Let’s see:
A wag from Argentina responded on X, “Because we are a country, not a Disney movie.”
Yeah, that too.
More than 10 years ago I wrote about Kristina Rei, 22, of St. Petersburg, Russia. She wanted to look like Jessica Rabbit, the cartoon character, so she got herself a pair of huge—lips.She has undergone over 100 silicon-injection procedures, and considers it just the initial step in her quest to look like Roger Rabbit’s Toon wife from “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”. ” At the time, I asked whether it ethical for a plastic surgeon to give her the ridiculous lips she coveted, since plastic surgeons are subject to the Hippocratic Oath like other doctors. My own position then and now, was that it is unethical, though I tried to give both sides of the issue.
“If Kristin can eat, drink and breathe with her mega-lips,” I wrote, “and there is no risk that they might explode, killing everyone near her, the decision to do what she wants is probably ethical, at least by medical ethics standards. The fact that her Chap-Stick costs will be astronomical is not the doctor’s concern, however.” Nevertheless, I concluded that “a plastic surgeon who assists a patient, especially one so young, in disfiguring herself to this extent is unethical. Autonomy is to be respected always, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Kristin’s lips are so far beyond reason that a plastic surgeon debases his profession by assisting in what can fairly be called self-mutilation.”
My bias regarding fake puffy lips does not involve such extreme disfigurement; indeed most would agree that young women getting their lips puffed up isn’t disfiguring at all. However, it is increasingly becoming apparent to me that this particular form of supposedly aesthetic enhancement is becoming a norm, and a harmful one.
Continue reading
I have a like-hate relationship with Prof. Kwame Appiah, the current proprietor of the New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” column. The most credentialed of the many individuals who have manned the column (one was female) has provided me with fodder for many EA posts, often critical ones, and I am properly grateful. However, his embedded New York Times Standard Progressive bias is a constant problem for him (and me, as an ethicist observing his conduct), and his latest column is a particularly annoying example.
A friend of a senior married couple [Aside: the Times illustrator draws them as an inter-racial pair, though there is nothing in the facts to suggest that. This is just one of the thousands of little ways our media tries to surreptitiously embed its priorities into the culture. I feel my arm being twisted. Don’t you?] writes,
“I have friends in their 70s who have taken in their adult son following his divorce. It is going on two years now, and he is making no progress at finding work or moving out. Granted he has mental-health issues, like panic disorder and depression, but he lives rent-free, has a dog he does not take care of and berates his parents on a regular basis. His parents won’t even ask him to help around the house because they are afraid of his volatility. He can become extremely angry, especially toward his father. He also owns a gun. This last bit scares the heck out of me. His father is going to retire in a couple of months, and they are planning to sell their home and move out of state. They have told their son that he is not coming with them, and the son is upset about this. His mother is trying to put together family counseling sessions but is having difficulty finding something they can afford. As the deadline of the move approaches, I truly worry the son will shoot himself or shoot his parents and then himself. I’ve known this family for 35 years. Do I call adult protective services? Do I alert the police that a mentally ill man owns a gun? I am truly concerned.“
Fine. Be concerned. Give them advice. However, there is literally nothing in the friend’s narrative—and she doesn’t live with the family—that suggests that the son is going to shoot himself or his parents except the single fact that he owns a gun, which he has every right to do. Hoplophobia is popularly known as gunphobia, and a lot of American have it, especially women and progressives as well as Democrats and members of the news media like “The Ethicist,” and, obviously, “Name Withheld,” who writes most of the questions that get published in Prof. Appiah’s column.
I find it incredible that The Ethicist’s advice in this case includes,
There have been two major incidents that brought my attention to this problem in the UK. I think we have all heard about Henry Nowak, but the fact that he died while being arrested for racism rather than having someone take care of him and arrest the kid who knifed him rather upset me. In case we are confused about the problem, at least in the US Karmelo Anthony was arrested rather than Metcalf, whom he had stabbed. However, a new report has come out regarding the Muslim grooming gangs in the UK and that, with the background of Henry Nowak, leads me to some conclusions. Read the whole thing, if you have the stomach for it. I cried as I read it.
