Case 1: Was Google wrong?
Adapted from "Was Google wrong to fire James Damore after memo controversy?", BBC News, August 9, 2017 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40865261)
Google has fired an employee who wrote a controversial memo opposed to diversity programmes and hiring practices. The company's chief executive said the "offensive" text advanced "harmful gender stereotypes". Did Google do the right thing?
First things first: What did the memo say?
A senior Google employee, James Damore, argued in an internal memo that perhaps tech companies that try diversity programmes to get more women into the industry are looking at things the wrong way. It's not just because of recruitment practices or education or discrimination that more men than women work in the tech industry, he argued, but because of biological differences.
Women are "on average more interested in people" as opposed to things, he said, "more co-operative" and "more prone to anxiety" - all things that stop them going in to the tech industry or rising to the top of it. And he said this couldn't usually be said by people who worked for Google, because of an "ideological echo chamber" and a "shaming culture and the possibility of being fired".
After the memo received a few days of international attention, Mr Damore was fired. He is reported to be considering legal action.The memo and now his sacking have been much discussed on social media, with some agreeing with him, some offering him jobs, and others aghast at his views.
Google was wrong to fire him, say some
"I think it's wrong for a company to fire someone for simply expressing their opinion," said Jodie Ginsberg of the Index on Censorship pressure group. Asked whether Mr Damore being fired was censorship, she said yes. "Yes, in that the message it's sending is that people are not free to express their beliefs and opinions. The message is we should just shut down the views with which we disagree ... A much better way is to discuss those opinions openly."
Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico, said Google had gone down in his estimation when it fired Mr Damore. "It was reasonable of this author to expect that his argument would be respected, that he would be able to air it with some safety," he said. "It's just embarrassing for Google," he continued. "I used to think Google was one of the coolest companies on earth. I use a lot of their software of all kinds and now I just feel like I'm supporting this ideological juggernaut ... If the reaction to being told that you are an ideological echo chamber is that kind of defensiveness, to me it's pretty strong evidence that it probably is biased."
Google was right to fire him, say others
On the other hand, says technology writer and broadcaster Kate Bevan, the memo created a hostile environment for female staff. "I'm not very keen on the mob going for people to get the sack," she said. "But in this case he was acting in a way that was detrimental to his colleagues ... If you stand up and declare in public that you think a large number of your colleagues are unfit to do the job because of their chromosomes, you're telling your colleagues 'I don't think you're good enough'."
That echoes the argument made by Google's CEO SundarPichai in a letter to staff: "To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."
Ms Bevan continued: "The best engineers are not necessarily male. If you continue to restrict your hiring pool to one type of people you're going to get some mediocre people in there." She argued that a more diverse workplace would be better for business, too, saying: "If you've got a limited workforce you're going to limit the products you make."
So the science he cited - was it legit?
Geoffrey Miller, the evolutionary psychologist, told the BBC that Mr Damore got "most of the science right" and showed "pretty good judgment about what we know and what we don't know".He wrote that the memo "would get at least an A- in any Masters psychology course". But Gina Rippon, the chair of cognitive brain imaging at Aston University in Birmingham, England, disagreed. She told the BBC: "The key thing for me is that he's got quite a lot of the science wrong ... The basis of his argument is wrong. I don't know who he's been reading."
Just 20% of Google's technical roles are filled by women, according to the company's own figures. Nearly half of non-technical staff are female, but the fact remains that there are many more men than women working in tech companies like Google. A 2016 study of women in Silicon Valley found that half of the women asked had repeatedly been told they were too aggressive, and nearly half had been asked to do low-level jobs their male colleagues weren't asked to do, like taking notes or ordering food.
If you wish, you can read the full memo at:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/
(a) Explain how the issues raised in this media report reflect descriptive and normative approaches to understanding ethics.
(b) Explain how the issues raised in this media report can be related to Moral Rights.
(c) Imagine you were the CEO of Google Inc., deciding whether or not to fire James Damore. Using Utilitarianism, determine whether firing James Damore is a moral act
Case 2: Belle Gibson
Adapted from "Belle Gibson, fake wellness blogger, fined $410,000 over false cancer claims", ABC News, September 28, 2017 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/disgraced-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-fined/8995500)
Fake wellness blogger Belle Gibson has been ordered to pay a fine of $410,000 after being found guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct earlier this year. The Federal Court in Melbourne found she misled her readers when she claimed her brain cancer was cured through alternative therapies and nutrition. It was later revealed she never had the disease.
Ms Gibson made $420,000 after building a social media empire and releasing The Whole Pantry cookbook and app, based on the claims. Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) launched an investigation, and in June 2016 brought a civil case against Ms Gibson and her company Inkerman Road Nominees, which has been shut down.The court heard Ms Gibson made false claims about donating a large portion of her profits to charities. Ms Gibson has been fined for five separate contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law Act.
The fine includes:
$90,000 for failing to donate proceeds from the sale of The Whole Pantry app, as publicly advertised
$50,000 for failing to donate proceeds from the launch of The Whole Pantry app
$30,000 for failing to donate proceeds from a 2014 Mother's Day event
$90,000 for failing to donate other company profits
$150,000 for failing to donate 100 per cent of one week's app sales to the family of Joshua Schwarz, a boy who had an inoperable brain tumour
Justice Mortimer described the failure to donate to the Schwarz family as the "most serious" contravention of the law, stating that"Ms Gibson expressly compared the terrible circumstances of young Joshua to her own, asserting she had the same kind of tumour as he did; a statement which was completely false".
Justice Mortimer said that, despite significant publicity surrounding Ms Gibson's charitable pledges, she made only three donations totalling $10,800. She said that if Ms Gibson managed to pay the fine, it would be good to see the money donated to those who had been falsely promised donations.
She refused CAV's request for the court to order Ms Gibson to pay for full-page apology advertisements in newspapers, saying most of Ms Gibson's contravening conduct occurred on social media. She said CAV could have instead asked the court to order Ms Gibson to undertake community service caring for people who really do have cancer, but it did not. "It [would have been] more likely to have brought home to Ms Gibson the impact of her conduct, and its offensiveness to members of the Australian community who really are struggling with cancer and its effects," Justice Mortimer wrote.
The judge was critical of Ms Gibson's absence from the proceedings, saying she had "elected not to take any responsibility for her conduct ... She has chosen not to explain her conduct. She has chosen not to apologise for it," Justice Mortimer said. "It appears she has put her own interests before those of anyone else ... If there is one theme or pattern which emerges through her conduct, it is her relentless obsession with herself and what best serves her interests."
Justice Mortimer noted that she was not asked to make any findings about the "efficacy or otherwise of the treatments publicised by Ms Gibson, including her so-called dietary advice". But Cancer Council Victoria said the fine sent a strong message to those who preyed on vulnerable people by making misleading claims about cancer treatment.
Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs Marlene Kairouz said Ms Gibson deserved the harsh penalty. "I think she carefully planned for this," Ms Kairouz said. "She knew exactly what she was doing and thankfully there aren't many people out there like Belle Gibson."
(a) Describe how virtue ethics can be applied to this case. (As the report does not include any information about developing virtues/excellences, you can ignore that aspect.)
(b) Describe how Kohlberg's theory of moral development can be applied to this case
Written communication
Spelling, accurate abbreviations, formatting (including following the submission requirements), referencing
Reading difficulty, grammar, logic and flow of the argument, links between sentences