In this part of the book, John Perkins has to make the ethical choice on whether or not to betray the people he works for and possibly hurt his career, or stand up for what he believes in. He wrote an article for the Boston globe citing reasons why he believed that the Panama Canal should be returned to Panamanian control. This was ethically the right thing to do, but was destined to cause him grief at his company, MAIN, which frequently exploits developing countries. Perkins tells us that, "It was a bold move on my part, especially since I had recently been made a partner at MAIN,"(120). He obviously new he was doing something risky but he still chose the ethical path rather than the greedy one. MAIN could have fired him, or even killed him, just like they had done to others in the past. His fears were confirmed shortly after, as he received an angry letter from a co worker questioning, "Is this commie really a partner in our firm?"(121). Although the letter was sent by who didn't have enough status to do anything bad to him, the potential for others to do so was still there, and it certainly built on the fact that he did the right thing despite potential harm to himself.
In the next reading, the scene changes back to the middle east, Iran this time. Perkins is again faced with an ethical dilemma. He is approached given a message by a man named Yamin who wants to see if he's "interested in exploring a side of Iran that most people 'in my position' never saw,"(128). He knows that this man is a well known radical who helps the poor and dislikes the current shah in Iran, but his befriending of this man could have consequences for his business. With Perkins resources, Yamin could help alot of people and expose alot of bad things happening in Iran, but Perkins could lose is job. Perkins chooses to see this man, even if its only to find out how deep the rabbit-hole goes. As it turns out, the meeting was just to further convince Perkins to meet someone else, someone who Yamin says is "a man who can tell you a great deal about our King of Kings,"(131). Yamin is trying to expose the shah to the American media and Perkins will have to make the ethical choice on whether or not to risk his job for the greater good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This book seems to heavily deal with ethical issues, and I find it interesting that Perkins chose to defend Panama having control of the canal. He obviously felt that this was the right thing to do, and although he was insulted for it, I'm guessing he probably is glad he made that decision now. The title really makes this clear, as "hitman" definitely sounds like an exploiter or someone doing immoral acts for a monetary gain.
It must be a hard choice, getting fired from your job and possibly getting hurt or helping people whom one doesn't even know. First, one says to their self that they would help the people. Then after thinking about it, you say "what about me and my family?". This is a true ethical dilemma.
He has to make a lot of ethical decisions like the one about the Panama Canal and they are very difficult. Even if he does what he believes to be right there is a lot of potential consequences that can result from his decision.
This book sounds super intense. I hope he chooses to risk his job. Otherwise, if something bad happens and people get hurt, he is gonna wish he had done something and he might even blame himself for their injuries.
It is really interesting that both times he chooses to risk his job to save others, it takes a person who is very strong in their beliefs to do so and is admiring. I hope he continues to stick his neck out for the people that are suffering around him, we need more people like that.
The ethical issues in this book seem intense, and i agree with Katie that he should choose to risk his job! Regret is the feeling, and taking a risk could either severely hurt or seriously help him!
Post a Comment