A634.4.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Is Affirmative Action Ethical

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative Action (AA) came to exist with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Intended to eliminate discrimination against minorities and women in America, AA has been one of the most controversial policies ever put in place (Affirmative Action, 2018).  I was born in 1961 too young to experience or understand the horrors that were the news of the day throughout the 60’s and early 70’s.  Growing up I knew there were problems, but it never affected me personally.  I had not witnessed any of the violence that was common.  So, I never connected with the real issue.  Other than a few conversations in school (that did not begin to address both sides equally), I was ignorant. 

 I had heard of AA and superficially understood what it was but did not understand why it was necessary.  So, at 17 years old, freshly out of high school and considering college, I judged AA to be wrong because it simply changed who was on the receiving end of discrimination and it penalized me for something I had not done.  Of course, it did neither. 

 This week, racism became more than slavery and discrimination.  This week AA became more than apology.  What I have learned has changed me.  I have learned a lot about myself over the last week and there are things that I need to work on changing.  Humbled and embarrassed, that is exactly what I will do.

LaFollette (2007) breaks racism down into two separate and distinct types: old fashioned racism and modern racism.  I understood (or thought I did) old fashioned racism; it was overt, personal, physical, superior attitudes, and it was violence.  It was intentional, aggressive hatred (Affirmative Action, n. d.).  In 1982, I was assigned to Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi for technical training.  It was here, at 20 years of age, I witnessed intentional racism.  The reality of it was much worse than I ever allowed myself to imagine.  I saw the KKK march right through the center of Biloxi.  They stopped and one of them gave a makeshift speech through a megaphone.  It was all about instilling fear and was the purest form of hatred I had ever encountered.  It was true evil and it was a common occurrence according to the locals.  Almost 20 years after becoming illegal, this blatant display occurred and no one tried to stop it.  I was appalled, in disbelief, and more than a little frightened for the intended audience. When I got back on base that evening, I did not leave again until I was sent to my first duty station.  So, I understood intentional racism.  What I did not understand was modern racism (LaFollette, 2007) or unintentional racism (Affirmative Action, n. d.). 

 In 1971, the case, Griggs v. Duke Power clarified the intention of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The courts ruled that unintentional discrimination as well as intentional discrimination is illegal and shifted enforcement focus from intentional (Old Fashioned) to unintentional racism.  Enforcement could then focus on ‘disparate impact’.  This meant hiring and employment policies that have perpetuated the effects of past discrimination was also illegal (Affirmative Action, n.d.).  LaFollette (2007) explained that through exposure to years and years of racism and discrimination people form habits, some unknowingly, that guide our thinking and behavior.  Those habits often make us guilty of racism.  Similarly, businesses, social services, and other entities developed policies and practices that unintentionally discriminate.  Until we change our habits and eliminate every policy and practice that discriminates, racism will exist. 

 Coming to understand this concept made me realize the real impact hundreds of years of enslavement, mistreatment, belittling and discrimination can do to a group.  It is no longer overt and much harder to spot.  It is no longer physical or violent but causes equal or more pain.  It is this unintentional racism, alive and well today, that has created the most damage to African-Americans, all minorities in truth, and women.  It is what keeps these American people down fifty-four years after we promised them equal rights. 

 There are people on both sides of AA.  I looked at the arguments for and against AA although I really did not need to.  Indeed, AA is ethical. Furthermore, abandoning AA for programs like diversity management has no ethical basis (Burns & Schapper, 2008). 

The first thing I asked myself was, how well has AA worked since inception. I found that it has made a difference.  “The percentage of blacks in managerial and technical jobs doubled during the AA years. During the same timeframe, the number of black police officers rose from 24,000 to 64,000 and the number of black electricians rose from 14,000 to 43,000.  Where cities have discontinued AA programs, there has been a sharp drop in the number of government contracts going to minority companies” (Schulman, 2015, n. p.).  While the progress has been slow and moderate, it is progress.  Based on information showing regression where AA has been eliminated, if AA is eliminated altogether, we risk any progress we have made to date. 

