Happy Thanksgiving!

On this Thanksgiving, I can't help but wonder if that fateful Turkey couple would have ever got on board Noah's Ark if they knew what awaited their species in the future....

Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers, even if you're not from the States, as I'm sure we all have something to be thankful for!

I have honor to be yours truly,
Booblius... ahem,  I mean Publius

"Should a financially struggling individual get the job over a more-qualified person?"

Returning to your ethical questions...

Scott asks...

 "I have a friend (call him Joe) that is in charge of HR at a company around here. Another guy in our group is really struggling financially (Mike), and Joe thinks he should hire Mike rather than someone more qualified. Thoughts?"

Poor Fredo... He was looked over too.

Hi Scott,
Thanks for reading and asking your question. Now, are you talking about not hiring someone more qualified from within the company or outside the company?

If the person purportedly more qualified is from outside the company, then I think it makes his decision a lot easier to promote Mike, who knows how the company works from the inside more than an outsider, and has been a loyal employee for some time. It is normal to reward loyalty and membership with the trust of promotion to an opening position.

If the person who is supposedly more qualified is also an employee of this company, like Mike, then it makes the question a little more difficult. Now, to be clear, it is always a nice, positive thing to do to help someone who is struggling financially. So, in that case already, Joe is doing a good thing. Now, does Mike deserve it? Maybe not over this other, more qualified gentleman. But, what makes him more qualified? Is the difference in experience/skills that considerable? These can be important questions.

All in all, it is Joe's job in HR to appoint people to positions as he sees fits (or, so it seems based on what you have said). So, if Mike will not be up to par in this position, Joe may take heat for it. In either case, it is his call, and somehow he earned the trust of your company to make that call. So, in that sense, I respect Joe's choice, especially since it seems to be for benevolent reasons.

If there is more important information that I am not considering, please let me know and I will further address the situation. Thanks again for reading, and readers, you may leave more questions if you have them!

I have the honor to be your humble servant,
Publius

Rick Perry Forgets One of the Three Gov't Agencies He Would End... "Oops."

Republicans sure now how to pick 'em, don't they? Here is another example of a numbskull, elected by numbskulls. Luckily, Governor Perry's Presidential hopes finally look dead in the water because of this...

(If the video no longer works, click here)

LOL. Wow. One of the most important issues in his campaign, something that he has continuously driven home in the past, and he forgets it on public television. Just goes to show that if you don't really believe in what you are spewing (or even do any research to learn about it), your talking points can easily "slip your mind".

Embarrassing, Republicans. Looks like Mit Romney is your man for 2012, as much as many of you do not want him to be. How ironic that the Christian, Jesus-freak circus that has become the modern Republican Party will now have to throw their support behind a Mormon. But, don't be so sore. Your faith in such fake, ignorant idiots (and lack of faith in the authentic, informed Ron Paul) will ensure that President Burak Obama will get his second term in office. I lol'd.

 GW Bush 2.0 has been shelved. Adios Guv'nah.

What do you guys make of this gaffe? Do you agree that Rick Perry's campaign for the Republican nomination is dead? Leave your feedback!

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
Publius

"Do you think evolution should be taught in school?"

Deso asks: "Do you think evolution should be taught in school?"

Hi Deso,
To answer your question: Of course evolution should be taught in school. It is clear that evolution is a scientific fact. It is very unfortunate that many of the conservative/Republican politicians that help make the laws in the United States do not believe in evolution, or say idiotic things like "The jury's still out on evolution", which is a direct quote from the benighted ex-President George W. Bush. So ashamed.

Anyways, just like any scientific fact, it should be taught in Science classes and any other class where it may be applicable to the topic. It is incredible that some people still do not believe in evolution when we see evidence of evolution all the time. One great example of swiftly-developed, modern-day evolution is MRSA or "super bacteria" that are resistant to often several different forms of anti-biotics.

bbc.co.uk explains how this works:


"It's all about survival of the fittest - the basic principle of evolution. Bacteria have been around a lot longer than us, so they're pretty good at it.

There are countless different strains of a single type of bacteria, and each has subtle natural genetic mutations that make it different from another. In addition, bacterial genes are constantly mutating.

Some strains' genetic makeup will give them a slight advantage when it comes to fighting off antibiotic attack. So when susceptible strains encounter antibiotics they die, while these naturally resistant strains may prove harder to kill. This means the next time you encounter S.aureus, it's more likely to be one that has survived an antibiotic encounter, (i.e. a resistant one). Eventually, the strain becomes resistant to different antibiotics, even though they work in slightly different ways.

