gov should one wish to peruse them.

This post is not a discussion of marketing legal boundaries but rather ethics and there is one area (and possibly more but this blog would digress into a lengthy research project) where marketing can be considered to have breached ethical boundaries and that is “natural foods.”

What are natural foods? From the FDA, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances (www.fda.gov)” You may notice that doesn’t mean a great deal. Arsenic is naturally occurring but that doesn’t mean that it should be put in your peanut butter. So a manufacturer is free to place any substance they want in your food just so long as it is free from added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances. Well it’s a big world with lots of things in it and many of those things, healthy or not, can wind up in what you are eating.

Sugar and its derivatives such as high fructose syrups are considered natural foods by the above definition. The Union of Concerned Scientists states the food industry labels foods as natural while increasing their sugar content. High sugar diets may lead to health concerns such as obesity and high blood pressure. But…it’s natural right? Additionally sugar, and junk food in general, are placed in foods in order to create an addiction among consumers (Moss, 2013). Junk foods reward the dopamine centers of the brain and create addictions in much the same way that certain drugs create addiction. The low nutrient value of these foods ensures that people are hungry again in a few hours and will consume more of these foods.

According to the Urban Child Institute a poor diet, as an infant is linked to a large number of health concerns and they are much more likely to develop significant health problems as they age. Additionally, junk foods are less likely to have minerals such as iron and zinc. Iron and zinc are best sourced from animal proteins and a lack of these minerals can lead to deficiencies in the immune system (Walker et al, 2005).

The food industry is well aware of these concerns and Moss highlights the pressure the food industry puts on scientists and regulators to ensure that the greatest profits are made. Junk food is cheap to produce, addicts its consumers, and provides such low nutritional value that the sole consumption of junk food can lead to medical concerns. By labeling things as “natural” even if they are pumped full of sugar the food industry can market has healthy even when they are anything but healthy. This level of deception is entirely unethical and according to some metrics, sacrificing the health of a population for increased profit could be considered evil.



Truth in Advertising is the key to a Successful Business ... (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://prezi.com/z9oeer78twok/truth-in-advertising-is-the-key-to-a-successful-business/



Sugar Coating Science: How the Food Industry Misleads Consumers on Sugar. (2014, June). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/sugar-coating-science.html#.WDIGlzKZPR0



What is the meaning of 'natural' on the label of food? (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm



Moss, M. (2013, February 20). The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html



Nutrition and Early Brain Development. (2011, March 25). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/updates/nutrition-and-early-brain-development





Walker, C. F., Kordas, K., & Stoltzfus, A. R. (2005). Interactive effects of iron and zinc on biochemical and functional outcomes in supplementation trials. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/5.full

Affirmative Action

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

This week’s blog focuses on affirmative action and seeks to answer if affirmative action is ethical. To me the answer is easy…yes.

The United States has a history of genocide, slavery, legalized discrimination, and significant racial tension. As LaFollette states in the Practice of Ethics, the US didn’t outlaw racial discrimination until the 1960s. (LaFollette, 2007) This legalized discrimination effectively economically hobbled an entire class of people. This video explains the effects this “hobbling” has had far better than I ever could, and while it may not be academic it certainly offers perspective. Even if we assume that racism has ended (it hasn’t) past racial discrimination has led to underemployment, housing segregation, poor schools, high interest rate loans, and poor healthcare. LaFollette also states that black families were unable to pass along as much accumulated wealth to their children thereby adding to the ever-increasing distance a black child will have to go in order to even be even with a white child.

Affirmative action seeks to remove some of those barriers by allowing minorities to move into roles that they otherwise would not be able to obtain, no matter how qualified they may be. It isn’t enough to say “well if they are qualified they will be selected” as it is often the case a minority doesn’t get the chance to have their qualifications heard.

This past year much has been said about “white privilege” and the backlash to such a concept serves as both a counter-point and a validation for affirmative action. How do you explain to a poor white child from a very rural area that they have privilege? In 1989 a woman by the name of Peggy Macintosh wrote an article for Peace and Freedom Magazine called “Unpacking the Invisible Backback.” This article is published on the National SEED Project’s website and can be accessed here. It is an amazing read but the short version is the “backpack” is a metaphor for the various privileges that are conferred upon whites, and mostly referring to white men. When explaining privilege to the poor, white child we must first move past the idea that privilege is something that is conferred or bestowed. As Macintosh infers, white privilege simply…is.