If it is too upsetting to read it all, here is an article about the report. It doesn’t hurt as much to read.
There are three main causes that I can see for this situation. The first cause, like the cause for much human suffering and trafficking, is poor structure, in this case, family structure. Most trafficked girls are either sold to traffickers or, as in many of the victim’s reports, from a less than ideal, often abusive, family structure. I don’t plan to discuss the problems or solutions to this, as it is a serious can of worms and the hardest to fix. If we work on the other two problems, this, while still an issue, will be less of one.
The next problem is that of Islam. Islam itself is not a good religion for a civilized society. We see that the Koran states that you may marry up to four wives and have as many concubines as you wish, as long as they are not Islamic women. Sex with prepubescent girls is also totally okay, with child marriage accepted and consummation recommended at the age of 9 with some versions of Islam suggesting it even earlier. Some Imams have said that it is better for a girl to not to become a woman (referring to her first period) in her father’s house, but instead in her husband’s. We also have the precepts in the Koran for how Muslims should behave in society, peaceful as the powerless, lying to unbelievers at any time, and when reaching a majority and having power, becoming brutal.
Before discussing the repercussions on society for those precepts, I think it is fair to address the concern that this is not all of Islam, the “religion of peace.” We can always have the discussion of what in a holy book is to be taken literally, figuratively, or even transiently. I know of many statements in the Bible that we could debate. However, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Koran is far more troublesome than the Bible. First, many Imams today proclaim the harsher rules, and the Imams who do not are almost always in non-majority Muslim countries, which could perhaps fall under the “lying to infidels” rule. If we compare that to how Jewish rabbis, protestant ministers, and the Pope relate to the Bible, you will see that the violence recommended in the Bible is not taken to be a command to take literally today by the majority, even in countries where Jews or Christians are the majority.
The second reason we should consider the Koran’s violence to still be considered a literal command instead of a figurative one is the sheer number of Muslims that follow it. We can look at Jews and Christians and see that the majority of followers of those religions do not follow the violent commands. Consider the commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to stone homosexuals and witches. There aren’t many Christians who do either, and the majority loudly denounces people like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists. We don’t see much of the Muslim world decrying other Muslim’s antisocial behaviors. The best we tend to get is, “that’s not how we follow our faith, so don’t blame us.”
When the Trump Deranged say “I’d be happy to argue facts,” don’t believe a word of it. I did recently, and found myself talking to a brick wall.
I recently had a discussion over on Nextdoor with a gentleman we shall call “Kurt.” I had shared my recent blog post that talked about what I saw as I drove around eleven states on a recent two week vacation. The post focused mainly on how I perceived the surrounding economy as I traveled through the states, cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The content of that “The Sky Isn’t Falling!” blog post isn’t the ethics matter at hand, but rather how Kurt reacted it.
I started the whole interaction with me writing “Come on folks, the sky isn’t falling” including a link to my blog post. This was on Friday morning, June 12th. I posted this because I wanted to see what kind of reaction I’d get from people on Nextdoor, especially the Trump Deranged, so you could say I went fishing and I snagged a big one. Nextdoor traffic is usually higher on the weekends. As is typically the case, I got some approving and disapproving comments. The comment that caught my attention was the one Kurt posted on Saturday morning.
Here’s the part of Kurt’s comment that caught my attention. [His comments are in quote boxes, and an my commentary to each part follows]
“Ignore economic reality and Trump’s assault on democracy and decency.”
What caught my attention within that sentence was the phrase “Trump’s assault on democracy.” This is an assertion of fact claim/accusation. I replied, in part, to Kurt,”I’m no fan of Donald Trump; but, do you understand that parroting nonsensical anti-Trump partisan propaganda like “Trump’s assault on democracy” pigeonholes you with others suffering from acute TDS? That is a rhetorical question.”