When you are prescribed antibiotics, you are advised to finish the entire course. If you don't do this, there's a chance that you'll kill most of the bugs but not all of them - and the ones that survive are likely to be those that have adapted to be more resistant to antibiotics"

You can find the full article here. 

And that is proof for the biological phenomenon of evolution. It is not a question of faith, but of observable fact derived from the efforts of science. Deso, I hope I have answered your question. As always, please leave all questions and reactions of this post, or any other ethical questions you'd like addressed by your humble servant.

I have the honor to be yours obediently,
Publius

"Should I care about those that don't care?"

I will now answer one or two of your questions per blog post, when I'm not discussing topics of my personal choice. You may add your responses to my comments, or other ethical questions you may want me to address in the future to in the commenting section. Without further ado...

 

Bersercules asked: "Should I care about those that don't care"

 

It would appear to me that you should only care about what you want to care about. If you want to care about people who "don't care", then by all means, do so. If you do not, then it is your life, and you do not need to care about them if you do not want to. Would caring for others in almost any situation be a positive, compassionate thing to do to? Yes, of course. But, I personally think you should always do what you want, as long as what you want is not harmful to others. With that said, if you have people which you are committed to caring for, such as your children, then you should certainly continue caring for them. Remember that your "dependents" depend on you. 

 

What Would LOLJesus Do?

 

 

I hope this answers you question. If you were talking about something else in particular, Bersercules, please tell me what that was so that I may more accurately answer your question. And that goes for all others who would like questions answered. Please be specific with what you want me to address. Thanks for reading!

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

Publius

Do you have any ethical/moral dilemmas that need sorting?

Do you have any ethical questions/debates that need sorting, even in your personal life? Do you want to know if you or someone else was right or wrong in a situation from an unbiased source such as myself? Leave the details here and I will blog about them and let you know who's right. Only honest, thoughtful answers can be expected from your humble servant! The scales of justice never lie in my hands!

 I am affectionately and respectfully your humble servant,
 Publius

My Responses To Your Death Penalty Post Comments

Thank you so much for the thoughtful responses, guys. Many of you agreed with me and shared great insight. For some of you (besides ZR) who have disagreed, here are my responses:

@ZR, I appreciate your thoughtful (and controversial) post. I agree with pretty much everything you had to say. Thanks for your input!

Vengence7times said:
"I can see both sides of the argument, but I think that it is a good idea to kill someone, who aims on killing others, so you are killing them, to save other people's lives."


Publius: And what if the person being executed turns out to be innocent, as has happened many many times before? Still a good idea? Any sure-fire away to avoid that happening again? Didn't think so.

Morph1n3 said:
"On my behalf I believe that they should keep the death penalty. For example if you rape someone for the 1st time. Get thrown in jail. 2nd time you get your pp cut off and 3rd time. Death Penalty. Kindda went off topic but ya :)"

Publius: How are you going to rape someone a third time if you already had your "pp" cut off? lol.

By the way, I'd hate to have my "pp" cut off/executed if I was one of the many men who was falsely accused of rape because, for example, a girl didn't have the bravery to tell her parents that she got pregnant because she was having premarital sex. And, I personally know of a case of a man being incarcerated for many years for just that happening personally. Imagine that being you?


1HipHopBlog said:
"The topic of should it still be used is a big debate, but it should only happen with allot of hard evidence is towards the person.There is a reason that we have the death penalty. And yes I do think that what happened to Troy Davis was tragic and horrible, for a man, whom all the evidence against him became moot, to still be killed. That is a fault of the people in the system not the laws. The death penalty not only acts as a way to rid the society as a whole of people who are past rehabilitation, but as a deterrent for those who would commit crimes if there wasn't such a punishment for doing them"

Publius: Perhaps, if there is video evidence of a man killing someone, I'd allow for the death penalty. Or possibly a taped confession and a massive amount of evidence corroborating the confession. But even then, you never know. What if the cops/feds put him up to it and it was a set-up?

As long as people continue to lie, have faulty memory, racism remains a factor, corrupt law enforcement, having crafty lawyers/not being able to afford good lawyers etc. there will be innocent people executed for crimes they never committed, as there has always been. And that is terrible reality, and one that should not be allowed since we can not determine the innocence of a man with any certainty without having video footage of it happening, really. People should be kept alive to have the chance to be able to clear their name and gain freedom, unless there is evidence that puts it beyond ANY doubt. Also, research has shown that the death penalty doesn't serve as a significant deterrent to violent crimes at all. So, you can scratch that as well.

Thanks again for following my blog, I appreciate all feedback!

I have the honor to be affectionately and respectfully your humble servant,
Publius