Little Tommy flunked Ethics 101. Should we blame him?
An incident in Jefferson City Missouri nicely raises an issue I think about often.
Capital 8 Theaters in Jefferson City, Missouri sent actors dressed as gunmen, wearing assault gear and carrying what appeared to be semi-automatic weapons, into a screening of the film “Iron Man 3” last weekend. Really. Apparently the similarity between this scenario and the deadly shooting last year in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater premiering another big budget movie about a superhero never occurred to the theater manager, because he is, you see, a moron. It sure occurred to the patrons, though, and one of them called in the police, saying that gunmen had entered the theater. SWAT teams were called. Luckily nobody was shot or had cardiac arrest, no thanks to the theater.
Interviewed by a local TV station, manager Bob Wilkins was asked if he had any regrets. “No, my job is to entertain people,” he said. Asked if he considered how his stunt might affect patrons who remembered the mass shooting in the theater in Aurora, Wilkins responded, “Absolutely. That’s my number-one priority every day. It’s the safety and security of our guests.”
Okay, this pretty much tells us what we need to know about old Bob, so here is your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz question:
May abject stupidity be a complete defense to the accusation that one is unethical?
Is there a stupidity defense to unethical conduct akin to the insanity defense in criminal law, which holds that if a lawbreaker is so addled that he cannot tell right from wrong, he is ill, not guilty? Or does not having the common sense God gave to an anchovy still leave one open to a fair verdict that your actions are unethical?
________________________________
Pointer: Rick Jones
Facts: Guns.com
Ethics Alarms 
The first unethical person is the owner of the theater who gave this idiot the authority to plan such moronic stunts. But the manager is not truly a “moron.” He obviously is not someone with a truly compromised mental capacity. His stupidity displays as merely deplorable judgment, and therefore he is also guilty of being unethical, because he had the duty to actually engage whatever brain cells he has before he executed his “plan.” What a jerk.
Anchovies are a schooling fish; it is the nature of such species to seek protection in the center of the school, thus rendering those fish on the outside more vulnerable to predators. Ergo, your premise that Mr. Wilkins lacks the common sense God gave an anchovy appears to be a fair assessment.
Missouri is a state that takes its concealed carry rights quite seriously. Mr. Wilkins – and the actor – are indeed fortunate that no one in the audience was packin’ and willing to risk his or her own safety on behalf of fellow patrons. One may presume that had that happened, the anti-gun crowd would have tied itself into darkly amusing knots regarding the outcome (I can imagine that scenario as richly as your fantasy of Sylvia Brown, or whatever her name is).
And no, I would not say that in this case stupidity is a defense. While running a movie theater complex on behalf of a chain probably doesn’t require a huge amount of intellectual firepower, it must require at least a little.
There are no excuses here that I can see – either for the manager, the actor, or the chain that hired the manager in the first place.
The actor? Actors never consider the implications of their roles. Usually I agree with that, but in this case, you’re right.
Isn’t this the equivalent of “yelling fire in a theatre”?
Pretty close!
It’s a case of yelling “Open Fire” in a theater. Apparently, Mr. Wilkins never considered (among many factors!) that some of his patrons, having known of Aurora and not being adverse to protecting themselves and others, might be carrying concealed firearms- regardless of any useless “Gun Free Zone” sign. What, then, could reasonably be expected if a gang of gun toters barged into the theater? Would you have opened fire? I would. Nor would I have given any warning under the circumstances. Only a suicidal fool would have. Too bad for the idiots who agreed to perform this way under the instructions of an even bigger idiot. In Texas, no jury would have convicted me, either. And justifiably so.
Is it ethical to use a public forum to call someone a moron? Using the Golden Rule here, let’s consider: this gentleman holds a managerial position, promoted and maintained there by someone with higher authority who thinks he’s doing at least a mediocre job, or he would no longer be in the role. The theater manager is instructed to promote movies that come to his theater and, excited by opening of the certain summer blockbuster, strives to ensure a memorable evening, one which will surely send referral business flocking to his door. For this movie, he’s dealing with an audience likely made up of young people, action freaks who play murderous video games, who probably routinely watch – and rewatch – violent and fast-moving TV shows and movies, who may play laser tag and paintball – kids with a high tolerance for speed, special effects, and graphic artificial mayhem. What on earth can the theater manager do that will be over the top enough to get their attention? What would make his facility stand out? I know! Let’s have a REAL – well, fake real – action scene! Let’s put people IN THE MIDDLE of the real thing! Yeah!
Clearly it was poor judgment. Clearly the theater manager does not pay attention to the news. Clearly he over- or under-estimated the intelligence of his audience.
But let’s not call him a moron. I’m sure he’s got his good qualities and makes other, better decisions. I’m pretty sure he’ll learn a big lesson from this – as will his bosses and the theater owners.