I am a 37 year old white male. I am heterosexual. I am college educated. I am from an upper-middle class background. I am neither obese nor am I too skinny. Every demographic feature I possess places me in a position to not be followed in a store, to not be immediately disregarded by lenders, and to not be targeted by police. I live in an apartment that is in a low-crime area. I am free from a minutiae of barriers and harassment that occur every day in the life of minority. I will never know what it like to be a black man in the United States (or any other minority) and neither will our hypothetical poor, white child.

It is true that poverty is a barrier and that barrier can be tough to overcome if you live in a disadvantaged area no matter your ethnicity. However, if we place the poor white child and the poor black child on the same starting line, the black child will, speaking from statistics, have many more barriers on their way to prosperity.

Ms. Macintosh makes my argument more eloquently than I ever could. Equal rights are a passion of mine. I firmly believe that we all deserve to live the lives we are capable of; free from persecution. It may be a bit of a pipe dream but regulations such as affirmative action are the tools with which we can begin to level the playing field. So is affirmative action ethical? Yes but more so…it is vital.

Falls From Grace

This week’s blog focuses on the character and personality changes that occur as a leader gains power; specifically the focus is on societal, professional, and personal dilemmas. The article can be found here and it is an excellent read.

Kramer does not discuss the inherent psychopathy inherent in many leaders. Forbes has an excellent article that summarizes various readings and published works regarding this phenomenon and it is also worth a read. Perhaps it is my work in mental health that leads me to pursue a different approach than “power changes” and instead look at it from the perspective of “to achieve the highest level of power there had to be underlying personality traits to be begin with” While Kramer holds a PhD in psychology it is in the realm of possibility that he has focused on one question and hasn’t asked the other. While that is pure speculation it does seem to be that way from the tone of his article.

As Kramer suggested there is a heady rush that comes with power. This heady rush and lack of constraints could bring to the surface underlying negative personality traits that are normally held in check by societal norms. Psychopathy, in the clinical sense, does not mean one is constantly “crazy” or is acting out in a strange fashion. Indeed many high-functioning people with mental health disorders are able to keep their impulses or negative thoughts in check by understanding that negative consequences can occur should they not do so. Remove those constraints and the negative traits can begin to surface.

As Kramer also listed several CEOs that remained grounded it is obvious that my perspective is not true across all cases however even Kramer’s suggested guidelines would not be applied to all successful leaders.

I think the larger problem is that we, as a society, admire people who are able to break the rules and succeed. We are not so forgiving of people who break the rules and do not succeed. Various news outlets will demonize a welfare recipient for finding a loophole and gaining an extra few bucks a month and then turn around and praise a billionaire for finding a loophole that allows for the avoidance of millions of dollars in taxes. This admiration bleeds over into Kramer’s argument that power gives people the feeling of being above the rules.

Personally and professionally I attempt to conduct myself according to a value system based around compassion, a sense of duty, and respect for others. I continually attempt to see things from the other party’s point of view. I feel this makes me a better person but it also makes me a shrewd negotiator and I’ve used that skill to negotiate favorable deals while selling a home or while selling a business proposal. I think that in order to keep this in check, and this is consistent with Kramer’s argument, a sense of self awareness is crucial to staying grounded. To this I would add that a strong emotional intelligence is also required. The two are similar but emotional intelligence requires us to be more in tune with how we feel in addition to just knowing our strengths and flaws. Morally, negotiating a favorable business arrangement isn’t incorrect. However, knowing a business move will cause deliberate harm can be considered immoral. Competitiveness can make that a blurry distinction and sharpening that distinction is not the focus of this post. Kramer makes a fine point about leadership and falls from grace but I wonder if they who fell from grace were victims of their own disorders?

