Outside Reading Post 5

When learning about the many negative affect of drugs, we were introduced to the idea that the money spent on them world go to helping many illegal organizations around the world. My health teacher traced through the money that was spent on heroin would hurt the environment and help fuel wars, while also hurting your body. The idea of bad money is one that many people understand, and no ethical person wants to use the money a drug dealer made. Mortenson needed a lot of money to finance his many projects in Pakistan, and few Americans were willing to donate to his cause. As Mortenson saw his funds dwindle and became scared for the future of his organization, he accepted money from anyone that would donate to him. Mortenson thought of the conflict when he was paying his respects to Mother Teresa just after her death. He recounted how she had been criticized for he acceptance of money from corrupt persons, but Mortenson agreed with her actions (237). Mortenson saw how difficult it had been for him to collect even the 20,000 dollars he needed for a school, and understood Mother Teresa's actions.
Should money be accepted to help a good cause that came from a corrupt source? The point can really be argued either way. On one hand the money would go to help many people, such as the children the Mortenson was helping in Pakistan, and any money received would help. However, accepting the money indirectly contributed or supported the corrupt persons actions. Mortenson believed that the fact that the person donated the money may have showed a change in heart, and accepted any money thankfully. I agree that for the most part his actions spoke to the more ethical choice, however there will always be special cases that do not fit with his generalized assumption.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Outside Reading Post 4

When Greg Mortenson decided to become the founder and head of the Central Asia Institute, he took on an challenge that he was ready for. As his trips to Pakistan increased in frequency and duration, he found more areas that needed his help, and found himself traveling to the outermost regions of the country. As his duties increased, he had less time to spend talking to the heads of the villages he was going to build in, which lead to a lack in some of his social understanding of their unique culture. When Mortenson visited Wiziristan, a desert area on Pakistan's border, he had the intention of building them a school. He soon learned that the regions hatred toward Americans was growing, however this enlightenment occurred after his capture. As I read of Greg's travels and his decreasing intimate contact with town leaders, I thought of the struggle that must be going through his mind. He had to make a choice, either he would build less schools learn more about each individual towns culture and needs, or he could build as many schools as possible, and lose his close relationships and the possibility to cater directly to the area's specific needs. This decision required Mortenson to think of what he cared about most. Mortenson was able to come to some middle ground by hiring Pakistani employees that could share important cultural information, while leaving Mortenson with the time to build as many schools and town centers as possible.
As could be expected, conflicts arose from Mortenson's lack of relationships with town leaders. On his trip to Waziristan, the Haji Wazir, their town leader, captured Mortenson and held him hostage for ten days (165). Mortenson realized that he must make some diplomatic relations before planting himself in an area and attempting to solve their problems. After he learned that Haji Wazir had taken him in to see if he was anti-Islam or a secret agent, Mortenson was sure to get to know important Pakistani leaders personally so they could see his works were for the better of all the people of Pakistan. Mortenson had many difficult decisions to make on his quest to help as many children as he could, but his ethical choices help define him as the hero many people consider him to be.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Outside Reading Quarter 2: Post 3

In the book "Three Cups of Tea" Greg Mortenson needs to decide whether he will help the people of Pakistan by building them a school, or if he will stay in America with his girlfriend and settle down and have a family. Greg chose to go to Pakistan and build the school. This shows that Greg knows that it is the correct choice for him to do what is better for the greater society, in his case helping the many people in Pakistan. He could have also made this decision and known that if his girlfriend was really the right fit for him as a life partner she would share his ethical standpoint and understand his actions. While reading a bit more reveals that his girlfriend does indeed share his drive to help other people, leaving shows that he is willing to take a risk to do what he believes is right. Not only does this show that he is a sound person ethically, it shows that he is not afraid to be a whistle blower and stand up for what he believes to be right.

Mortenson is faced with a similar problem later on in the book, when the people of the village he was building a school at asked him if he could build a bridge for them. While Mortenson hadn't enjoyed sleeping in his car and living in a storage space, he knew that the people in Pakistan didn't enjoy walking through a river many times a day. Mortenson saw that he could build them a bridge, and he wanted to. He knew that it would be in the best interest of many people, and while it might not be fun for him, it was the best thing to do. Mortenson liked helping people, but also did it because he knew he would feel that if he didn't he would regret his poor decision. This steadfast loyalty to serving others is a testimony to the strength of his character ethically.

On the Waterfront

The characters in the film "On the Waterfront" are split in their beliefs regarding what makes up a whistle-blower or tattle-tale. In Edy and the priest's view, it is one's responsibility to come forth with any knowledge relating to the murder of Joey. For them, holding back knowledge makes a person just as bad as anyone that actually committed the crime. The mob on the other hand believes that since Terry and Doogan were in on the plan from the very beginning they are simply being tattle-tales by talking to the priest. They believe that since Terry and Doogan were in on the plan from the start, they had an agreement to be "D and D". The result of Terry or Doogan telling on the mob would result in the loss of their strong dock position and a gain a place in jail. Terry is stuck in the middle of this situation and has to decide whether he will condemn his brother or not. The decision for him is hard, because he knows whatever move he makes, a group of people won't be happy with him, and he needs to find out which group is more important.

I believe that a person is usually both a tattle-tale and a whistle blower in most situations, and what they have to decide is which side is appropriate to go along with. If the situation is small and doesn't negatively affect the society or anyone involved, telling people about some bad judgement I would consider being a tattle-tale. If the situation hurts others or the society than a person needs to be a whistle blower when they are tell about what is going on. I also think that a person is a tattle-tale when they fully involve themselves in the situation before stepping out and speaking to others on what is going on. If a person only is slightly involved in a situation and see corruption, they are being a whistle blower by reporting their observations. The reasons for this is a person must get out of a situation by being a whistle blower before gaining the trust of the other people involved, therefore turning yourself into a tattle-tale.

