“NEXT!!!”
The New York Times Magazine column “The Ethicist,” long authored competently by non-ethicist Randy Cohen, had lost me due to the biased and often unethical answers to his reader’s queries by his most recent successor, Chuck Klosterman. So repellent was Klosterman’s version of the column that I didn’t even notice when the Times sacked Klosterman late last year after one bizarre response too many.
[The final straw: An inquirer went to a Starbuck’s wanting to buy a regular over-priced cup of coffee, but when the woman in front of the customer ordered a pumpkin-spice latte and received a coupon for a free drink because the shop was out of it, “NAME WITHHELD” ordered a pumpkin- spice latte to get the free coupon. Was this ethical, he/she/it asked?” Klosterman’s answer: “No. You’re a liar and a low-rent con artist. And you live in a community where pumpkin-flavored beverages are way too popular.” Now, “No” is correct, but it’s a great question, and deserving of a serious analysis rather than whatever that was from the ex-Ethicist. The coupon was a nice gesture to someone who had come to the Starbuck’s wanting a specific beverage and was disappointed—a store should not be tantalizing customers with products they don’t have to sell, essentially setting up a bait and switch. The coupon was an ethical “We’re sorry,” but also made the employee vulnerable to anyone who decided to misrepresent his real intent in order to get a free drink later. Yes, taking advantage of this opportunity to the detriment of the store is unethical, because the inquirer took an appropriate gesture clearly intended for a specific situation and exploited it. It was not illegal, however, and was not a con. I would compare it to the scenario where a computer glitch has resulted in an airline selling tickets online for absurdly small amounts, and travelers rush to take advantage, rationalizing that mistake or not, the opportunity is there and they can legally grab it.]
Now the Times has a new author of “The Ethicist,” after experimenting with a new format in which a podcast including him and some other commentators hashed over ethics hypotheticals and then the podcast was transcribed and published in the Sunday Times magazine. He is Kwame Anthony Appiah, who teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. This week Appiah’s first solo, so I would normally say that it’s too early for any fair assessment, but boy, did he ever botch the September 2 podcast. He botched it so badly that I can’t see myself paying much attention to anything else he writes. It was an ethics disaster.
A college student asked if he could ethically lie to his anti-gay father about his sexual orientation so Dad would keep paying the student’s tuition. The father is suspicious based on some clues during his son’s high school days, and has made it very clear to his son that if he is gay, he would not only withdraw all financial support but also reject him entirely. “Questions about my sexuality are inevitable whenever I come home,” the inquirer wrote. “My father has demanded I produce archives of all emails and text messages for him to review, although I have successfully refused these requests on the grounds that he has no claim to my adult communications.”
He asks, “Is it ethical for me to continue accepting financial support for my education and my career that will come from it? Could I continue to lie to accept the support and one day disclose my sexuality and pay him back to absolve myself of any ethical wrongdoing?”
The correct answer is “Of course not,” and it amazes me that anyone would think otherwise. The second part of the question is an especially easy ethics lay-up: the steal now, pay back later scheme, also known as “the involuntary loan,” or “I meant to pay it back!”, is pure rationalization, and its existence proves that the writer knows damn well that what he’s doing is wrong, and just wants someone to tell him that it’s OK.
Astoundingly, Appiah and his podcast buddies (Amy Bloom, a novelist and psychotherapist, and Kenji Yoshino, an N.Y.U. law professor) tell the inquirer that it is OK, because, it is clear, they are advocates for gay rights and don’t appreciate anti-gay bigots. Thus they amass nothing but rationalizations and outright unethical arguments to justify the student’s ongoing deception. As a philosopher who knows better, Appiah should have been correcting his colleagues. Instead, he enables them, because gay advocacy trumps honesty and ethics.
First Bloom notes that “It’s terrible that it should be so hard to get a college education in this country without accumulating massive debt.”
