The Philosophy Prof’s “Animal House” Ethics Quiz, Part 2

After posting about the ethics professor who trapped the cheaters in his class by planting the wrong answers in a version of his test uploaded to a exam-cheating site, I realized that I never discussed the ethics of the Omega Theta Pi fraternity in “Animal House” who tricked our heroes (Bluto, Otter, et al.) with a similar scheme. In Part I, I described Kevin Bacon’s frat brothers as “evil,” as indeed they were, and their motive for planting a fake psych exam answer sheet where they knew Bluto and D-Day would find it was hate and vengeance. Does that make their scheme unethical, even though the professor’s similar stratagem was ethical?

Continue reading

The Philosophy Prof’s “Animal House” Ethics Quiz, Part I

I would have made this story an ethics quiz if I wasn’t so certain of the answer.

Garret Merriam, associate professor of philosophy at Sacramento State University, was curious about how many of his students would cheat on his Introduction to Ethics course take-home final exam. First he checked Google to see if some of the questions on his upcoming exam were already online, and found a copy of one of his previous final exams on the website Quizlet, which allows users to upload exam questions and answers to its site to help students cheat. (Mental note: Make Quizlet an Unethical Website Of the Month).

After emailing a request to Quizlet to take down his exam (they did), he had an inspiration. He created and uploaded to the sitet a copy of his planned final, consisting entirely of multiple choice questions, with not just wrong answers but obviously wrong answers. “My thinking was that anyone who gave a sufficient number of those same answers would be exposing themselves, not only as someone who cheated by looking up the final online, but who didn’t even pay enough attention in class to notice how wrong the answers were,” he wrote later.

Continue reading

Monday Morning Ethics Warm-Up: Wow, Look At All This Stuff…

It was a very lively weekend here at Ethics Alarms, though few but the most hardy regulars chose to partake in it (as usual on weekends). Meanwhile, a backlog of impressive proportions started clogging the canal, so I have little choice but to do a multi-issue post despite my pledge to cut down on them (too much time to write, too few readers).

Among the weekend’s joys for me was a barrage of insulting and woke-intense attempted comments from a single ideologue, attacking nine separate posts with standard issue progressive talking points and “it isn’t what it is” rants. I especially enjoyed being called a racist because I wrote this in the post about ESPN’s Stephen A Smith:

If anyone would be thrilled to excuse black culture malignancy by crying “systemic racism,” it would be Smith. Instead, the amazing number of shootings in Chicago over the Memorial Day Weekend prompted Smith to ask the black community: “When are we going to look at ourselves when it comes to black people being killed in the streets of America?”

The destructive nature of American black culture has been a topic of scholarship and analysis by researchers, social scientists and pundits for more than 50 years. It may be unfashionable to speak plainly on the topic (as Smith was trying to do), but using the racist label to avoid addressing the problem by denying its existence is part of a tragic trend. No, his comment(s) never made it out of moderation. On this post, he called me an extreme right “denialist” for calling Ireland’s cow slaughtering plan absurd. Again I ask, “Who are these people? How did they get this way? Can they be helped?”

1. Wait, what? Self-checkout machines in Big Box stores, coffee shops, bakeries, airports and sports stadiums are suggesting to customers that they leave a 20% tip, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal. Unbelievable. I refuse to use the damn things because a) half the time they don’t work 2) I don’t trust them 3) they are putting people out of jobs 4) I enjoy interacting with human beings behind counters, so I wasn’t aware of this emotional extortion attempt (which is now ‘5)’ on my list. This is a scheme for companies to pass off the burden of paying employees on the customer rather than increasing employee salaries. Despicable. Here’s a tip: Bite me!

2. Curmie Corner: Over at his own blog, Curmudgeon Central, Ethics Alarms commenter Curmie has posted a superb, many faceted, provocative essay about Pink Floyd’s former composer-bassist Roger Waters and his problem with German police for wearing a “Nazi-style uniform” at a recent concert in Berlin. This is the kind of deep ethics dive I wish I could do more of, and, as you may have noticed, Curmie is a deft writer who, unlike your host, avoids typos. You will want to read “Roger Waters, Pink, Nazis, and Freedom of Speech.”

Continue reading

Tennis Ethics: Weenies Running Amuck At The French Open

I’m just glad this didn’t happen in the United States. France and weenies go together like…well, the U.S. and wieners, and if this could happen here, please don’t tell me until tomorrow. I’ve already thrown myself in a woodchipper once today.

In less hyperbolic terms, I can’t understand this crazy ethics episode at all.

No.16 seeds Miyu Kato and Aldila Sutjiadi of Japan were playing a doubles match in the French Open today, a set down to Czech Republic doubles team of Marie Bouzkova and Sara Sorribes Tormo, but winning the second set, 3-1. Kato slammed the ball to the opposite end of the court between points, inadvertently hitting the ball girl, who burst into tears. Chair umpire Alexandre Juge issued a code violation warning, but that wasn’t enough for Bouzkova and Tormo, who insisted that the Japanese women be disqualified because—get this—the ball girl was crying.

