Blog #3: Group Dynamics and Dilemmas

Authors: Anvith Potluri, Kevin Li, Kevin Nguyen, & Varad Thorat

From a very young age we have been taught to respect the members of your group and that working well in teams is essential. In the situation given to us, Bob clearly puts Carlos in a tough situation by not respecting Alice’s work. Carlos is in a situation where he must choose between Alice and Bob and no matter what he does, a rift will be created within the group. Alice definitely feels marginalized and disrespected by Bob’s actions as he not only discredited her work, but disrespected her in the process as well. This would have been less likely to occur if Alice was male, as many males are unfortunately inherently biased against the work of females.

The incident would have a significant impact on both the group and the individuals. Group productivity would decline. Also, this would most definitely change Alice and Carlos’s viewpoints as they would be more aware of the discrimination that exists against females in the computer science work environment. Being aware of this discrimination would make them more cautious with how they respond to certain problems and make sure that they are respectful to people of both genders.

The best way to handle this is to set up a meeting and go through the code with Bob and show him how it works. From a utilitarian and a virtue based framework, it would be best as it would both produce results and require virtuous actions. Carlos and Alice should work together and explain Alice’s code to Bob. Once this happens Alice’s code should be submitted. Alice should not respond aggressively as that would escalate the situation unless Bob is reluctant to change despite the explanation.

Blog #2: The Nature of Sexual Consent

Authors: Anvith Potluri, Kevin Li, Kevin Nguyen, & Varad Thorat
Yes, No or -maybe on Blackboard

The nature of sexual consent should be in an environment where both involved parties involved feel comfortable with responding with regards to their own desires and not due to pressure. An instance where either party might be unable to respond with regards to their own desires is a situation where there is “an abuse of power,” according to Carmon. In these situations, even if verbal consent is given, it may not be due to the person in question wanting to consent, but instead being forced to consent. In a deontological framework, if one party is forced to consent by the other, the oppressor is acting unethically as he or she is forcing upon the other party something against their will. 

However, it may be difficult for the oppressed, which are frequently women, to do much about their situations. It has become “a game for men to overcome a woman’s resistance.” What can be done by bystanders is to help prevent oppressive situations, but that might not be so easy. Instead, societal norms should be changed. According to Friedman, we need to correctly model sexual communication. In a virtue based framework, people should be taught to be virtuous in these situations. 

Technology is another outlet that can help with sexual abuse. The online #MeToo movement can connect victims of sexual harassment and prevent abuse from happening in the future. While it may be difficult to speak up in person, online anonymized forums can give people voices. Unfortunately, technology has also generated “sexting,” which leads to the problem of youth not knowing how to behave online, according to Madigan. In a utilitarian framework, the impacts of sexting are clearly negative in many circumstances, making it quite problematic. The result might include bullying, or harassment, when the photos and messages get shared beyond the intended recipient.

Work Cited:

  • Madigan, Sheri, et al. “Why Sexting Must Be on the Curriculum.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 6 Oct. 2019, theconversation.com/why-sexting-must-be-on-the-curriculum-96457.

Blog #1: The Case of Andrew Wakefield

The Andrew Wakefield case presents a publication to the Lancet that was fueled by unethical/biased behavior with an undermining incentive among the perpetrators. The 1998 publication proposed that MMR vaccines was linked to autism. The underlying factors were not disclosed on how Wakefield came to that conclusion, and the mindset behind the study.

2 years before the the study was published, a group of lawyers that was plotting a case against the MMR manufacturers paid Wakefield a lump sum  that would support their case by advocating him to carry out the 1998 research. They even presented Wakefield with subjects that would support their case which Wakefield non-hesitantly did. The subjects in testing later on were biased and not random. Not only that, in 1997, Wakefield filed a patent on a vaccine that would have competed against the MMR vaccine. Yet another major conflict of interest. Fueled by greed and financial interest/gain, I can see why Wakefield would make a study that favored those interests. This would in turn compensate him from the lawyers, and his patent that he would market as an alternative to MMR vaccines would be very much appealing.

Was his behavior unethical and unjust? I believe so. These major conflicts of interest was never disclosed to the public upon publishing the 1998 study which led to a detrimental decline to vaccinations, taking advantage of parents of autistic children/newborns that were trying to find a cure for autism, and increasing the diseases that the vaccinations were designed to prevent. The damage was already done. Even after his 1998 study was retracted in 2010, the austism myth is still somewhat believed by some parents even when there is proof of the unethical behavior behind the study that constitutes it null and void.

Sources:

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started