This should be expected, since the Times no longer practices ethics, shows much interests in it, or demonstrates that it understands what ethics is.
In a bizarre feature called “The Virtues of Being Bad,” 16 writers (I never heard of any of them, and I follow such things) wrote confessionals about their “guilty pleasures” of doing bad things, supposedly the only “bad” things they do. (In most cases, I doubt it.) Here is the annoying introduction…
“Mocktails and sunscreen, masking and mindfulness — for those of us who strive to be upright, responsible citizens, the constant reminders of various ways we ought to be good are all around us. They’re almost enough to make you forget the pleasures of being a little bit bad. We asked 16 writers — most of them respectable adults — about the irresponsible, immoral, indulgent things they do. Transgression has the power to teach us something about how we ought to live. But it’s also just … fun?”
I’ll briefly comment on the ethical logic—if any— being displayed in each of the 16 sections, rating the combination of unethical conduct described and rationalizing it in a public form from 0 (not unethical at all) to 5 (very unethical). I won’t mention the authors, because, frankly, I don’t care who they are. Any feature that confounds non-ethical considerations like “fun” with ethical conduct is too subversive and badly reasoned to generate anything but contempt. Along with the ethics score, I’ll also assign a jerk score to each of the authors, again from zero (not a jerk) to 5. Here we go with the first eight; 9-16 will be discussed in Part 2.
1. “Drunk lying.” This writer thinks getting smashed and telling lies about herself is charming and funny. “There is something irresistible about telling a big, wet, flapping, booze-induced lie to people (men) that you almost certainly will never see again.” Nice.
Unethical Conduct Score: 3. Jerk Score: 5.
2. “Eating Chick-fil-A.” The author says he usually “eats according to his morals” (yechhh) but even though the owner of the chain “was once quoted saying he believes in the ‘biblical definition of the family unit’ (The Horror!), opposes same sex marriage and the company gives to charities “with anti-LGBTQ stances, and even though the writer is gay, he eats there anyway because he likes the food. I’m sure this guy investigates the ownership and charitable giving practices of every company he does business with. Eating at Chick-fil-A isn’t unethical, immoral, or hypocritical, but saying it is shows the writer to be an intolerant, hyper political hypocrite who thinks virtue-signalling is ethical.
Unethical Conduct Score: 1. Jerk Score: 5.
3. Shoplifting. Yes, this writer, who lists his name, says, “Whenever I’m at the airport, I like to do a little shopping at the Free Store. The Free Store is any establishment that leaves its permanently price-gouged wares unsecured on shelves unattended by underpaid and overharried employees.” As rationalizations for stealing go, this is worst than most. Kant would point out that if everyone behaved like this guy, those employees he cares about would be out of jobs. But referencing famous ethicists is pointless with someone like this; he doesn’t know anything about ethics. I wonder how many Times readers (and Times editors) agree with this “logic”? I don’t want to think about it.
Unethical Conduct Score: 5. Jerk Score: 5.
4. “Ordering from Amazon.” The writer, a ctypto-Marxist, hates Amazon for becoming wildly successful by developing a brilliant business model that sames consumers time and money, but uses it anyway “because it’s easy.” Ordering from Amazon because it makes sense is no more unethical than eating at Chic-fil-A because the food is tasty. This is just virtue-signaling again, seeking woke-points because the writer feels bad about doing something his mob disapproves of.
Unethical Conduct Score: 1. Jerk Score: 4.
5. “Doing Drugs” In this case, LSD. Breaking the law, boasting about it, and rationalizing with “I’ve been cutting down on caffeine and alcohol. I don’t have many vices left”?
Unethical Conduct Score: 5. Jerk Score: 5.
6. “Wearing polyester.” Yes, a fashion writer contributed this. I think he’s kidding. No score.
7. “Ozempic for vanity.” Ozempic is a diabetes drug, and doctors unethically prescribe it for weight loss, which is not its purpose, and for which it should not get insurance coverage. People like this writer, who illicitly obtain the drug to lose weigh, cause supply problems for diabetics, whose need for the drug is more urgent than “vanity.”
Unethical Conduct Score: 4. Jerk Score: 4.
8. “Playing gory video games“
Unethical Conduct Score: 0. Jerk Score: 0.
[Notice of Correction: For some reason, I originally posted the wrong score here. It was always supposed to be 0 and 0. I apologize to all gamers out there.]
Ethics Alarms 
How did the fashion editor with a sense of humor get included in this group of awful humans?
I was thinking what I would write, if my editor assigned me to contribute to this wreck. I would probably respond with humor also. I imagine the fashion writer in this case may be an unwilling participant.
No explanation why playing gory video games is so high on both scales?
seconded? I am a jerk for playing such video games? I am befuddled….
ARRGH! That was a mistake, and I have no explanation. It was supposed to be a zero score on both ratings, and I thought it WAS until I read your comment! Fixed.
Yes-–the explanation is that I screwed up, how and why, I don’t know. Fixed. I apologize.
I know what happened! I copied the previous score line from #7 and was going to change the numbers, got distracted, and forgot to finish when I decided that it was too long a post to do in one take, and decided to have a Part 2.
I’m an idiot.
Jack,
You are not an idiot.
You are just human.