Racism, though veiled, still exists.  While not obvious anymore, racism is still apparent in individual’s habitual behaviors and thinking.  It is written into policy in business, restaurants, and social entities.  To deny it makes us all racists (LaFollette, 2007).

 Lafollette (2007) also noted that we have not reached equality of opportunity in employment, pay, education, or professional careers.  A step away from AA would almost certainly ensure that we do not.  If AA is allowed and gets support to continue, it will eventually become self-sustaining. 

 We all have a stake; AA can benefit everyone.  Look at the situation in any minority community: crime, violence inadequate education has frozen these communities in this state.  Would you want your child to grow up in that environment?  If not, then helping them get out is something we morally ought to do (Schulman, 2015).  AA can help them.

 AA provides compensatory justice to those who have been treated so unjustly for so long.  “AA, proponents hold, neutralizes the competitive disadvantages that African Americans continue to experience because of past discrimination; segregated neighborhoods served by poor schools would be an example” (Schulman, 2015, n. p.).

Finally, even if AA were replaced with diversity management it would still not be ethically preferable.  AA begins with the fact that an injustice or inequality has occurred and has to be corrected.  It recognizes the problem and commits to fix it.  Diversity management hides the inequality which is the reason for taking action in the first place.  Management makes all the decisions without any external oversight (Burns & Schapper, 2008).

The people who oppose AA generally base their argument on two points: reverse discrimination and it hurts those who have done no wrong.  Opponents argue that if discrimination based on race is wrong, then AA is wrong for the same reason.  The principle of universalizability tells us to treat cases the same unless there are general and relevant differences between them that justify a difference in treatment.  The difference is that whites have not suffered from AA nearly as much nor in the same way as blacks have suffered in the hands of whites and therefore it is not the same, reverse discrimination is not arguable (LaFollette, 2007).

 Opponents also claim that the people being punished have done nothing wrong.  If we considered only intentional racism, this point could have merit.  In 1971 the courts found unintentional racism to be illegal and recognized disparate impact as the result.  This is caused by the habits we acquired as a result of repeated exposure to racism throughout our lives.  These habits still cause harm.  On a higher level, institutions utilize policy and practices that were affected by racism (LaFollette, 2007).  They restrict the employment, rights, and freedom of minorities.

AA is absolutely ethical.  I did not find any opposing argument to be ethical.  There has been a trend moving away from AA over the last decade or so (Schulman, 2015; Burns & Schapper, 2008).  I believe AA has made positive progress in the quest for equal opportunity in education, employment, and contracting.  Where states have eliminated AA, drastic drops have been realized, giving us a clear idea of what will happen if AA is completely eliminated (Schulman, 2015).  To knowingly allow that to happen is an unethical action on its own.  It is my opinion that AA should continue until the time it becomes self-sustaining.

 ~Pete

 References

 Affirmative Action. U. S. History.com. Accessed June 19, 2018, from U. S. History.com.  Retrieved from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1970.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Burns, P., & Schapper, J. (2008). The ethical case for affirmative action. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 369-379. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/10.1007/s10551-007-9625-8

 LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

 Schulman, M. (2015, November 13). Affirmative action or negative action. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/affirmative-action-or-negative-action/

A634.3.4.RB_BorutyAlan_The Harder They Fall

The Harder They Fall

Is it worth it to achieve your dreams if you lose yourself along the way?  Kramer (2003) does not answer this question but gives us a sense of the journey to the top and the effect that journey has on some people after they reach the top position in their organization.  There are individuals that climb the ladder of success, reach the top, and thrive personally and professionally for long periods of time.  Unfortunately, not all people can make that claim. 

Kramer (2003) offered information that could shed light on why some people make it to the top position only to lose everything in uncharacteristic fashion.  He calls this phenomenon “genius-to-folly syndrome” and describes it as a “swift and steady rise by a brilliant, hard driving, politically adept individual followed by surprising stints of miscalculation or recklessness” (p. 60).  Dr. Kramer has spent the better part of his career studying the process of getting to the top.  By all measures, these individuals are the last people one would expect to become a victim of their own doing, but it happens quite often.  Genius-to-folly syndrome is not isolated to business, although business has provided some very good examples of folly at the top over the years.  It is also apparent in politics, religion, and entertainment.

