Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


1. Blair’s actions suggest about his personal and professional ethics is that the article which
hewrote contained significant error, he was fabricated quotes from key individuals
connectedwith event. He even used the photographic scenes of other newspapers as if he was
stand here.
2. Blair’s actions suggest that he lives his life according to no standard of right or wrongbehavior.
He lied to the reader during his four year working in the New York Times. Hispersonal and
professional ethics is his untruthful.
3. They should have fixed the articles Blair wrote contained significant errors and
fabricatedquotes after they find out, and let Blair know as a professional journalist the accuracy
andcorrections are the basic standards for them to report
.4. Mr. Blair, as well as other editors, needed to make it known that other editors were involvedin
covering the story. Also, Mr. Blair still included false quotations and invented scenes. Hiswork
contained numerous mistakes.
2.Mr. Blair’s issues with accuracy and corrections were well known to his
supervisors,prompting one of his editors to send out an e-mail reminding all the journalists that
“accuracyis all we have…it’s what we are and what we sell.” What steps should they have taken

Mr. Blair’s behavior?Mr. Blair’s supervisors needed to address the accuracy issues and demand
that he make theproper corrections to his stories. As long as Mr. Blair was not caught, his
supervisors did notmind because he was helping the popularity ofThe New York Times.These
supervisors arejust as guilty and unethical as Mr. Blair.

3.Should we expect journalists to uphold a higher level of professional ethics

thanbusinesspeople? Why or why not?

All individuals should uphold a high level or professional ethics. Journalists are in the publiceye
and should be positive role models in their ethical decisions and actions

.4.Since the editors ofpasadenanow.comare choosing to hire editors they know for certain willbe
at a considerable distance from the stories they will be covering, does that change theethics of
the situation in comparison to the Blair story?

Mr. Blair, as well as other editors, needed to make it known that other editors were involvedin
covering the story. Also, Mr. Blair still included false quotations and invented scenes. Hiswork
contained numerous mistakes.

5.Should pasadenanow.com disclose the overseas location of its reporters? Why or why
not?Pasadenanow.com should disclose the overseas location of its reporters. Readers
deserverespect as well as honesty of the information that portrayed to them. If
pasadenanow.comdoes not disclose this information, it would be the same as plagiarizing and
taking credit forsomeone else’s work.
6.Blair has since joined the “speaker circuit” lecturing on ethics under the title “LessonsLearned.”
Is it ethical to make money from lecturing on your own unethical behavior? Whyor why not?On
the one hand, it is not unethical to train individuals on the lessons learned from anunethical
decision. On the other hand, it is unethical to make money from lecturing on yourown unethical

1.Student responses will vary. The physical separation could have been a variable in
theexperiment affecting the outcome. However, the participants were still aware that the
highervoltage shocks were supposed to be causing potentially fatal pain. The actor was still
visibleand participants were able to see the “pain” they were causing by the shocks. It may have
hada more dramatic effect on the participants to be in the same room as the learner.

2.The treatment of the participants in the study raised as much criticism as the results the
studygenerated. Was it ethical to mislead them into believing that they were really inflicting
painon the learners? Why?It was not unethical to mislead them in believing that they were really
inflicting pain. This isessentially the same as medical experiments when patients are given a
placebo pill or sugarpill. In addition, the participants were informed at the conclusion of the

3.The participants were introduced to the learners as equal participants in the study—that
is,volunteers just like them. Do you think that made a difference in the decision to
keepincreasing the voltage? Why?It is possible that participants continued increasing the voltage
because they were under theimpression that the learner was volunteering; although, it still should
not have mattered whenit came to a point of possible death. Volunteering to die is not an excuse
to kill someone.

4.What do you think Milgram’s research tells us about our individual ethical
standards?Milgram’s research tells us that our individual ethical standards are based on selfish
reasonsor on what we’re told to do, rather than thinking of others.

