Pain of Utilitarianism

This past weekend, I took an impromptu, two-day trip to my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. As soon as I exited to the plane on Thursday night at 11:41 pm, my legs became heavy as if the marrow in my bones began to freeze. I slug through the terminal, exhausted from the day filled with class and travel, and exit the airport to  meet my dad’s Honda Pilot. I toss my carry-on suitcase into the trunk, and as I walk to the passenger-side door, a cold breeze between runs down my spine with the discomfort of nails clawing a chalk board.
Friday night was even more frigid. Armies of snowflakes battled through the air. I stumbled gingerly through the wintry mix-- hoping not to get caught in the crossfire of the mini-blizzard-- and barely spotted the white door to Original Harvest Missionary Baptist Church.
I walk into the door hesitantly and enter a waiting room. I’m 10 minutes tardy. I tuck in my purple shirt, straighten up my purple tie, grab a program with the picture of my aunt and the words “Kimberly Burch-Lawson” stretched across the lower third of the paper in Lucida Handwriting font. Seeing the pamphlet with her face decorating the front causes the emptiness of my heart to suck the happiness from my soul like a black whole ripping away life from the cosmos. She really isn’t with us any more.
I reach the far side church and sit adjacent to my God mother on a pew. I sit there for an hour straight. An hour filled with frustration, sorrow, regret, emptiness, and more frustration. My frustration stemmed from the manner in which the service was dealt with. The service seemed less of a celebration of my aunt’s life and more of a stereotypical black church setting. People were clapping, pastors were yelling and making pop culture references, music paraded out of the overheated church and marched into the parking lot and street surrounding the church building, men and women were praise dancing through the isles, and people danced and rejoiced in the glory of God with each new section of the service. Now notice, I write the glory of God and rejoicing for God. With no disrespect, where was the focus on my Aunt? Where was the celebration of my aunt? She was barely mentioned or spoken about. She was only mentioned when it was convenient to push the Christian agenda of speaking of how mighty and wonderful God truly is. It seemed that everyone in the room forgot the true purpose of us flying hundreds of miles and driving through blizzards. That purpose wasn’t God but rather my wonderful aunt Kimberly Burch-Lawson.
This experience and accompanying frustration truly had me questioning the entire concept of utilitarianism-- doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. For the majority of the people at the funeral service, this was the greatest thing for them. They only had superficial, loose relationships with my aunt. These relationships were forged at the church, so they only knew my aunt as Sister Kim, the great, god loving and fearing woman. They didn’t know her as a mother of 3, grandmother of four, sister of 3 (2 of whom are deceased), etc. They didn’t know her as the woman who grew up on Griffing avenue and eventually moved into the gray house directly across the street from her parents and my grandparents. They only knew her in the church setting.
For the members of the family that traveled to the church, whether by car for 10 minutes or plane for 3.5 hours, the service was poorly done. It didn’t do her justice and didn’t help spread and convey her awesomeness and beautiful legacy. It only conveyed God’s awesomeness and legacy. This imbalance of attention started out as annoying but gradually became exasperating. Further, it didn’t do the most good for the few who needed and deserved that good the most-- the family of my aunt and my aunt herself.

At what cost do we "Lift the Curtain"

The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has rested as an independent and unnoticed country in the region of South Eastern Asia. This streak of abandon soon changed when Robert H. Lieberman landed in Myanmar during the Winter of 2008. There, he shot 120 hours of footage which has now been condensed and edited into the 88-minute documentary, “They Call It Myanmar: Lifting the Curtain.” Lieberman’s film will be debuting next Monday and Tuesday at Sunshine Cinema in New York, New York. The film will then trickle out into the United States and ultimately the globe as it is expected to reach full release within the year.

According to Lieberman, his “ultimate goal was to bring Burma into western consciousness…put a human face to the country. Up until Hillary‘s visit, it was really one of the most isolated countries on the planet.” Although he is bringing great, positive exposure to an isolated land and is helping westerners gain insight on the culture and political woes of Burma through his documentary, this project was ethically wrong.

The Burmans are a people hidden to the western eye by intention. They choose to be recluses from society; therefore, Lieberman imposed his own will and his own value of equality (through exposure) and transparency (of multiple cultures) on the Burmans. What’s worst is that he was sternly instructed to not film, for it is against the cultural norm of the Burmese people. He did it anyway, with complete disregard of the Burman culture.

How can someone fight to expose another’s culture if they can’t even respect that culture? This question is a mystery to me; however, Lieberman may have the answer. He managed to go on with his life, with a clean conscious and a new movie that is bound to be successful, by cautiously sneaking around Burma with a hidden camera and video camera to capture footage of military and government buildings and activities. If caught, he could have easily been arrested; however, he thought the ends (the eventual movie) justified the ends (breaking the Burmese law). The question I have for you after all of this is can we use American capitalistic ends to justify American imposed means on a foreign culture. I think that is ethnocentric crap, but it’s up for you to decide.