Kramer (2003) does not believe that simple mistakes or moral deficiencies are the cause.  His research concludes that the journey to the top is at the root of genius-to-folly syndrome.  “There is something about the pursuit of power that often changes people in profound ways.  Indeed, to get to the apex of their profession, individuals are often forced to jettison certain attitudes and behaviors—the same attitudes and behaviors they need for survival once they get to the top” (p.60). 

I found this very interesting.  In other words, leaders can determine what is necessary to reach the top and change their behavior to reach that goal but cannot make the same adjustment once they get there.  Therefore, the very thing that brought them success causes them to fail.  Given the drive, the focus, and the intelligence Kramer attributed to the examples he provided, I find it hard to believe these changes would be made consciously.  However, that assumes that drive, focus, and intelligence are predictors of morality which is not necessarily so.  While more palatable, it is also not likely that the changes were so insidious that they took hold subconsciously as the pace of the race to the top is simply too fast.  

If the goal of reaching the top is important enough, a leader may feel justified in changing their moral standards to accommodate pursuing that goal.  This is a form of relativism and it does not have to be bad, but the line can be blurry.  According to LaFollette (2007), it is widely recognized that ethical principles can be sensitive to certain situations.  For example, do not break the rules could be seen as an abridgement of do not break the rules unless the rules singularly prevent the achievement of a legitimate morally acceptable goal.  Here the unabridged principle remains intact.  However, the line between reason and rationalization can be difficult to detect.  Without reason, one might conclude that following the rules is not important.

I believe each time we apply ethical relativism to our moral principles, it becomes easier to do so.  The next time we are faced with an ethical dilemma, as humans, we will go back to what has worked in the past and what is easiest to do.  Reasoning through an ethical problem is time consuming and mentally taxing.  It is not always clear what we ought to do, what is right to do, or what is good to do when it conflicts with what we want to do, but we can be assured that what we choose to do, especially when pursuing a goal as public and fragile as power, will not go without judgement (Gray, 2011).

Kramer (2003) explained that the pursuit of power generally places the individual in competition for highly coveted and rare positions for which the competition is intense.  Many people compete for the few available positions, all of whom are imminently qualified and highly skilled.  However, there can be only one winner for each position.  It is a winner-take-all market where a small number of people are thought to create most of the value and for that they are rewarded handsomely.  Kramer believes the intense competition in the winner-take-all markets creates elitists with a winner-wants-all attitude.  The expectations of the winners create a sense of entitlement.  Further, the level of competition forces players in the winner-take-all markets to be aggressive risk takers and to act on impulse to any opportunity they think will give them advantage.  “Indeed, the most ambitious and competitive players in the winner-take-all markets often perceive that introspection is antithetical to success.  As a result, these individuals develop a dangerous aversion to moderation” (p. 61). In my opinion, impulsive decision-making is an equally dangerous trait to develop.

I have seen these concepts at play, albeit for smaller stakes, many times during my military career.  Individuals who believe rising through duty positions and the rank structure is their primary purpose as an Airman, often lose track of what is important.  Some forget what to serve means.  Their actions become self-serving and their words insincere.  I have seen this happen at different levels of the hierarchy. 

One leader is given an opportunity over other candidates.  Opportunity comes with an office, privacy, the autonomy (within limits) to prioritize work and make decisions that have an affect on the people within their control.  Additionally, the opportunity comes with the respect of the people that made it possible. 

The perception of power has a profound yet different effect from individual to individual.  Some see the privileges associated with their grade and position as rights or entitlements.  Some consider the people as the means for them to achieve their random and personal end.  Some take on a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude and control every aspect of the operation.  Others see the opportunity as a faith or trust from their superiors that they are ready for increased responsibility. And they handle their duties in a manner that tend to prove their superiors correct.  Power does, indeed, change the behavior and attitude profoundly and negatively in some people.  In others it enhances their abilities.  While different in scale to Kramer’s (2003) discussion, many of the concepts are parallel because it is human behavior being questioned.  The mask of entitlement, the elitist attitude, and above the law behavior only deceives the one that possesses them.  The people will ultimately make the decision based on their interpretation of right or wrong, not the leader’s.  The fall can be unusually painful.