Yes, and chocolate ice cream is delicious: this is a non sequitur. She is, of course, leading off with Rationalization #13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause,” #25. The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!” and #28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.” It doesn’t matter that tuition costs too much: that is not the father’s fault, nor does it excuse a student using deception to pay for it. Then she calls the father’s demands for verification of the son’s sexuality abuse and bullying. If the father has conditions for paying the tuition and suspects his son is lying to him—which he is!—he has every right to ask for verification. It’s not abuse: the son doesn’t have to produce it; he can just decide to pay his own way through school like millions of other college students have. Bloom moves on to Rationalization #2, The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, or “They had it coming.” The father’s unethical conduct, if it is so, still doesn’t give the son leave to lie in order to enrich himself at the father’s expense. Next up for Bloom, who obviously has no business talking about ethics, ever, is the Big Enchilada itself, Numero Uno, The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it.” She says,
“Lots of people keep these things from their parents, and you can do that in a completely honorable way.”
No, in fact you can’t. There is nothing honorable about getting money under false pretenses.
“The letter writer can, in his position of dependency, lie to his father and know that although he is not taking the bravest or most admirable stance, his lying is understandable.”
“Understandable” is not the same as “right.” Lots of unethical conduct, maybe even most, is “understandable.” How dare this woman presume to have any expertise in ethics and be capable of saying something this fatuous? Meanwhile, she just invoked the most recent addition to the blog’s rationalization canon, 19A The Insidious Confession, or “It wasn’t the best choice.”
“You can certainly forgive yourself for the lying in this circumstance and maybe be mindful of the fact that this will not last and that you won’t have to keep lying.”
Good lord. Is she trying to epitomize the rationalization-besotted mind? If what the student is doing is right, why does he need to forgive himself? This admits that what the student is doing is unethical even while she is denying it! The fact that unethical conduct can be forgiven doesn’t make it ethical: this is head-explosion worthy ethics malpractice. Then Bloom asserts that if unethical conduct isn’t going to go on forever, then it isn’t wrong! [This rationalization isn’t on my list, but it’s going there. Thanks, Amy, you incompetent fraud!]
Next “The Ethicist” himself weighs in, and he’s as bad as Bloom, or worse. First of all, Appiah doesn’t flag the multiple ethics fallacies that Bloom has just vomited out, and that’s ethics malpractice on his part. Then he registers his own series of ethically-warped opinions:
“It is important, given the general way in which college education is funded in our society, not to think of the parental support here as a kind of free gift that the parent is entitled to withdraw on any basis. Basically, a responsible parent who has the resources has an obligation to provide his fair share after financial aid and contributions from the kid based on his work and so on.”
Where did this come from? Well, to begin with, it’s a conflict of interest: Appiah works for a college, so he isn’t objective. What if the father thinks that colleges are over-priced frauds themselves, as I do? What if a father doesn’t think his son should go to college, since, say, the father didn’t and has been just fine, thank-you? What if he doesn’t want to pay for the school the son wants to attend? What if he thinks the son is going to college for the wrong reasons, as in to be with a girlfriend, or if the father believes the son would be unduly vulnerable to indoctrination by a radical faculty, or is just going to get stoned, skip classes and have sex?
What if he the father has other obligations, like children better suited for college, investments, or medical bills? What if he believes he can spend the money more wisely? What if the son has made him send the equivalent of his tuition already by brushes with the law? Shall I go on? The parent has no such obligation, but even if he does, that does not excuse or justify the son lying when he knows that the father would regard the truth as discharging that obligation. Note also that the son talks about his adult communications. He’s an adult, and if Dad wants to say, “Well, kid, we got you this far, good luck!” he has every right.
“I don’t think that the parent has a right to threaten to withdraw support for any reason except a failure to be serious about college.”
What? I don’t believe even Appiah would agree with this if he thought about it for a few seconds. He was either temporarily insane or afraid not to side with the gay kid against his bigot father, for fear of NYU reperecussions. (Another conflict of interest!) What if the kid is a habitual goof-off even when he’s “serious” about something? Has he joined ISIS? Is he a neo-Nazi? If the son has openly rejected his father’s values, treats him with disrespect, refuses to obey him, defies him at every turn…the father has no right to threaten the son with withdrawal of support if he doesn’t shape up? Ridiculous. He not only has the right to threaten it, he has every right to do it.
“If you know that if you tell him the truth, he’ll treat you in a way he ought not to treat you, then that’s a circumstance in which a lie — while it continues to be a bad thing — is permissible, given that the consequence of telling the truth will be that somebody else will behave quite impermissible toward you.”