“I’d be happy to argue facts…I believe he is a despicable, incompetent and immoral human being. You object to my characterization of him, while he routinely calls anyone he dislikes using terms like “vile scum,” etc.”“
Barack Obama may not be the Worst President Ever, but I am slowly reaching the conclusion that he is the Worst Former President Ever, though Bill Clinton and John Tyler are tough competition.
Incredibly, Obama said, during the opening of his library, “The founders fell terribly short of the Declaration’s promise.” His case, which requires ignoring history and documentation, is the old leftist lie that they should have banned slavery and foreseen the women’s movement. So days before the United States marks its 250th anniversary, an ex-President, whose contribution to the United States, its politics and culture, were overwhelmingly negative, has the hindsight chutzpah to insult men who were wiser, smarter, and braver than he.
Does Obama know how wrong that Unethical Quote of the Month is? I’m guessing that he does. Obama thinks the public and especially the Democratic Part’s base are stupid and frames his rhetoric accordingly. Everyone who has studied the issue knows that insisting on banning slavery would have meant no Constitution at all, just as Jefferson had to strike an anti-slavery section from the Declaration for there to be a revolution. Most of the people O was addressing probably still think the Founders’ three-fifths compromise was an expression of racism, when it was designed to set the stage for slavery’s eventual elimination. As the late Gordon Wood explained here, the Founders had reason to believe that slavery was on the way out, and that it was not the metaphorical hill let democracy die on.
But enough of one of the three most over-rated U.S. Presidents and the only one who is still yapping (JFK and Woodrow Wilson are playing Trivial Pursuit in Hell).
It’s especially appropriate to ponder this phenomenon today, because the manufactured “Black Independence Day” holiday with the obnoxiously precious name “Juneteenth” is one of the most glaring examples.
However, the focus of this post is “Pride Month,” when everyone is supposed to say “Yay!” about what special people do with their hoo-haas as long it doesn’t square with conventional mores or biology. We’ve already discussed some of the more annoying examples of this pandering, as in this post, and certain organizations’ unethical (but not illegal) efforts to punish individualists who object to being forced to celebrate something their faith, good tatste or brain cells tell them shouldn’t be celebrated. To choose an analogous example, baseball players shouldn’t have to promote masturbation on “Masturbation Day” because masturbation enthusiasts banded together and bullied the teams into the promotion
Two ethics tales on this topic:
1. A flag comes down.
It is an ethics tell that some of the groveling organizations find themselves under attack when they finally decide not to grovel.
For the first time in the history of Webster, New York, on June 1 the Rainbow flag at went up the flagpole at the Town Hall and Webster issued a “Pride Month” proclamation. Republicans on the town board, however, voted to adopt a policy that limits flags flown on town property to Old Glory and New York state flags. The “Pride” flag came down after just four days, and LGTBQ bullies and their supporters freaked out. Protesters screamed at the flag removal. One woman shouted that the flag coming down would get children killed.
This is the predictable result when a special benefit adopted for a specific purpose at a specific time in a specific context no longer is appropriate, and therefore is ended. The end of a positive for the affected group is immediately and deliberately treated as a rejection, so the special status must remain in perpetuity. The LGTBQ community is no longer closeted nor widely discriminated against, nor treated as second class citizens. If that community has to have its “flag” flown over government property, what group doesn’t have a claim that their tribe warrants equal status? Notes Victory Girls,
“The American flag does not belong to one political party, one religion, one race, or one sexual orientation. It represents every citizen equally. Gay Americans are not excluded from that symbol. They are included within it, just as every other American is. That is why many people are perfectly comfortable with government buildings displaying the American flag and little else. The flag already represents the entire community. It does not become more inclusive simply because someone hangs extra flags next to it. Nothing about Webster’s decision prevents anyone from advocating for LGBT causes. People remain free to organize events, hold rallies, raise money, celebrate pride month, wear rainbow clothing, and express their views publicly. None of those activities depend upon a town hall flagpole. That is what makes some of the reaction so curious. A movement that enjoys widespread corporate support, extensive media coverage, political backing, and cultural prominence should not be endangered by the absence of a single government-displayed symbol. At some point, the demand stops looking like a request for acceptance and starts looking like a demand for official endorsement.”