It seems like the deck is stacked against reaching the top at all, much less reaching it and thriving on the challenge.  Research proves that the pursuit of power can change an individual profoundly.  Even one’s core values are subject to change.  Kramer (2003) concluded that “the process of getting to the top almost always changes people in ways they don’t anticipate or appreciate.  That lack of self-awareness seems to be part of the human condition, and if my work with MBA students is any indication, we shouldn’t expect it to change anytime soon” (p. 66). 

So, is it possible to get to the top relatively unscathed and remain there for the long term?  Of course, it is.  There are many examples to draw from.  Many of the things that cause people to fall from the top are moral (doing what is right versus doing what is wrong) and will be assessed as such.  Velasquez, et al. (1992) stated, “ethics is an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons underlying practices and beliefs” (n. p.).  When asked why we made a decision or why we think the way we do, we should be prepared to provide reasons or explanations for our answers (LaFollette, 2007).  Along with making the right choice and being able to explain why, there are other techniques that help neutralize the pursuit of power.  I listed a some of the reasons from Kramer (2003) below.  

Keep your life simple: do not get caught up in the romance of power.  Remain close to family, they will tell you the truth.

Nurture your humility; stay objective about success and failure - view adversity in a healthy way

Accept and better understand your weaknesses – admit to and learn from your mistakes

Trust but verify; mindfully scrutinize the business environment to find the truth

Sweat the small stuff: it is important too – Leaders often stumble on the little things

Reflect more, not less: become aware of your tendencies in certain situations in preparation for the future - Successful leaders strive to become more reflective.

There are things that are powerful enough to change us in ways we will not anticipate or appreciate.  Of course, we will claim that it cannot happen to us.  Self-awareness is critical.  Know who you are.  What are your core beliefs?  What makes you behave the way you do?  Why do you think the way you do?  What values do you have that you are willing to trade off?  Knowing the answers to these questions, is a good start to becoming self aware.  Mindful reflection is another.

I learned that I have some tendencies of the relativist, but I am primarily an absolutist.  Pecorino (2000) asked the question, “How can you hold opposing ideas at the same time” (n. p.)?  I (only partly sarcastic) answer, I do not hold opposing views on any one issue.  For each issue, I either see it from the relativist view or an absolutist view, but not both.  When there are two opposing issues, the truth generally lies somewhere between them.

I also learned that I still have beliefs for which I could not provide a reasonable answer if I were to be questioned.  I will continue to evaluate and resolve these issues until I can defend the positions I take and the decisions I make.

~Pete

References:

Gray, J. W. (2011, May 20). What is “Morality?” Retrieved from https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/what-is-morality/

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The harder they fall (cover story). Harvard Business Review,81(10), 58-66.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pecorino, P. A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm

Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (1992, August 1). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/

A634.2.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Theories of Ethics

Theories of Ethics

I enrolled in this course for a few reasons.  Ethics is incredibly relevant, after more than their share of incidents bringing ethical leadership in to question, the business community demands ethical performance from leadership at all levels.  My degree would not be well rounded without an ethics component.  I have always considered myself an ethical person and I am interested in learning more about the subject.  Finally, I thought I had a good understanding of ethics and, therefore, a semi-solid foundation to build on.

I never stopped to think about what I considered right or wrong or why I thought so.  I never considered the process by which I make decisions on moral issues.  I always used intuition or instinct to guide my decisions and I did so with some success.  No one has needed to correct or amend decisions I have made in the past.  So, I entered this course with a degree of confidence that I would have few problems completing the requirements.

Then I read the first chapter.  I will just say it is written in a manner that I have a difficult time following.  I would call it circular.  It poses a question that leads to a different question that goes back to the original question but it is just different enough to generate another thought. And, there are no answers.  Everything is a continuing open discussion.  The text is worded differently, I know every word on the page, but the order in which they are arranged does not seem natural. I have read the first three chapters completely through two times. I have had to read some paragraphs four or five times to even get a week grip on the message I am supposed to glean.  I am not gleaning much; my confidence that I have understood what I have read is low.  I am not a stupid person, but so far this course has me questioning my intelligence.  I can only hope I figure it out soon.  But enough fun ands games.  I will get back to work.