5. Your responses will vary based on individual beliefs and value systems .
1.Should people have the moral right to end their lives, if they so please?Suicide is not a moral
right. Although some may feel that it will simply eliminate their painand suffering, they are not
thinking of all the pain and suffering that it will cause family andfriends.
2.Does being near the end of one’s life make the decision to end it justified?This would still be
ending one’s life earlier than it is meant to end. People will have differing opinions and views
on these issues based on their personal or religious beliefs andupbringing.
3.What might the phrase “right to die” mean?Many people use the phrase “it’s a free country” or
push the issue of human rights. Justbecause it is your life doesn’t give you the right or option to
end it; if you do, it would still beclassified as a suicide.
4.Do people have the right to seek assistance in dying?Assistance in dying would constitute
unethical behavior. Our lives are meant to take theirnatural course, not to be ended by ourselves
or anyone else.
5.Do people have the right to give assistance in dying?People, who have no chance of recovering,
are suffering, or are only being kept alive throughman-made machines should have the right to
be assisted in dying. These people should, aftergaining the consent of their family, be taken off
the machines and then allowed to let theirnatural life take its course
1. Should people have the moral right to end their lives if they so please?

It may seem right in the eyes of this person who is living such situation in his life. He argues
that he has lived long enough and is tired. He also claims that is illness is killing himself and
do not want to waste money paying for people who can take of him neither wants to move
to where his kids are. as the book states in pg. 4 “ a value is used to denote the worth of an
item, a person’s values can be said to have a specific worth for them. It can be expressed in
two ways but for this case we case, we can relate this person’s situation to end his life
to intrinsic value as it states that “ a value is a good thing in itself and is pursued for its
own sake, whether anything good comes from that pursuit or not”(pg 4). As we know this
person wants to end his life because he is tired and does not want to bother anyone to take
care of a ill old person; therefore, his pursue is to end his life so he can rest happily after. In
the other hand, killing yourself is not seem right by society although of the arguments this
person may have. Killing yourself will result in a value conflict as killing is considered wrong
and even more when it’s a suicide. We believe that is definitely not right killing yourself, the
right time will come for everyone in the right moment.

2. Does being near the end of one’s life make the decision to end it justified?

It depends on the situation that person is facing. If for instance, a person is in a vegetative
state and its being plugged to this machines that keep the person alive, we will consider to
end his/her life as there is no hope for this person to recover and be back to normal life
again. However, this will be a hard decision to make as it bring value conflicts as one is
taking away someone’s life but considering his/her situation the decision taken could be
right and appropriate it. For people who are very ill and the only option to stop suffering from
their illness and feel their lives are near to end, the decision to end their lives is not justified
because as mentioned above we believe that every one’s time will come when the time is
right in the life cycle. Ending up your life is not the solution and it not perceived as right in
society and bring lot of value conflicts.

3. What might the phrase “right to die” mean?

We believe that it means to end his/her life when they feel that their lives are useless for
reasons like critical illness or age. So these people may think that the best way to avoid
pain and suffering from their sickness is to end their lives; therefore, they may argue that
they have right to die considering their painful situation of being sick of diseases that do not
have cure or being in treatments and medications for life in order to survive, or just because
they are old and feel tired and do not feel like others to take care and look after him.

4. Do people have the right to seek assistance in dying?

We do not think so. We think that assisting someone to die is actually committing a murder,
therefore is not right to seek assistance because the person who assists to die the other
one will end up in prison with a number of charges.

5. Do people have the right to give assistance in dying?

No, people do not have the right to give assistance in dying because it will be considered a
murder and this person will have problems with legal authorities and even may end up in
prison for life. In addition, it is no ethical in doing so. In contrast, this person should give
assistance but in terms of looking for professional assistance in case this person is really ill
and needs treatment or medication or physiologist in case this person is mentally ill and
needs an specific treatment so ending his/her life will not be an option for them.

6. What kind of restrictions, if any, should there be on assisted suicide?

There should not be any restrictions on assisted suicide as it is not considered right in the
eyes of the public and society in general, and it’s not legal. It could however be argued that
in certain circumstances a person should be allowed to take his or her own life, but if society
took any steps to make it legal for even certain people to kill themselves such a rule would
automatically discriminate other groups and anger many more.