Be still my rumbling skull. WHAT? This is the classic liar’s excuse, and it can be used and is used to justify perjury, lying to police, lying to employers, lying to everyone. Who decides when someone will “treat you in a way he ought not to treat you”? Why, the liar, naturally. Yeah, he’s an objective judge.
This statement is much worse than what got Klosterman fired. The second part of the statement is gibberish. The lie is still a bad thing, but it’s not unethical? It’s bad but good? Arguing that a lie is ethical “given that the consequence of telling the truth will be that somebody else will behave quite impermissible toward you” is simply endorsing cowardice as an ethical value. Accepting the consequences of the truth, fair or unfair, is called accountability.
This is “let’s help the poor gay kid,” not ethics. That’s all it is. Then Appiah jumps the shark that was jumping the shark:
“Not only is this young man entitled to conceal the truth from his father, but he doesn’t owe him a repayment later when he can afford it. Threatening not to do your duty if your son turns out to be gay — which is, after all, something over which he has absolutely no control — is awful in many ways. The fact that he would fail to discharge his obligation to pay his fair share if the son told the truth is a reason not to tell him the truth.”
Essentially, this statement translates to “anyone who doesn’t accept gay people doesn’t deserve to be treated ethically.” The young man is not entitled to use a lie to get money out of his father: that’s fraud. The student says he is an adult, over 18, meaning that the father has no legal obligation at all, and his breach of an ethical obligation cannot excuse theft and dishonesty. The father probably doesn’t think being gay is something over which his son has no control, and it’s unethical for a third party to unilaterally proclaim that the father’s belief is so wrong that he should be defrauded into spending money as punishment. It’s his money, and he can choose to spend it or not based on his beliefs, right or wrong.
OK, its “awful”: now we’re back to Rationalization #2, The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, or “They had it coming.”
Finally, Kenji Yoshino weighs in with “Yes, I agree with both of you.”
Well, he’s incompetent and biased too.
Bias makes us stupid, and as this fiasco shows, it also makes ethicists—and novelists and law professors— unethical. Apparently unwittingly, Appiah allowed himself to be persuaded into embracing the ends justifies the means as an ethics star when dealing with prejudice against gays, combined with the ethics-rotting fallacy that people we don’t like deserved to be lied to, cheated and conned.
Come back, Chuck. All is forgiven.
Ethics Alarms 
“given that the consequence of telling the truth will be that somebody else will behave quite impermissible toward you” is simply endorsing cowardice . . . .”
It’s also a misspelling and misuse of the word “impermissible” that show the writer to be a poor thinker. Who decides that the father does or does not have “permission” either to feel the way he does about homosexuality or to act on his bias by withholding money from his son? It sounds like Appiah has taken a position of authority far beyond that of advisor. Besides, dad may have more need of the money, such as seeing a psychologist to rid himself of the pain of his homophobia, of hating his own child.
Yeah, that psychotherapy for that impermissible thinking may one day be court-ordered. Grand times are a-coming!
I think you’re very clearly right on this one–well-argued.
But isn’t that analysis not just bad, but shockingly bad?? That’s what we are getting from “experts,” Charles! It makes me want to hang up my spurs, cash in my chips, and give up the ghost. What’s the point, if the nation’s most respected newspaper puts that crap out as “ethics”????
Instead, you should be publicly shaming these frauds. What this paper needs is you!
Oh, I’d love that job to pieces. I’d be damn good at it too. But I’d be satisfied if whoever had the job wasn’t flat out incompetent.
What can I say? I don’t always agree with you, but that makes it all the more pertinent – I think you nailed this one very rightly
My kids currently attend catholic school, while we drive ancient cars with top-dollar carseats. Our choice for colleges will be much more limited, obviously, if we’re to keep them out of the clutches of ethics corrupters like this. Maybe I can just teach them to be doctors, like in “The Cider House Rules” at home.
My anxiety is for my grandkids. At this rate (shield your eyes, as I go full Eeyore), even the robots that will be teaching them will have built-in biases that will flunk students for phony “incorrectness,” while rewarding the stupid, ignorant, and self-destructive.