As I said earlier, I have never thought about ethics or morals, they just are.  They have to do with actions and they have to do with knowing right from wrong or good from bad.  These are things everybody knows.  Therefore, everyone should be able to distinguish the right choice from the wrong choice or the good scenario from the bad.  It seems simple, it follows logic, but it is wrong.  What is right and what is wrong even at the most basic level varies widely from individual to individual (LaFollette, 2007).  There is no black and white; there are no answers.  Ethics is shades of grey and is a cognitive journey of reasoning in search of the least wrong answer.

We can go about this journey of reasoning a couple of different ways.  The two schools of thought are quite different in almost every way and followers of each school have argued for centuries over which is correct.  One school of thought is called consequentialism and the other is called deontology (Lafollette, 2007). Consequentialism is results oriented.  Consequentialists believe that the action that produces the best consequences is right and those that do not are wrong.  Deontology is act oriented.  Deontologists believe we should act according to prescribed rules regardless of the consequences.  Seemingly black and white statements describe the two schools, but as detail is added to each school, the lines begin to blur.  Neither of the two are completely without compromise (LaFollette, 2007).  As I said, ethics is shades of grey.

I was taught [my] version of right and wrong as a child much like everyone else.  Rules that were laid down by my parents, mostly my mother, and enforced by anyone older than me.  It was repetitive and consistent.  Punishment was immediate and consistent.  There was a rule for every occasion.  I was expected to follow them all without fail and without excuse.  As a child I did exactly that.  As I got older, rules were added, age appropriate.  While trying to stick my finger in an electrical outlet was still absolutely forbidden and punishable, the new rules seemed to be more flexible.  The rule, be home before dark, was sometimes negotiable.  Who I was with, what we were doing and how much longer would it be were questions that, if answered to her satisfaction, could buy me another 30 minutes.  There were still hard and fast rules as well that were not to be broken.  My mother passed away a few years back now, but I still do not break those rules.  Mom was loosening the leash and giving me more responsibility.  She also held me accountable.  If I was late and she did not know who, what, and how long, there was a price to pay.  She did not know of ethical schools of thought, but her actions were deontological.  The rule was still the rule regardless of the conditions.  The conditions did not change the rule nor did they relieve me of the responsibility to follow it.

I do not recall having any consequentialist discussions with my parents until after I was married and had children of my own.  Of course, I did not know these terms at the time nor did my parents.  Looking back, I find it interesting that my mother was a deontological thinker to her core.  The rules mattered.  My father was just the opposite.  To him the rules or actions made no difference other than to provide the best possible results.  I have no idea how they survived each other for 50 years.  At this point, I think it is important to restate that my mother was primarily responsible for our moral development and Dad was okay with that.

Consequentialists have it, at least in theory, harder when developing a moral theory.  This is primarily due to the fact that hard rules do not drive their actions, consequences do.  Therefore, for them to develop a usable moral theory they need to know three things: 1) which consequences are morally relevant, 2) how much weight should each carry, and 3) how, precisely, should they be used in moral reasoning (Lafollette, 2007).  The theory must also take into consideration the interests of everyone involved. 

There are consequences that have no affect on moral deliberations and need not be included.  Consequences that have an effect on the significant interests of anyone involved must be included.  Choosing the weight of a consequence involves the nature of the interests affected, the number of interests affected, and their probability of occurrence for each interest affected.  How they are entered into moral reasoning has to do with the utilitarian concept of the consequence that creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.  