It starts looking like that because that is exactly what it is. Days later, the American flag at Town Hall was discovered at the bottom of the flagpole, and a Rainbow flag was flying far above it. U.S. Flag Code dictates that no other flag should be flown above the American flag when they are displayed together. The vandalism was addressed, and currently the American flag is the only flag flying at Webster Town Hall, with padlocks added to the flagpole.
The result of groveling to various tribes, splinters and interest groups is that their members come to regard division as more important than union, and eventually other sectors demand equal submission.
2. A woke organization gets its priorities wrong.
The Ethics Alarms “Worst Excuse Ever” list of champions gained a new member this week.
Meet Merlin Lu.
Merlin Lu, a 21-year-old moron, has been charged with a hate crime, arson and other offenses after he set a cross on fire on June 9 in a Chicago park, police said. Lu admitted to a TV station this week that he was responsible for the the cross burning in Grant Park, but insisted that it was not a hate crime or intended to emulate the cross burnings the Ku Klux Klan infamously used during the Jim Crow era to terrorize blacks in the South.
Lu appeared in court Thursday on four felonies and four misdemeanors, including a hate crime, property damage and burning a cross to intimidate. He insists that he was protesting President Donald Trump and Christian nationalists, and had no intention of expressing racist hate for blacks, Catholics, and any of the symbol’s original targets. “I did know about this historical relevance beforehand. But I didn’t know the severity, how racially motivated it may seem from what I did,” Lu said of a burning cross. “Cause my protest has nothing to do with race.”
Lu’s defense attorney, Alexander Michael, told the judge that Lu was exercising free speech in a “foolish manner.” You mean like expressing himself in a manner that didn’t come within a mile of expressing what you meant? This reminds me of a bit in “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum,” the Sondheim musical comedy, where the Roman slave Pseudolus is asked a question by an intimidating general. He answers “No!” and the general reacts by bellowing menacingly, “NO???!!!” to which Pseudolus quickly replies, “I mean yes! I said “no,” but I meant yes!”
Lu’s LinkedIn page says he has attended college in Indiana and Chicago, but he apparently never studied American history. Or law. Or logic.
Lu’s “My burning cross didn’t mean what burning crosses always mean and I didn’t think it would seem racially motivated” now joins the three previous worst excuses in Ethics Alarms annals, making the total four. In chronological order, the three earlier winners are…
That this episode could occur anywhere is ominous evidence of just how determined our progressive-infested institutions are determined to indoctrinate rising generations.
Gabby Stout, a junior at Ardrey Kell High School in Charlotte, North Carolina, and part of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools district, received permission from the school to paint a message on the school’s “spirit rock.” This is a large boulder on school grounds traditionally used by students to paint various opinions and messages. They don’t have to be wise or uncontroversial either: one such message was “Black Lives Matter.”
Stout painted a Bible passage and her support for the recently assassinated Christian conservative leader of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk. For reasons never explained (but you can guess, can’t you?) the school quickly reversed itself. Within hours the school officials ordered her message to be painted over.
I was going to make this an Ethics Quiz, which is typically what I do with issues I believe can generate multiple and diverse ethics verdicts from the analytical and perceptive readers here, and often with matters I am not certain about myself. However, Michelle Obama’s custom designed skirt she decided to model as she appeared on a stage at the new Obama Presidential Center in Chicago this week before “stakeholders” (Translation: Donors) was so indefensible by anyone who has not been permanently Obamafied, the crippling mental state where one is incapable of criticizing anything either Obama does or has done, ever, that my building a quiz around it would be dishonest.
As you can see, the former First Lady “wore a pencil skirt adorned with a large portrait of her late mother. The custom Acne Studios design was a tribute to Marian Robinson who died in 2024, aged 86.”
Ethics Observations:
Ethics Alarms 