I just learned this morning that most of the nobles of old England were illiterate. That was depressing enough, but that got me to thinking about what is going to pass for “educated” and “literate” in our soon-to-be white privilege-free, male privilege-free, only-kinky-sex-is-free, power-to-the-machines future. Leave it to the intelligent, self-repairing and self-replicating machines to make illiteracy a permanent human condition, eventually; they’ll certainly have enough obedient and culturally illiterate, reprobate human servers to satisfy their “servers.”
I don’t see this as much different from a parent saying “I’ll pay your way, so long as you don’t join a frat, drink booze or have sex.” It’s perhaps harder to swallow because being gay is a state of being, as opposed to an action, but at the end of the day, the bigot father is allowed to spend or withhold his money for any reason he feels like.
I wonder though, if there’s an argument that education funding for students of parents who can afford it is something of an ethical obligation. As parents, we have a duty to provide for and set up our children in preparation for adult life. With education still top of the list of factors leading to success, if there a duty to provide it, if you are able?
There is no parental duty to provide for an adult child. The duty is to prepare that child to provide for himself. (This presupposes that the child doesn’t have limiting factors such a physical or mental disability.)
I wonder what “adult” means in this context…. Boomers have failed to retire and make room for graduates, the cost of education has never been higher, and the cost of housing has never been so high. If the duty of parenthood is to prepare the kid for adult life, maybe in current conditions it takes a few extra years.
Sometimes, I wouldn’t mind moving in with my parents.
What Boomers have failed to do has nothing to do with the definition of adulthood. Nor does the cost of anything. It wasn’t easy for 21 year olds to become adults in the depression, or when people were pioneering, or during wars. Yes, families help each other, but there is no duty to provide higher education. Certainly when the child is suspected of manipulating and lying to the parent there is even less obligation.
Let’s call a spade a spade here, when you hate your kid for something they have no control over, you as a parent have already failed, so while you’re right and it’s unethical to lie to get money out of someone, let’s not pretend the father is an angel in this.
And that’s irrelevant. My question is whether there could be an ethical obligation to support your children through school, including post secondary, as part of the process of getting them ready for life. Especially if the parents are able.
Alluding back to the great depression hits me as dog-in-the-mangering… That previous generations had it rough goes without saying, that isn’t an excuse not to do better when we have more.
Sometimes more money isnt better when it comes to imparting values, specifically a work ethic, in our children.
I suppose there could be an ethical obligation, but, that obligation would be for a parent who had not prepared their child to be independent. A parent who has not prepared a child for life might not recognize an ethical obligation. A parent with the means has an obligation to make sure that an adult child is not destitute. I’m not convinced there is an ethical duty to provide higher education. In the current culture you could make a case that a parent who pays for a “studies” education is committing parental malpractice.
Truth.
I personally feel that it is the parents’ ethical duty to pay for college if: 1) they can afford it; and 2) the child is responsible and applying himself at school. Being gay, dating someone I don’t like, switching religions, or doing anything else that doesn’t gel with my personal beliefs or agenda doesn’t change that obligation.
However, I will not be paying for weddings or down payments for houses. Like Joed, all our money goes to school. Then they are on their own fiscally.
On this, Beth, we must disagree. A parent has a duty to support his/her child until, and ONLY until, the child can become self-supporting. In legalistic terms, that means 18. If the child chooses to go to college, that’s on him/her. I managed a bachelor’s and a graduate degree, with my veteran’s benefits and a job. I did NOT get a student loan for a ‘bachelor pad’ and “partying hardy”, nor did I major in an unmarketable degree because I thought Black Studies would be cool. However, I was also 26 when I returned to college.
I paid for college and grad school on my own — my parents paid a little toward undergrad. This is just my belief, I know others feel differently.
That’s a high personal standard, which is great. But the post is about minimal ethical standards.
Well, not all of it; there’s always some for ramen noodles.
I worked my way through my first two years of college, went into the Army and then used my benefits to finish up my degree work. It’s great when parents can put together a college fund for their growing kids to help them out. It’s fine when they can pitch in with a loan or two if the kids are tight on funds in college through no fault of their own. But those parents are under no moral obligation to do so. They raised and supported them for eighteen years, didn’t they? Somewhere along the line, those children have to become men and women. And if they DO receive help from their parents- or from anyone- those benefactors have every right to set stipulations on their aid.