Kramer, R. (2003, October). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review,81(10), 58-66. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=4b2073fb-01ee-4b15-a680-5fbbc535885b@sessionmgr107&vid=0&hid=107&bda=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=10986098&db=bth



Lipman, V. (2013, April 25). The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy and Leadership. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#6c9842b32740

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism


Two of the major schools of philosophical thought are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism argues that when one seeks to find normative properties depend on the consequences of an action. (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003) in other words, the ends can justify the means. Taken to its absurd conclusion, it would ethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients to save others if the “others” were of better benefit to society. A homeless person that was terminal could be used to save the life of a scientist or researcher that was close to the cure of a major disease even if the homeless person had not previously consented to having his organs harvested. After all it would be better for society to have a researcher alive than a homeless person that is using resources without contributing to society. While it is opinion I feel safe in saying that most would agree that it is unethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients. Consequentialism, at its absurd end would disagree.

Utilitarianism, being part of consequentialism, argues that we should work towards normative actions that are also part of the greater good. In our earlier example with a homeless person, it may be considered ethical to harvest the organs of all deceased homeless persons to prolong the life of other people who may go on to contribute to society. Again, this is an absurd conclusion.

Deontology, on the other hand, argues that Kantian principles of a categorical imperative, or a duty that is consistent across all people, should guide normative actions. (Alexander, 2007) In other words, moral and ethical norms guide decisions instead of consequences. Back to our example of our homeless man, if our ethical norm is that organs should not be harvested from non-consensual patients no matter the need, than we cannot harvest them no matter how many researches we may save.

However even deontology can be taken to its absurd end. If we assume that killing for any purpose is morally wrong, than we could not kill in self-defense or in a war where we are attacked.

The above examples serve to not only illustrate the differences between deontology and consequentialism but how they can be taken to their absurd ends. In most ethical dilemmas it is unlikely that most of us sit down decide which school of thought we are going to use. Many of us, who seek to act ethically, often seek to balance harm against good in our actions. That may be consistent with deontological thought or consequential thought. It depends on the given dilemma in front of us. However, understanding both schools of thought allows us a way to better understand our decisions and allows us insight into decisions. By deepening our knowledge of philosophical schools of thought we also begin to internalize processes for ethical decision-making.


















Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/






Alexander, L. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

The Train Dilemma!!

The train dilemma is a common thought-problem that pops up in most any ethical discussion. Below are my responses. In this question I assume the children are innocent. The old man presents a host of unknowns, some of which I will address.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

This one is fairly easy for me to answer as it’s just a basic utilitarian response. Of course I’d throw the switch and save five children to save one. Assuming that all the children are equal and with equal potential I’d save the five. However, should the five children be deficient in some manner and the single child be a prodigy I may choose to save the child that can benefit society the greatest. While such a thought is abhorrent and reeks of eugenics the point of this question is to look past the obvious. The utilitarian in me says that I should seek to save that which benefits all of us the most.

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Is the old man a doctor, a surgeon, a great thinker, or a researcher with a cure for disease? If so I would choose to save the old man though he may hate me for it (and I’d probably hate myself.) The children are untested variables and may grow into great thinkers or great criminals. We don’t know what they are going to do and thus their potential cannot be considered if a known variable (provided this variable is a great positive) is available.

Should I know nothing about the old man, I would choose to save the children. The children do possess potential and the old man may be near the end of his. All other things being equal it is better to save future potential than potential that has run its course.

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

In some ways this isn’t a fair question as it ignores the biological imperative we have to protect our own children. Of course not everyone has a need to protect their own children and we see them paraded on the news as monsters. This is not a label that I entirely disagree with though I find dehumanizing anyone to be path to moral ruin.  If I apply the same logic as I did in question two and my child is a person of low potential, I should save the old man. However, such an act would be beyond the pale and the idea of being able to sacrifice my child for the greater good is not one that I could accept.  It is an interesting question as it tests one’s resolve to a moral purity but moral purity cannot overcome such a strong biological drive as protecting one’s own child. 

A631.5.4.RB - Leading System Wide Change

In your reflection blog, consider how difficult it must be for a leader to grow into a person who can lead a system-wide change effectively. Perhaps you remember leaders who attempted system wide interventions but failed because they were not capable of pulling it all together. On the other hand, you may know leaders who were able to do what you thought would be impossible. From your point of view now, what is required for a leader to be successful?

