Penn State Scandal
After reading the article https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/penn-state-scandal
respond to the following questions:
1. Joe Paterno became a central figure in this case because he was a beloved and successful football coach. Testimonies have revealed that Paterno may have been aware of Sandusky’s actions, but the extent of Paterno’s knowledge remains in question. Based on the information in the case study, how were the actions (and inaction) of Paterno subject to bounded ethicality? What institutional pressures or psychological factors may have influenced his decisions? Why can inaction be equally as troublesome as action in this case? Explain.
2. Coach Paterno said that he did not feel adequate to deal with the allegations regarding Sandusky when he first learned of them. What should he have done?
Sample Solution
Joe Paterno became a central figure in the Penn State scandal due to his role as head football coach at the university. His actions prior to, during, and after Sandusky’s abuse were subject to bounded ethicality because of various institutional and psychological pressures he was facing. The article indicates that there may have been some indication of Paterno’s knowledge that Sandusky had abused a student athlete (Powell). Institutional pressure on Paterno was immense; as an iconic and successful football coach with a long-standing career at Penn State, he likely worried about damaging the school's reputation by uncovering or admitting what had happened within its walls. In addition, this case reveals how powerful people can be subject to psychological biases such as self-interest bias and confirmation bias which can lead them down an unethical path (ethicsunwrapped).
The inaction of Joe Paterno is just as concerning in this case as any potential direct action would have been. He failed to take any decisive steps when it came to addressing these allegations; instead choosing silence which allowed the issue fester without resolution while allowing further harm to be done towards victims. This inaction could also be attributed largely from fear of repercussions from other parties if it were revealed what went on between Sandusky and his students athletes. Ultimately, Joe Paterno should have acted more decisively but unfortunately did not - a lesson for us all no matter our station in life when faced with difficult ethical dilemmas we must do better than remain silent; otherwise we risk contributing to moral decay in society.
At last, jus post bellum proposes that the moves we ought to initiate after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). First and foremost, Vittola contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is stressed. For instance, the Versailles arrangement forced after WWI is tentatively excessively cruel, as it was not all Germany's problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very varying perspectives. Minimalists recommend a more merciful methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both monetarily and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last example, notwithstanding, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it keeps the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is entirely contestable and can contend in various ways. Be that as it may, the foundation of a fair harmony is urgent, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing closer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). By and by, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it very well may be either ethically disputable or reasonable relying upon the proportionality of the situation. Subsequently, there can't be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show how wars ought to be battled, showing normativity in its record, which responds to the inquiry to what a conflict hypothesis is.