I have a list of banned words hanging in my Sunday school classroom. On that list: stupid; retarded; hate; gay (when used as an insult). “Moron” hasn’t made it to my list, because my kids don’t tend to use it, but “idiot” is on there. I try to advocate thin-brush, not thick-brush, thinking, and separation of individual choices and actions from overall character. The guy screwed up, big-time. No one was hurt, luckily. Let’s show a little sympathy and humanity.
Sorry, Jack, I have knee-jerk reactions to unrelenting damning language. I still think you’re brilliant. Just what if the theater manager was my son?
Your son would be a moron?
Kidding. (But ask your son what he thinks of this stunt!)
I think “moron” here is obviously used in the hyperbolic sense–he doesn’t meet the technical definition of a moron, but the decision was moronic, as was his responses to those questions. He placed people’s lives at risk in a reckless fashion for trivial gain, and only moral luck prevented a tragedy.
What words do we use to properly condemn the utter stupidity and recklessness of that decision, and his subsequent refusal to acknowledge how bad it was? If he had said, “You’re right—I was a moron. I don’t know what I was thinking, I would have said he was a moron, and wouldn’t have used him for the quiz, either…since he obviously was capable of coherent thought.
I don’t believe in banning any words, especially powerful ones that convey ideas that can’t be conveyed otherwise. “Moron” and “Idiot” convey that someone has done something of unforgivable stupidity, and that is signature significance, in that no responsible, clear-thinking person would do such a thing. This qualifies When I read it, I thought it was a joke, it’s so dumb.
Right now, this guy has his job AND thinks he did nothing wrong. If more people regarded him as moronic, the public would be safer. People this stupid also lock fire doors.
I don’t like to use charged words either — and “moron” makes that list. But, are we so sensitized that we’re at the point where we can’t acknowledge that we have a lot of not-so-smart* people in this country? *I can’t find an actual unoffensive word that would be appropriate here — I can’t use “ignorant” or “uneducated” based on the facts. So, I am limited to stupid, moronic, iditotic, all words you (and normally I) would find offensive. But sometimes the word is not only fair, it is the only word that can be used. And, my description also applies to all the actors involved. I would have turn down that role in a heartbeat (even if it meant not making my rent) — not just because it was unethical and could inflict serious mental harm, but also because I could have been shot. This stunt involved a lot of stupid people.
Why not call him a moron? What should you say about this? Why shouldn’t he be called something offensive. Someone responsible for such an act of utter stupidity that endangers peoples lives should be called something nice? What should be said about them? This goes beyond an error in judgement. An error in judgement is running aggressively advertised special on pork products during Ramadan. An error in judgement is sending out an e-mail at the last minute (without proofreading to make the deadline) to advertise an exotic animal park without noticing that autocorrect made it an erotic animal park. When you rise to felony-level stupidity, you open yourself up to being called a moron or worse. Reckless endangerment is a felony in my state and this action fits the definition of reckless endangerment perfectly.
This manager clearly STILL doesn’t understand the problem because you can’t say that the safety and security of your guests is your #1 priority and that you have no regrets about doing this. I have lived in Missouri and I would guess there were a good half-dozen people in that theatre with a concealed weapon. The fact that the actor isn’t dead is proof that gun owners aren’t as trigger-happy as the media would like us to believe, but should we put it to the test that strenuously?
People like this get other people killed. It doesn’t matter how nice he is otherwise. Enduring a few insults is a small price. He could face years in prison.
Words like idiot and moron sting, but they are less painful than a punch in the face. There needs to be a powerful disincentive to those who lack the common sense to do something this stupid. If logic won’t do it, maybe not wanting to be designated a mental deficient might. It’s worth a shot.
A while back, my son took my credit card and bought something on line. Naturally, the charge showed up, and he caught hell. He was genuinely remorseful, but he said that what most stuck with him most was my comment, “I don’t know what bothers me more, the fact that you’re a thief, or the fact that you’re an idiot. I don’t want you stealing, but work on the idiot problem first. If you’re an idiot, you’ll never even be a good thief, much less anything respectable. THINK!”
The theater manager obviously has a future in the Missouri legislature.
Bravo!
“But let’s not call him a moron.”
Sorry, he IS a moron.
It’s too bad he wasn’t punished in some way for this reckless behavior.
Yes. Abject stupidity is a defense to the accusation that one is unethical if stupidity is defined in terms of IQ. However, I don’t believe this situation has anything to do with an IQ so low that the manager did not have it within his capacity to make a much better decisions. I think ethics and the knowledge needed to make ethical decisions takes an awareness of what is going on in the world, study, practice, guidance and critical self-evaluation among many other things. If not, then aren’t you just wasting your time, Jack?