They shouldn’t even have been warned! Here’s the rule: players “shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a tennis ball within the precincts of the tournament site except in the reasonable pursuit of a point during a match (including warm-up)”

When told by the umpire that it was an accident, Sorribes Tormo protested, “She didn’t do it on purpose? She’s crying!” “And she has blood,” Bouzkova added, prompting the umpire to go to check on the ball girl, who was sobbing away. Then he consulted with the tournament referee and the Grand Slam supervisor Wayne McEwen, went back up to his chair on the court, and announced the end of the match. Sutjiadi and Kato were disqualified. Many in the crowd jeered. Kato apologized and was in tears as she left the court.

Continue reading

The Great Stupid Wins: The Utah “Obscene Bible” Episode Is Sending Me To The Woodchipper…

I can’t stand it. All sides are too stupid to breathe or too cynical to be tolerated. This is the kind of thing that drove Sweeney Todd to serial killing. I think I’ll just ask my neighbor Ted to feed me through his woodchipper, like Steve Buscemi in the memorable moment above from “Fargo.”

A Utah state law passed last year allows school districts to remove “pornographic or indecent” books from school libraries. Someone in the Davis School District, seeking to demonstrate the law’s over-reach, submitted a complaint about the King James Bible, arguing the text was “pornographic by our new definition.” The complaint was treated as if it were made in good faith, and the Bible was duly pulled from elementary school libraries, thus making Utah conservatives look ridiculous.

Which was the whole idea. And which they are.

I admit to having a low threshold of tolerance for idiots, but still: State Sen. Todd Weiler (R), who sponsored the obscene book law in the Utah Senate, said he hoped the district’s decision would be overturned, but he called the Bible’s removal a “fair trade” for the removal of other books containing what he described as “explicit X-rated content.”

That’s a good policy: let’s barter for books! The Right gets to throw out “Catcher in the Rye,” and the Left gets to throw out “Founding Brothers,” about all those racists who founded the nation.

Gah. First, nobody’s banning books, nor are they, as the Washington Post claims in typical spinning style, restricting what students read. Parents still have the right and power to let their children read anything on the planet, from “Huckleberry Finn” to “Sexus,” Nexus,” and “Plexus.” The issue is whether parents should be able to limit what their children read in school, now that the trustworthiness of teachers and school administrators is legitimately open to question, and ideological and sexual indoctrination are rampant. It is a valid issue.

Continue reading

Ethics Train Wreck At The Capitol

“What’s going on here?” Good question: even more appropriate than usual. Who started this ethics mess may never be known, but who is responsible for it getting out of control is clear.

This adorable group, the Rushingbrook Children’s Choir…

based in Greenville, South Carolina, had toured Williamsburg, Virginia before coming last week to Washington, D.C., to visit key historical and governmental sites. The group was about to sing the National Anthem in National Statuary Hall when Andrew Tremel, the visitor operations manager at the Architect of the Capitol, halted them. But David Rasbach, the founder and director of the choir, told Tremel that congressional offices had granted permission for the group to perform, so Tremel relented and gave the okay. Video of the debacle, however, shows Rasbach cutting off the singers in the middle of the “Star Spangled Banner’s” fourth verse of the song. A female Capitol Police officer had directed a congressional staffer to stop the performance. Rasbach told everyone who would listen that she informed him that such performances are considered demonstrations, and that demonstrations in the U.S. Capitol are banned (as many jailed January 6, 2021 protest participants will now attest).

She also said, allegedly, that some people were or would be “offended” (by little children singing their nation’s patriotic anthem in the U.S. Capitol. You know, like in “Doctor Strangelove”: “Gentlemen. You can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!”).

The Capitol Police dutifully rose in defense of one of its own, saying in a statement:

“Recently somebody posted a video of a children’s choir singing the Star-Spangled Banner in the U.S. Capitol Building and wrongfully claimed we stopped the performance because it ‘might offend someone. Here is the truth. Demonstrations and musical performances are not allowed in the U.S. Capitol. Of course, because the singers in this situation were children, our officers were reasonable and allowed the children to finish their beautiful rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner. The Congressional staff member who was accompanying the group knew the rules, yet lied to the officers multiple times about having permission from various offices. The staffer put both the choir and our officers, who were simply doing their jobs, in an awkward and embarrassing position.”

Oh no you don’t, said Rasbach. “That is not true—he did not lie to anybody,” the director said of the congressional staffer. Rasbach said that the female officer put her hand down, directing the staffer to stop the performance. Indeed, the video shows that the choir was not allowed to finish, as you can see at the 2:26 mark in the video below…

After he had directed the choir to stop singing, Rasbach says he spoke to the female officer and asked her, “How do you think this is going to affect these children? Their first time visiting their Capitol and then they have this disappointment.” Her response, he claims: “She shrugged her shoulders, saying, ‘They sounded beautiful, but… They can go outside and sing.”

