I’m Charlie Brown in this analogy, not Snoopy.
1. There was a depressing question to the New York Times’ “The Ethicist Column.” What is depressing is that anyone would need to ask it. “The Ethicist,” Kwame Anthony Appiah, gave the right (and obvious) answer, but it shouldn’t take an ethicist to know this. The inquirer wrote,
Nearly nine years ago, I befriended a woman at work who, as I learned over the years of our now strong friendship, is staunchly pro-life. For her, the argument is both scientific and religious: Life starts at conception, and abortion is murder (no exceptions). She is morally consistent, though, in also being against the death penalty and in seeking out stronger social programs for families, like paid parental leave. We no longer work together, but we remain close friends and frequently discuss our views on abortion (I am pro-choice). Having a stronger understanding of one pro-life ideology has, I feel, expanded my thinking. I believe she is a good person who cares about the world immensely.
Especially after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, though, I struggle with having a friend who supports what I think is a restriction of my rights to make my own choices about my body. I struggle, too, with what I think of as duplicitousness: She actively restricts who she tells about her pro-life views, because she fears it will hurt her advancement prospects and could end friendships. She hopes people will see her as a good person and not judge her first on her anti-abortion views. I cannot decide if this is lying. And while I disagree with her views, it is the potential lying that is most questionable to me.
Maybe it’s like being queer and choosing to stay in the closet, but there’s the issue of what is a choice and what is inherent. Is it right for her to withhold the truth, or even lie, to protect herself, for the sake of her reputation and friendships? Is it OK if people do not want to be friends with or work with someone who has views like hers? I struggle with the idea that she is able to protect herself from the fallout of people knowing she is anti-abortion when implementing her views would take away rights that many people see as vital to living a life with dignity.
What a biased, self-satisfied, arrogant, undemocratic and unethical person “Name Withheld is.” And more like this are being churned out by the Woke Factory every minute.2. It’s called “reasonable doubt.” The Democrats and the Biden administration don’t care so much if they succeed in convicting Donald Trump of anything; it will be enough if they can sideline him through an indictment and trial. However, enough astute and objective lawyers question the legality of the Mar-A-Largo raid and the theories behind it that an ethical prosecutor would never bring charges related to the disputed documents. (Of course, that last point may be completely irrelevant.) It doesn’t matter if the argument in this Wall Street Journal essay D.C. lawyers and
3. Question: will the obvious unfairness and unethical penalization of those who sacrificed to pay back their student loans prevail in pubic opinion, or the unethical impulse of the average human being to be grateful for free stuff and windfalls, fair or not? The Biden $300 billion give-away to forgive student loans among those making less than $125,000 annually is irresponsible, regressive, and at its core, blatant vote-buying. What’s wrong with this looting of the Treasury is easy to lay out. but the simplest ethical objection to it is bared in this exchange today between Fox News’ Peter Doocy and the Secretary of Education:
4. Is The Great Stupid moving faster in the public health sector? It looks like it. The Times answers, it thinks, the question of “Why Experts Want to Rename Monkeypox.” (“Public health researchers say the term evokes racist stereotypes, reinforces offensive tropes about Africa and abets stigmatization that can prevent people from seeking care.”). The real reason is that progressives are obsessed with race and see racial issues in shadows and mist; that the entire political left, which dominates the health community, thinks the solution to every problem, including imaginary ones, is to manipulate the language; and all of this is based on the Left’s presumption that everyone is stupid.
Did anyone ever worry that “chickenpox” was stigmatizing, since in other contexts being chicken evokes cowardice? Did those stricken with smallpox avoid seeking treatment if they were short? I don’t care what they call the damn disease, but the obsession with finding “dog-whistles” everywhere is the symptom of a malady a lot more dangerous than monkeypox.
5. Facts Finally Matter...More than two years after Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by a white police officer in the parking lot of an Atlanta Wendy’s, a special prosecutor has held that the officer as well as another officer on the scene “committed no crimes.” This was obvious from the beginning based on the facts and photos of the incident, but never mind: Brooks was black, his killer was a white cop, so a black mob burned down the Wendy’s (Bad Wendy’s! Bad!). Naturally, there were riots. Stacey Abrams, the current Democratic candidate for Georgia governor, called the incident a “murder.” A real murder occurred on July 4, 2020, when 8-year-old Secoriea Turner, was fatally shot while being driven through the roiling area in an SUV.
Brooks resisted a lawful arrest, struggled with an officer, grabbed his taser, and tried to fire it at the officer as he fled. Are the activists, Black Lives Matter, Abrams and others who willfully ignored facts and law to create violent unrest going to be accountable now and admit their wrongful conduct?