So it has been far too long since I've been here. I'd like to say that I have some great reason but after three years and a host of life events I'm running out of steam. So for the three of you that read this I will endeavor to be more reliable. For my professor, I offer apologies and no excuses. Though if you have any words of wisdom for a student hitting the wall please feel free to email them to me.

Anyhoo...I should get to answering the above questions!

What is required for a leader to be successful?

I have often held that emotional intelligence is one the keys to successful leadership. That being said, another key is the ability to get along with people. It seems simple on the surface but highly unique people can carry some undesirable traits. Einstein was a womanizer and Alfred Hitchcock was highly vindictive; both of these men rose to the tops of their fields despite these faults. It is speculative but in some ways I argue that having a certain part of you personality that is like biting on tinfoil is required to rise to the top. At some point one has to take a stand and not be afraid to make hard choices. That being said, the same personality traits that lead to being able to make hard choices are the same traits that allow someone to become selfish or vindictive.

This is why I argue knowing one's self and knowing one's own emotional reaction to stimuli is paramount to successful leadership across a multi-variable spectrum. Einstein really just did math, Hitchcock just made movies, they weren't truly leading across different spectrums. I order to accomplish such a feat a leader has to build a support network, create a common vision, bring together disparate goals, and remove or convert subversion. This takes people skills! People skills is such a colloquial term but I think it is germane to the discussion. Charm, vision, sense of humor, principles, assertion without aggression, these are all people skills and without them it is likely that a leader will self-destruct at a certain level.

I have seen this in action. I worked for a supervisor that seemed to be in a position just beyond his abilities. In many ways he was a good leader but he lacked the ability to see beyond himself. This led to conflicts with other departments, increased tensions with staff, and a decrease in production. In time things began to entropy as the system turned on itself and what started out as an attempt to create change across all systems ended up with squabbling factions. It was rather fascinating to watch.

I think growth into a leader is incredibly difficult. I believe that a good mentor is needed, as well as ability to accept feedback. Without proper guidance the path to success is very hard. I know for myself I see where I am struggling and part of that is I don't have a good support structure in place. My own failures have led to a self-assessment where I need to scale back outside activities to focus on core goals. This took some hard knocks and it has helped me understand that no one succeeds in a vacuum.

A631.2.5.RB - Cooperation and Competition

New class, new subjects for the blog. For this week I am looking at the process that went into forming a geographically separated team. This team will form a work-group throughout the weeks to come


What behaviors seemed to help your team successfully complete its task?

Communication was key. In this week I was the weak link in communication as I had overlooked the project being assigned so early. As a result my communication wasn't timely and therefore not helpful. While I added my inputs towards the end of the week they were not useful as a whole. The other team members were not able to make use of my data. Thankfully, the data inputs are individual and not requiring processing or I would have set them back.

What factors inhibited decision-making or problem-solving?

Geographic separation encompassing several time zones is the biggest issue. Had everyone been on my time zone the deadlines would have been easier to manage. Additionally, until my inputs were in place it was impossible for me to be reached. This makes it even more difficult for the team to be able to understand what is happening.

How much time was spent on decision-making and problem-solving?

This would be hard to answer without knowing how long it took each person to formulate their parts of the charter. I know my contributions were fairly straight forward. Also, we would need a defined problem to solve to truly answer this question.

How was information shared among team members?

Information appeared to be shared openly and evenly. Contact numbers and emails were exchanged which should facilitate future information sharing. Information was not always given in a timely fashion but that was more my failing than the team's failing.

How did issues of authority or power affect the team?

They did not seem to affect the team at all. This was a straightforward assignment with very little need for interventions or process examination. True issues of power tend to develop when there is more than one way to solve the issues. This assignment did not lend itself to that paradigm. Additionally, all members have done these before and are practiced in the information needed. Having this experience removed any need for direction or true authority.

How did collaboration and competition influence the outcome?

The team seemed to be very collaborative. The outcome was influenced by one team member posting close to the end of the deadline. The aforementioned issues played a part in this outcome.

Did team members make process interventions?

They didn't seem to be needed. The members of the team have all done this type of work in the past. Having done that type of work the team was able to smoothly add information and produce a product. Once again, as the projects grow in complexity this will change.

x