Earlier this week, democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated the exact words of a fellow friend and politician during a speech. Now, fellow presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is accusing him of political plagiarism and calling him out on it. According to an article posted on MSNBC.com, Clinton "'said he represented 'change you can Xerox.'"
Is Obama in the wrong for using his friend's speech even though there had been consent? Was it ethical for him to use the words of another during a high profile time in the presidential race? I'm going to use Kidder's Ethical Decision-Making Model as a rational process to decide whether he was or was not ethical by not giving credit to Deval Patrick.
According the checkpoint one, I have recognized the moral dilemma of Obama's choice of words in what can be known as political plagiarism. It's hard to disagree that there was no credit given to his friend because there wasn't. Several aspects of the Kidder Model include deception to the public, deception and misrepresentation by not giving credit to the actual source, and careerism because he had his personal self-interest when repeating his friend's speech and not giving credit.
Checkpoint number two involves recognizing the "actor." Who's moral responsibility is it? Obama is obviously the chosen one in this situation to have said something along the lines of, "These are not my words." The public did not know he was citing someone else until after the speech had been given, and they didn't find out from Obama himself. Consequently, it's left up to journalists, the public, or Hillary Clinton (bad news for Obama).
Gathering relevant facts is checkpoint number three. Obama did not lie, but also did not cite his friend. He also did not tell the public what he did; we told him. Did he have consent? Yes, but that's still as if he knew the author of a book and used passages without citing them for a collegiate level paper.
Checkpoints number four and five involve evaluating other alternatives and the test for right-versus-wrong issues. In my opinion, the best alterative would have been to leave the friend's speech out completely. This is Obama's campaign and no one else's. As for the tests, I'm unsure of the fers test, so I'll consider that one exempt. But as it relates to the front-page test, I'm sure Obama would not have wanted his accusation on the front page. Whether what he did goes against the "grain of his moral principles," I'm also sure he would not the public to think him as an immoral person and candidate. Regarding the molar exemplar test, this should not have been a moral temptation. No credit given equals plagiarism. Now, continue onto checkpoint number six.
The truth versus loyalty is obvious. Truth always wins, but Obama never lied. He didn't deny the accusation of using his friend's speech, so is this one irrelevant? My opinion is yes. With individual verses community, Obama chose himself, the individual. This incident will affect Obama in the long run. Look at what Clinton's doing now. She's attempting to tear him apart, and some people will listen. What is his professional role and purpose? It should be to represent that he can be the next President. He needs to posses the qualities that the majority of voters want and can trust. With Clinton jumping down his throat, he does taint his image at least a little.
Checkpoint number seven is next! With the different philosopher's we've learned in class, I'll focus on Aristotle's Golden Mean is applicable to this situation. When is it all right for a presidential candidate to run for office, use someone else's words, but not technically lie that he did it? Can he be punished for it when he had the consent of the other gentleman? The biggest question is, how much can the public truly blame him?
Finally, the last checkpoints of number eight and nine in the longest blog in history. Here I'm supposed to make a decision, defend it, and then return to my decision and reflect. What's my decision? It was unethical to give the speech. I'm not debating as to whether it should have been given at all (because really I don't), but the fact is that there was no credit given at the beginning, middle, or end of what he said. Even with consent there has to be credit given or else everyone believes you actually thought of it. Should Obama be reprimanded? I think Clinton's doing enough all ready, but the issue remains the same. At the time, the public believed it was his speech.
By using the Kidder Model, it is difficult to argue the unethical persepective by the time you get the end of it. I began this blog thinking, "Who cares? It doesn't matter because Patrick is his friend." But it does matter. Political plagarism is what it is; without giving someone else the credit they desere, it's stealing something that is not yours . Maybe I am a rational person after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment