Module 5.4

How to Help Self-Driving Cars Make Ethical Decisions

      In an article from MIT Technology Review website, author Will Knight delves into the ethical questions raised by automatic cars.  Studies are now looking into the decisions that cars will have to make in the future.  Chris Gerdes, who is leading the study and is a professor with Stanford University posed the question "As we see this (driving) with human eyes, one of these obstacles has a lot more value than the other...What's the car's responsibility?"  Gerdes was referencing a recent scenario in which he proposed, "a child suddenly dashing into the road, forcing the self-driving car to choose between hitting the child or swerving into an oncoming van."

      That is the ethical dilemma that self-driving car programmers will have to decide.  Ultimately that will be an algorithm that is programmed into the car.  Something will have to be more or less valuable, depending on the ethics (or intelligence) of the car.  In the scenario above, how does the car decide which way to go?  Are the cars smart enough to talk to themselves and avoid each other and the child?  

      Lot's of questions still need raised and answered.  Before self-driving cars we could blame the individual, or call mishaps accidents.  In the future, I don't think we can call them "accidents" when the vehicles are programmed for a function.  Who would held be responsible in the event of a true accident?  The car programmer?  

Module 4.3

Nicki Minaj and Meek Mill, Twitter’s Ethics Police

      Ethics, taught by female rapper Nicki Minaj, who once rapped:

"Yeah, he love this fat ass
Yeah, this one is for my bitches with a fat ass in the fucking club
I said, where my fat ass big bitches in the club?
Fuck those skinny bitches, fuck those skinny bitches in the club
I wanna see all the big fat ass bitches in the motherfucking club
Fuck you if you skinny bitches WHAT?"

     Those lyrics were taken from Nicki Minaj's song, Anaconda, which is essentially a remix of Sir-Mix-Alot's "Baby Got Back."  Ms. Minaj, as an artist is constantly pushing the boundaries of free speech, which is her right as an American.  However, I don't believe I'll be looking to her for "ethics advice" any time soon.  She was recently left out of the nominations this year for video of the year in the MTV Video Music Awards.  Minaj went to Twitter to say "If your video celebrates women with very slim bodies, you will be nominated for vid of the year."  Minaj was way off base with her comments, and social media makes this instant communication too easy.  Millions of followers were soon caught up in the drama between Minaj and Taylor Swift who was nominated for a VMA.  It was apparent that Minaj was out of line, because Beyonce was nominated who has a very similar physique to Minaj, and she was nominated.  Nicki's comments were unfounded and certainly didn't win her any new fans.  She is an artist and entitled to her opinion, but sometimes she may want to keep those to herself.

Module 3.3

FSU President wants to implement ethics course for student-athletes after domestic violence incidents

     In an article published by Gabrielle McMillen, with Perform Media, on Sporting News' website this week, she stated that in light of two recent actions by a couple of football players; the school President John Thrasher is making an "Ethics" course mandatory for student-athletes.  In separate incidents two different football players allegedly struck women, outside of a bar.  President Thrasher and head coach Jimbo Fisher quickly took action and released both players from the team, concreting their stance of zero tolerance for this type of behavior.  The college is also implementing a number of other changes that will affect all student-athletes.  All student will have to take a course on ethics, and the athletic department is adding a position to help the athletes focus directly on personal development.  While the intentions are right, I'm afraid that it's probably too late to teach right from wrong.  At the ages of 18-22, most young adult minds are already formed, and opinions are set.  A college class and one person going around to the different teams aren't going to have much of an impact.  The coaches, and fellow teammates must hold one another accountable, but must also discipline the athletes when they don't comply with the expectations.  

Module 2.3

Hunting ethics campaign started in Montana

    This week's ethical debate is not whether to hunt or not, rather how to hunt "ethically" or properly.  Once a person decides to hunt animals, whether its for food or sport; that "hunter" must obey the laws.  Most states have seasons for different animals, and a suggested way for taking, harvesting, or killing the animals.  For instance, in Ohio where I live there is a serious overpopulation of deer, specifically white tailed deer.  The seasons are adjusted annually so that the right number of animals are taken, and are no longer a nuisance or a danger to drivers.  There are bow hunting seasons, black powder seasons, and gun seasons among others, but it is controlled and regulated tightly.  You have to "check in" your deer at a processing station once you've harvested one.  This keeps the hunter accountable, and also is a way for the state to know how many deer were taken.  

    

    So what happens when hunters take deer illegally, or by an unfair means?  Hunting, in my opinion should be about the hunt; hunter vs. hunted!  If you are using your vehicle to "herd" an animal so you can shoot it, that's a very unfair advantage.  At that point it's no longer a hunt, it's like "shooting fish in a barrel."  Another unfair advantage taken by some unethical hunters is shooting into a herds of animals.  This requires no skill, and is just plain stupid.  

For me, there's nothing like bowhunting, where you need need to be no more than 40-50 yards away from your animal; so close you can smell each other-now that's hunting!

Module1.4

FIFA ethics committee bans bid inspector Harold Mayne-Nicholls for seven years

     Harold Mayne-Nicholls, who was the head FIFA (Federation International de Football Association) representative which had been in charge of securing the next two World Cup locations was relieved of his duties today, and subsequently "banned from all soccer for seven years."  FIFA has a multi-national Ethics committee as a system of checks and balances, which was used in the investigation of Mayne-Nicholls.  The alleged, Mayne-Nicholls was accused of several charges which range from bribery to favoritism, or hidden agenda.  Several punishments were handed down since his suspension from football (soccer) today.  He cannot have "any kind of football-related activity at national and international level" and must not disclose any information to the media regarding the investigation.
     From what I have heard and read thus far about the allegations, I cannot understand what he did wrong.  Certainly in any case you may never hear the full truth from either side, but from what I've read; he was not out of line.  He had the best interest of FIFA, and the soccer players in mind when he advised against playing a soccer tournament in Qatar, in the desert, in the summer.  Qatar had been in the running for the 2022 World Cup, which is the "superbowl" of soccer; but only happens every four years.  To host such an event in the desert is ludicrous, but Qatar eventually ended up winning the bid for the Cup, much to Mayne-Nicholls' dismay.  I believe he was given an unfair punishment, which was ultimately a diversion tactic for other FIFA executives currently under investigation.