All My Sons

In the play "All My Sons" by Arthur Miller, Joe Keller decides to make decisions that benefits his family, where as Chris and Ann don't agree with that opinion. When Joe tells Steve to cover and ship the broken parts, he knowingly sent many pilots to their demise. Joe justified his action by believing it was in the best interest for the family, by maintaining the future for his son he had worked so hard to obtain. After finally admitting to knowingly shipping the bad parts, Joe shares his thoughts with Chris. While addressing Chris, Joe said, "For you, a business for you!"(70). By sending bad parts, J.O. Keller Inc. stayed in business and would provide a good living for Chris. Joe truly believed that it was his job to care for his family no matter what that meant, even the killing of others. Joe again shows how important family is to him when he states, "I owe him a good kick in the teeth, but he's your father..."(49). While this statement was partly in defense of his own actions, Joe did believe that caring for family was more important than the need of the society. Chris and Ann don't agree with him, and believe that people must do what is in the best interest of the society. Chris said, "God in heaven, what kind of a man are you? Kids were hanging in the air by those heads"(70). Chris thought that a true man would care for his society and make the right choice by not shipping the parts, and thus risking his family's wealth for the benefit of others.
I think it is important to put your family's needs in front of the needs of society on very few occasions. Usually the needs of the society are greater, and working towards a greater purpose, such as winning a war or keeping men alive. However when thinking about a situation involving a much smaller problem, it is important to put your family first. For instance if the problem involves rationing a limited item, such as wealth, or in times of need, food, your family should come first. Most of the time though the society has a greater need than your family. In general, I don't agree with doing something that kills a person for the benefit of my family, or the other way around. This question is very situational and is hard to answer without a specific case, however no matter how much we may love our families it is necessary view the situation from a by-stander's point of view and normally the decision that should be made will be to do what is best for the society.

Miller, Arthur. "All My Sons". New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.

Outside Reading #2

Greg Mortenson was taken in by a small village in Pakistan, and after gaining the trust of the people in the village, learned about their daily life and what true poverty the people live in. After learning that the children don't have a school building and only have a teacher for three days of the week, Greg tells the people that he will build them a school. Since Greg had very low income, it required remarkable sacrifices for this to be accomplished. Greg had to make many decisions in order for his school to be completed. Greg wanted to give all he had into the trip, and even, "decided not to rent an apartment. He had the storage space. And La Bamba's backseat was the size of a couch"(49). The enormity of Greg's passion for his mission was not shown as clearly before as in this choice. Deciding to live out of a car is an example of Greg's moral decisions, where he wanted to give everything he could to the people in Pakistan.
When buying supplies in Pakistan, Greg’s helper, Abdul, helps him bargain for supplies. When Abdul bargains, he brings in religious reasons for giving a better price. Greg hears Abdul tell a salesman, “A true Muslim would leap at the chance to help poor children instead of trying to steal their money” (65). When Abdul is trying to bring down the price he questions the seller’s religion, an act that arouses thought over the ethics of both men. While it is probably a good practice to keep religion out of business, Abdul makes a valid point about giving to the poor, a good, ethical act of any person, and especially of a devote Muslim. Whether or not religion should be brought into the problem, trying to sell lumber at a high price to an organization set out to help the poor is unethical.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Outside Reading Quarter 2: Post 1

The memoir of Greg Mortenson's actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan opens with his failure to summit K2 and his reaction to this failure. A strong man and very experienced climber, Mortenson is surprised by his failure and amazed since this was one of the first times he has really failed at a big goal in his life. His tells of his childhood through recollection and shows the reader that his past has been full of charitable acts and that his parents were public servants wanting the best for the world. Before reading this memoir I read a summary and know that it specifically focuses on his building of schools. He spent some of his childhood in Tanzania while his parents built schools for people living there, which developed in him a sense of responsibility. His care for other people is demonstrated by his kind actions towards his sister who suffered from epileptic seizures, and help set him up as a character that always cares for others. He is unhappy at his failure to summit the mountain not only for personal goals that may have been accomplished, but also because the trip had been in honor of his sister.

The book also starts to explore the ethical choices that people have to make every day. Although we have not discussed this topic yet in class, very obvious ethical choices needed to be made in Mortenson's trips. Two men were planning on summating a mountain, when a third man had fallen ill. Mortenson recounts, "Dan and Jon were the real heroes," he says. "They gave up their summit bid to get Etienne down"(14). This decision was an easy one to make, but did require a moral decision. Dan and Jon could've simply left Etienne on the mountain for another group to help and complete their summit dreams. This would be almost the same as murder, and anyone in this situation would do the right thing, as Dan and Jon did, and assist Etienne down the mountain. Later in the story Mortenson's guide keeps a close eye on him, even during his Muslim prayer practice. Mouzafer would, "steal a glance away from Mecca to make sure Mortenson was still nearby"(22). This action gets into a religious decision, and I won't call myself an expert of Islam by any means. However, I do believe that during prayer time you should be devoting yourself to God. I believe that Mousafer made the right decision by making sure that Mortenson stayed out of trouble and alive, even if it meant not completely devoting his time to God. Saving a man's life probably makes up for skimping on prayer. The ethics explored early in this story show people making good decisions that led to a positive outcome for all.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.