NBC does the right thing

Because of the huge drug scandal that has 17 TCU students more despised by the American public than Jerry Sandusky, journalists have been working swiftly to gather information and report the sting operation involving TCU and Fort Worth’s Police Departments. Because of this, I feared that the well written and powerful reporting of many would be skewed by the rushed and inaccurate. Instead of these findings, however, I have been impressed with great, ethical decisions in reporting during the past day.

I wanted to take time in this blog to applaud ethical reporting by NBC DFW, for they were the only news organization that I thought did a considerably great job in following the SPJ Code of Ethics by minimizing harm. In the article "18 Arrested in TCU Drug Bust," by Frank Heinz, they mention a student as “Jonathan Blake Jones (not to be confused with the Jonathan Jones who is on the football team and is in no way connected to this case).” This act was very small--in fact it only lasted for 23 words-- but it made a world of difference in the reputation of not only TCU athletics but of Jones (the athlete).

This is the kind of reporting I wish to emulate in the future. NBC made the extra effort to do what was ethical and not further tarnish the names of TCU students and athletes. As Boschini pointed out in a press conference earlier today, this drug incident was not an athlete problem but a TCU problem. NBC silently echoed this statement by doing all they could to prevent further assumptions about the football team, its players, and athlete-related drug usage from occurring. Also, they protected the image of the Fort Worth native. Some would have assumed it was Jonathan Jones, the athlete, because the focus of this incident has been the four athletes involved with the drug incident.

Fashion Woes

It pains me to say this, but NY Times’ article “Checking Model's ID’s at the Door,” will have no effect on the modeling industry. No one will become miraculously safer now that . Sure the exposure is nice, but the popular audience cares as much about model safety as they do about Asian worker mistreatment by Apple. The product, sadly, justifies the means it takes to get said product. The new line of models are more desirable than the fashions that they will be promoting during this year’s February installment of New York fashion week.
Is this right? OF COURSE NOT. However, as long as people continue to support modeling agencies who fill their Runways with mentally ill, anorexia weakened, 14-year-old girls, nothing is going to change. This is brutally unethical, and we as a society support this industry although it is destroying its employees. Even the individuals who are supposed to be regulating the fashion industry, like Council of Fashion Designers of America’s president, Diane Von Furstenburg has done nothing to advance the cause of safety and promote clear images of beauty to the fashion or public community. She said to NY Times, “If we haven‘t done anything else, we certainly have created awareness.” This statement is absolutely ridiculous. Awareness won’t inspire action for complacent individuals who are comfortable and even pleased with the results of the fashion industry’s ancien regime. Only actions will inspire change and more action.
The  lack of punishment for breaking modeling rules sends negative messages to masses of women. First, it weakens women by only placing women of a certain ethnicity and waistline on the pedestal of the fashion industry. The fashion industry only promotes one idea of beauty, thus larger women, Hispanic women, African American women, etc. will start to degrade themselves and depreciate their value and beauty. They will no longer be able to find beauty when they look in the mirror, for they won’t see what popular media has arbitrarily defined as beautiful.

Pfizer's adherence to utilitarianism

In his book Utilitarianism, British phillosopher John Stuart Mill brilliantly wrote, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain.”
Through his definition, happiness is not a state of being filled with smiles, hugs, and giggles. Happiness can be coupled with a state of frustration a pause filled by sorrow; however, it has a later resolve of ease, no pain, and a pleasure when clarity is found.
Therefore, Mill’s work is less about gauging happiness and more a meter determining the amount of good that is present in a situation. In layman’s terms, Mill’s principle of utility is about doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people--regardless of the effect the act of good may have on a person, company, etc.
Pfizer company recently set itself apart in the health care industry, in my eyes, with a public announcement and press release they sent out Wednesday February 1. In it, they describe that they recalled 14 lots (which is nearly 1 million pills) of birth control, for their may have been a misplacement of the placebo pill and thus an increased risk of becoming pregnant for women. Pfizer sent the announcement to all of the major media venues, posted statements on its website, and released a video explaining their packaging error and why it could be a problem.
The video notes that a maximum of 30 packages were incorrectly packed. However, they decided to potentially tarnish their reputation to do the best good for the best people. Their admittance of this “error” shows that companies are ethical and are willing to admit mistakes in order to benefit their consumer/client. Pfizer’s courage gives hope to not only women who can become pregnant but all individuals who have become enslaved to the products afforded to us by corporate America.