The story of the father who suspected (correctly, it seems) that his son was a pervert and using his father’s financial aid to support his lifestyle is an extreme example, perhaps. It does illustrate the convoluted ethics of those who either live in or support those who live in such a manner. It also illustrates the stupidity of a father who supports a son based on the son’s word that’s he’s not a deviant, regardless of the previous evidence that he was. It’s a hard thing for any normal father to confront in one of his children, but reality must be acknowledged.
My parents took us out of school when I was 8, and put us to work splitting and stacking cordwood that we sold, for no pay. Hell, I should be hitting them up for tuition money now.
Hey. That’s what happened to Abe Lincoln! How come you’re not the president by now?
He might be too short, even if he’s above average height. There’s some evidence that that matters these days (but google “grandfather’s hat” – connections may trump that, if you’ll pardon my using that word).
Really? Wow! I wish I had known that then. That might have put a different spin on things.
I’m just guessing, here: he’s smart enough not to want the job?
Well… ;president of something!!
“As parents, we have a duty to provide for and set up our children in preparation for adult life. With education still top of the list of factors leading to success, if there a duty to provide it, if you are able?”
I think valid questions, but you’ve shifted your terms…or well, you may be shifting terms depending.
In the 1st sentence you say we TWO duties as parents:
1) Provide for our children in preparation for adult life
2) Set up our children in preparation for adult life
In the 2nd sentence you ask if there is a duty to provide for success.
I don’t know if preparing children for adult life is the same as providing for success. What is success? What is adult life?
I think preparing your children for adult life involves teaching them a thorough set of basic life skills, a thorough set of GOOD HABITS and a thorough set of morals & ethics. I don’t think you can do ONE THING to ensure the success of your child if those 1st 3 aren’t established and quite frankly, I don’t think you can do ONE THING to ensure the *success* of your child WITH those 1st 3 being established, but at least with the 1st 3 established you know you’ve done what you must to create a good adult and a functioning citizen. All failures after that are their own.
I don’t know if there is an OBLIGATION to pass on material success or guarantee material success (which is impossible) though there is a strong URGE to do so.
We are in a new world, where ethics doesn’t matter, and gender, orientation, and color trump all. It’s almost like basic ethics, without all the identity politics, is considered quaint, or even an obstacle to the brand new world where everyone can and does “live their truth,” no matter what other effect it has and no matter if that truth isn’t all that true.
Ethics practiced to make people happy is like religion watered down to make people happy. What’s the point?
One addition needs to be stated. If the father is to withdraw support for college, he needs to also stop claiming the son on his taxes. That aggravates me to no end. I have had many a student whose parents refuse to help pay for their child’s college education (because they won’t go to the right school, won’t play sports, won’t choose the right major), but insist on claiming the student as a dependent. The government system then does not allow them the amount of financial aid they should actually get because by listing the student as a dependent, the government assumes they will help pay. If the parent no longer claims them, they get a significantly increased financial aid package.
One student that stands out in my memory had a father who insisted on claiming his child as a dependent, but refused to contribute to college costs because his child wouldn’t go to the school he wanted. The student was a veteran and qualified for all kinds of financial aid, unless they were considered a dependent.
“decide to pay his own way through school like millions of other college students have.”
Well, that is not quite as easy as it sounds. In our country, if a parent is able to afford to pay your college tuition, it is EXTRAORDINARILY difficult to obtain a student loan. This itself is preposterous. You are an adult, and are still being treated as a dependent. In fact, your parents can write your healthcare off their taxes until you are 26 years old!
This early adulthood period is rife with legal head-scratchers. Yes, it is, strictly speaking, unethical to accept tuition from the father who makes enough money to preclude the young man from obtaining financing. Yes, strictly speaking, unethical to accept tuition from the man who gets to use him as a tax write-off.
Regardless, I believe the circumstances are so muddied that what he is doing gets a free pass. The Article was wrong, but so are you for not considering all the obvious factors.
Boy, you are like an ethicist’s diagnostic dream patient. If it’s “strictly speaking” unethical, as in “wrong,” then it’s still wrong. Rationalizations do not right into wrong make. And that’s all you are relying on. Rationalizations, as in, “self-serving lies.”