What Makes King Arthur A Hero
Outlined below are the characteristics of the situation that might have led Lund to choose inaction over whistling blowing. At the most basic level, the responsibility of the FAA is not to work in favor of any particular airlines, but to ensure these airlines are in working in accordance with the regulations of the FAA. Thus the passenger safety is ensured. Northwest airlines had filed many complaints against Lund, especially when he delayed the plane schedules. Lund reported a passenger-seat defect in 5 DC-10 aircrafts and prevented their takeoff. Though the paperwork had been signed off, the repair was not performed properly. In fact he was assured that the airlines would fix the problem, but it could not be verified. In another instance, the oxygen masks were not properly enabled, and he had to stop the plane till the problem was fixed. Had such problems be truly verified and rectified, Lund would not have blown the whistle.
Secondly, when he raised safety concerns against the Northwest airlines, about the replacement mechanics, instead of taking action against the airlines, his superiors had punished him. He was demoted to a desk job and his badge was …show more content…
confiscated. This forced Lund to blow the whistle.
Lund and his fellow inspectors had performed extensive safety practices, and reported the issues to their superiors. But, when Lund came to know that their superiors were ignoring their safety recommendations, he had no choice other than to file the special safety recommendation report. Had his superiors taken into account their recommendations, he could have chosen to be inaction.
Lund had definitely taken a hard stand in this case. According to Lund, it is his duty to ensure that all the passengers have a safe travel. He feels it is his duty to raise any safety issues and recommend his FAA superiors to take appropriate actions. When he drafted a memo against the Northwest facilities, the FAA management started trying to fire him. He was put to a lot of pressure, was given strict deadlines for the task completion. When he refused the orders of his manager to revise a report to edit out a reference to a minor safety problem, he was issued a letter of warning and reprimand. He was hanging on to his job, because he couldn’t be obedient and blindly follow the orders of his superiors. He couldn’t withstand the situational evil. He was like a good apple in a bad barrel. Just like many others, he was not prone to diffusion of responsibility. He could not be morally disengaged. Lund definitely feels that he is holding a responsible position and he is obliged to perform his duties with commitment. The FAA safety inspectors are there to save lives. Though the endurance of his family is at stake, he had went ahead and blown the whistle for the virtue in him.
In thinking about Zimbardo’s argument about the “Banality of Heroism”, I definitely you think Lund actions make him a hero.
It is because the ends of his deeds were for the benefit of the public good. Lund was a very brave person at heart. Ultimately, his deeds were justified. He had a great amount of self-control and a sense of self-responsibility. He was not perturbed by any of the pressures that he underwent in his work place. He had the courage to revolt against the bad system, which is FAA. He exhibited a lot of patience in the whole process. It was the moment when he had the courage to raise his voice against all his superiors and speak the truth. He went against them, knowing that his job would be gone. Ultimately, his deeds benefitted a lot many people and now he is considered as a real life
hero.
Lund had voluntarily taken the risk and was prepared to sacrifice his job for what he believed. His acts were completely selfless and were aimed at societal good. He had not done all this for any personal gain. He was obedient to his superiors to and extent., especially when he was demoted. Since he was a fair and an honest man, and believed in his personal values and had opposed an unjust system, he is definitely a hero.
References:
Zimbardo, Philip (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn
Evil. New York, NY: Random House.
Secondly, when he raised safety concerns against the Northwest airlines, about the replacement mechanics, instead of taking action against the airlines, his superiors had punished him. He was demoted to a desk job and his badge was …show more content…
confiscated. This forced Lund to blow the whistle.
Lund and his fellow inspectors had performed extensive safety practices, and reported the issues to their superiors. But, when Lund came to know that their superiors were ignoring their safety recommendations, he had no choice other than to file the special safety recommendation report. Had his superiors taken into account their recommendations, he could have chosen to be inaction.
Lund had definitely taken a hard stand in this case. According to Lund, it is his duty to ensure that all the passengers have a safe travel. He feels it is his duty to raise any safety issues and recommend his FAA superiors to take appropriate actions. When he drafted a memo against the Northwest facilities, the FAA management started trying to fire him. He was put to a lot of pressure, was given strict deadlines for the task completion. When he refused the orders of his manager to revise a report to edit out a reference to a minor safety problem, he was issued a letter of warning and reprimand. He was hanging on to his job, because he couldn’t be obedient and blindly follow the orders of his superiors. He couldn’t withstand the situational evil. He was like a good apple in a bad barrel. Just like many others, he was not prone to diffusion of responsibility. He could not be morally disengaged. Lund definitely feels that he is holding a responsible position and he is obliged to perform his duties with commitment. The FAA safety inspectors are there to save lives. Though the endurance of his family is at stake, he had went ahead and blown the whistle for the virtue in him.
In thinking about Zimbardo’s argument about the “Banality of Heroism”, I definitely you think Lund actions make him a hero.
It is because the ends of his deeds were for the benefit of the public good. Lund was a very brave person at heart. Ultimately, his deeds were justified. He had a great amount of self-control and a sense of self-responsibility. He was not perturbed by any of the pressures that he underwent in his work place. He had the courage to revolt against the bad system, which is FAA. He exhibited a lot of patience in the whole process. It was the moment when he had the courage to raise his voice against all his superiors and speak the truth. He went against them, knowing that his job would be gone. Ultimately, his deeds benefitted a lot many people and now he is considered as a real life
hero.
Lund had voluntarily taken the risk and was prepared to sacrifice his job for what he believed. His acts were completely selfless and were aimed at societal good. He had not done all this for any personal gain. He was obedient to his superiors to and extent., especially when he was demoted. Since he was a fair and an honest man, and believed in his personal values and had opposed an unjust system, he is definitely a hero.
References:
Zimbardo, Philip (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn
Evil. New York, NY: Random House.