But wait! There’s more!

Continue reading

Ethics Zugzwang At CVS

I have a lot of pressing ethics posts on the metaphorical EA runway, but I have to get this one down while it is fresh in my mind.

Once again dealing with the pharmacy at CVS (no, the company never did respond to my complaint of rude and abusive treatment from last year; it just kept promising an investigation that never happened and a response that never came), I found myself waiting for prescription that I had been told was ready three days ago. An elderly woman sat down next to me, and started up a conversation: she was black, probably in her seventies, and less than four feet tall, with severely malformed legs.

I wanted so much to talk to her about her life. What was it like? What obstacles she must have overcome! Were most people kind and fair to her growing up? What prejudice and bigotry had she encountered? What was her view of humanity? Of America? Of race? Was she bitter, or did she have a positive view of the world? I would have loved to do an ethics podcast with her.

Yet there is no way, none, within current boundaries of etiquette, consideration, privacy and respect, to have such a conversation. All I could do is share my candy bar with her and chat amicably and emptily. She had, I think, a lot of wisdom to share that would help focus my ethics perception, yet there was no way to ethically unlock it. It was as rude to begin the conversation that I wanted to have as it was irresponsible to pass up the opportunity to have it.

“Dear April: No, Don’t Have Children. Your Letter Proves You Are Too Dumb To Be A Responsible Parent”

That would be my entire response to this recent query from “April” to Kwame Anthony Appiah, the ethics scholar whom the New York Times dubs “The Ethicist”(hold on to your skull; it almost blew mine):

I have always loved babies and children. I babysat throughout high school and college, and do so even now as a full-time engineer. My fiancé was drawn to me because of how much he appreciated my talent with and love for children. We have many little nieces, nephews and cousins whom we love but don’t get to see often. We also have always been clear with each other that we would try to have biological children soon after getting married.

That being said, my fiancé and I, who are both Generation Z, care deeply about the planet and painfully watch as scientists predict that the earth will reach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the 2030s. Is it selfish to have children knowing full well that they will have to deal with a lower quality of life thanks to the climate crisis and its many cascading effects, like increased natural disasters, food shortages, greater societal inequity and unrest?

We realize that a child’s very existence adds to our carbon footprint, but as parents we would do our best to foster an environmentally friendly household and try to teach our children how to navigate life sustainably. My fiancé says that because we are privileged as two working engineers in the United States, we can provide enough financial support to keep our children from feeling the brunt of the damage from climate change. Is it OK to use this privilege?

Continue reading

Ethics Dunce: Ireland

Boy, if Ireland thought they had mad cows before….

Ireland’s government is reportedly seriously considering plans to destroy 200,000 cows to meet its mandatory climate change targets from the nutsy-cuckoo European Union. Farmers will be offered financial inducements participate in the bovine holocaust. Thus the collateral damage of net zero emissions insanity, a sub-category of The Great Stupid, is extending to cows, just as AOC wants it to in her “Green New Deal.”

There shouldn’t be a lot to argue about here: killing 200,000 Irish cows now will have exactly no effect on the climate even if the most apocalyptic and hysterical scientific models are correct. It’s like the Biden and Obama killing pipelines: it’s just climate change theater and virtue-signaling, except that the pipeline decisions just killed jobs and brain cells of rational people thinking about them.

And yes, in this case, just seriously considering such an obviously wasteful policy is sufficient to justify Ethics Dunce honors even if ultimately rationality prevails. Even pondering such idiocy is signature significance, as when grandpa says, “Yeah, I was thinking about flapping my arms and flying out the window to visit Neverland, but decided it was too far away.” You call the rest home and double quick, even if Gramps had seemed lucid before.

Continue reading

Ethics Hero: ESPN Pundit Stephen A. Smith

Boy, that’s a headline I thought I’d never write! Smith was a major reason I dropped ESPN from our satellite package: here’s a typical post about his work. The kind of loud-mouthed opinionated jackass that I’d get up and move away from if he was holding forth near me at a bar, if Smith were a white pundit who talked about blacks the way Smith talks about whites, he would be fired mid-sentence. I still stand by the last thing I wrote about Smith in that post: “‘Ethics Dunce’ doesn’t really describe someone like Smith, an arrogant narcissist who feels entitled to inflame racial resentment and division while not only profiting from it, but complaining that he isn’t profiting from it enough. What is that? Maybe it’s just as simple as ‘asshole’.”

And yet…here we are. That video above is from Smith’s podcast, “The Stephen A. Smith Show.” In this case, the fact that Smith sees anti-black racism in all things actually helps. His bias, and he’s all bias, all the time, gives him credibility here. If anyone would be thrilled to excuse black culture malignancy by crying “systemic racism,” it would be Smith. Instead, the amazing number of shootings in Chicago over the Memorial Day Weekend prompted Smith to ask the black community: “When are we going to look at ourselves when it comes to black people being killed in the streets of America?”

Continue reading