I am still trying to evaluate my beliefs and determine whether my tendency is deontological or consequentialist.  I have found it to be a difficult thought process.  Is it possible to subscribe to both?  Last week I analyzed the Train Dilemma.  I will not go into the details, but in the second dilemma, I used both deontological and consequentialist theories to arrive at my final decision.  I chose not to push the man based on the rule and to throw the switch based on the consequences.  The leads me to believe that perhaps utilizing both theories to make a decision on a practical ethical issue is a viable alternative.  I am sure that I will eventually be able to determine which theory describes how I reason through issues. I tend to think exceptions exist for many rules. However, right now, I can appreciate and see myself agreeing to pats of both theories.

~Pete

Reference: 

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

A634.1.5.RB_BorutyAlan_The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is Good!

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is Good!

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switch person.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  Will you throw the switch?

I have to take the teleological approach to resolve this dilemma.  According to Dr. Thomas White (1993) the teleological approach is results oriented and contends that “the moral character of actions depends on the simple, practical matter of the extent to which actions actually help or hurt people.  Actions that produce more benefits than harm are right; those that don't are wrong” (p. 3).  LaFollette (2007) refers to this approach as consequentialism.  The other approach under philosophical ethics is called deontological and it is action oriented.  This approach contends that actions have moral value.  Some actions are good and some are bad and they translate into moral law or rules that must be followed (White, 1993).  In this scenario, the rule, do not kill or harm, has already been broken.  The train hurtling down the track is going to kill children.  If I throw the switch, only one child will die.  If I do not throw the switch, five children will die. 

Since preventing death completely is not possible, achieving the best possible result is my objective.  I place equal value on the life of each child.  Then the choice of allowing one child to die or allowing five children to die becomes easier to make.  The consequence of throwing the switch is five times better than the consequence of not throwing the switch.  I would throw the switch, yes. 

This scenario plays out well in theory and I believe I could make this decision and take the action if I were actually faced with this dilemma.  Choosing who dies is a hard burden to carry.  Saving five lives is more palatable, but cannot completely erase losing the one child.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switchperson.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  However, you are standing next to an elderly man.  If you push him in front of the train, it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Pushing the man would mean I physically caused his death.  In reality it is no different than throwing the switch and sending the train toward the single child on the track, but it feels more personal.  In the previous scenario, the rule, do not kill or harm, was broken for me and that is still the case.  I cannot prevent death.  If all life is considered equal, the consequences are the same whether I throw the switch or push the man.  One life sacrificed to save six. Either the six children or five children and the elderly man.  The rule, do not kill or harm, does come into play for the man.  He would not be on the track unless I push him and therefore would not be in any danger.  I would have to break that rule if I chose to push him.  The consequences do not improve in terms of lives saved if I do push the man.  This forces me to determine if the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an elderly man.   The value of a child’s life versus that of an elderly man is relative and depends on whether one asks the child’s parents or the man’s wife.  Either way, it is not mine to determine.  So, even though I would personally jump in front of the train if that were one of the options, I would not push the elderly man.  I would throw the switch.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switch person.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where your child is standing alone.  Will you throw the switch?

Nothing has changed in this scenario except that the child I would allow to die by throwing the switch is my own.  How can I value my child higher than five other children?  How could I justify my actions to the five sets of grieving parents?  “Morality concerns the interests of others” (Lafollette, 2007, p. 15).  If I put my interests before the interests of the other parents and chose to save my child over five other children, then my moral convictions would rightfully be scrutinized.  Lafollette (2007) suggests that people will ask us to provide reasons for our actions, decisions, and conclusions.  When they do, we need to be prepared to provide them.  The criteria were that all lives have equal value.  Saving as many lives as possible was the objective.  The names of the children saved was not a weighted consequence.  It would be the hardest thing I ever did, but yes, I would throw the switch because it would be the right thing to do.

In the first two scenarios, I believe I could and would carry out my decision.  The third scenario, for obvious reasons, would be more difficult to execute.  If I did not throw the switch, I would have my child, but I would lose myself.  A decision like that would plague me the rest of my days.  Now that I think about it, either choice I made would plague me. 

If the elderly man was still standing beside me in the third scenario, my decision not to push him would have been different.  Not right, but different.

~Pete

References:

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

White, T. I. (1993). Resolving an Ethical Dilemma. Retrieved from http://bourbon.usc.edu/engr102-f09/ethics.pdf