Regarding #2, here in Chicago 3 times within the last 2 years we have had to complain to the administration at our kids’ school because a teacher at their school (on his/her own, or in echoing another student’s comments) crapped on Chick-fil-A for allegedly being anti-LGBT. The administrators agree with us and try their best, but those teachers don’t give a crap because the union will protect them. It’s sickening because their logic is essentially that if you’re kissed the alphabets’ backends then you’re bigoted, “something”phobic and “literally” killing poor alphabets.
This just came up on a FB group of middle-aged to older women I’m in. One of us posted a pic of a Chick-Fil-A bag and said they’d finally tried it, and loved it. We were all chatting about our CFA favorites (it was a slow day) and one person commented that they should go to another chain, as it’s better , and ‘without the homophobia’.
Here’s my comment. Tell me if I’m off on this. It seems to be ‘100% agreement or cancellation’ out there.
‘That you know of.
People will never agree 100% on any issue, and that includes LGBTQ. It’s why we have 300 flavors of ice cream and 50 flavors of yogurt in the supermarket. Even in the smallest of things, 100% agreement is rarely achieved. Some people are viscerally put off by the thought of same sex relations, as people can be put off by other sex acts. Everybody has things in that area that are either yay or nay, cis, gay, or not.
When the ‘CFA is homophobic’ flap started, the CEO was 94. Think of the views people in his age bracket were steeped in growing up. My Dad was born in 1930. While he wasn’t anti-LGBTQ, he told me he was taught to revile gays . He made up his own mind to reject those teachings. My point is what they were overwhelmingly taught in that era, and earlier. I had a couple of cousins (great aunts’ sons, two young men) who were banished from their families for being gay, one in the 50’s, one in the 70’s.
People’s thoughts are people’s thoughts, and hopefully unspoken (as attacks on individuals) in the case of being anti-LBGTQ . In the 50’s nearly 0% of Americans thought that being LGBTQ was Ok. Now it’s 71%. A huge change in a couple of generations! 71% leaves us 29% who range from mild discomfort to outright hate. While we can get those numbers up, 100% will not be possible. 100% agreement is rarely possible. What MUST be 100% is *civility* to everyone in the LGBTQ community. 100% civility, and those private ‘Ew gross’ thoughts staying firmly in people’s skulls. I can guarantee you that there are people in any retailer that are in that 29%. They just haven’t been exposed.
If Chick-FIL-A does not discriminate in hiring or their scholarship program, they are doing their corporate duty. As long as they do not force their views on their employees, they can have their thoughts and beliefs. Thought crime prosecution is not a thing I want to see come to pass. Punish bigoted actions. The flap was not about how they run their company or treat their employees, but what people dug up on who they (personally) donate to. Chik-Fil-A is simply a convenient , visible punching bag, whose owners are openly Christian, and are in the South. These days, being Southern and Christian is already grounds for discrimination against you. It’s just another kind of bigotry.’
Not my best writing by a long shot (I was on my way out the door) but I had reached my tipping point with anti-CFA comments on FB overall and wanted to say something before I headed out for the day.
It’s excellent, and spot on.
Thank you, because sometimes I wonder if I’m nuts.
Welcome to my world…
#7 I can’t speak to Ozempic for vanity — that sounds yucky. But how about Ozempic for a longer life? I have a close relative who is quite obese but is not diabetic. Losing even even 20-40 pounds would likely dramatically improve her quality of life, make it possible for her to get knee replacement surgery, which she desperately needs, and quite possibly keep her out of a nursing home. I intend to lobby her doctor to do everything she can to get her approved for those drugs, since they do seem to work for weight loss.
If that’s an unethical stance, I’ll have to live with it. I see everyday the awful effects of morbid obesity. It’s not pretty.
If it’s prescribed to those in true need, I agree with you. Older overweight women with osteoarthritis often suffer from insulin resistance and low thyroid function because they can’t exercise, and therefore can’t lose weight. I am not well-versed in the effects of these drugs beyond a few articles I’ve read, but as with your relative, if it can get them to a weight they’ll be approved for a knee replacement, that’s life-changing.
Regarding #5, I agree with the “5” score for both illegally taking LSD, and writing about it in a way that may encourage its use by others, but the “Jerk” score confuses me. I typically don’t consider something you do privately, that doesn’t involve others to be “Jerk”-worthy behavior. I would assume it a private vice that others wouldn’t know about having not written about it. Maybe a 2 score for “Jerk”, only because now his coworkers know the writer is a recreational drug user. Unethical, but private (until now) behavior.
But advertising your unethical behavior in a major newspaper isn’t “private.”
“I’m sure this guy investigates the ownership and charitable giving practices of every company he does business with. Eating at Chick-fil-A isn’t unethical, immoral, or hypocritical, but saying it is shows the writer to be an intolerant, hyper political hypocrite who thinks virtue-signalling is ethical.”
I had this exact conversation recently on the topic of J.K. Rowling – An entire generation of Alphabetians grew up so enamored with her works that the meme around 2010 was “read another book”, they hadn’t evolved into calling everyone Nazis yet, and wouldn’t for another good 4-5 years, so they had to make tortured “-who-must-not-be-named” references or the like. Then Rowling came out, relatively gently, against trans identification for the purpose of shelters and prisons and the push to normalize calling women by their body parts and I haven’t seen an audience turn so drastically ever before in my life. To this day, I believe that part of the toxicity they display towards Rowling isn’t out of a sense of any kind of proportionality, but because they feel betrayed. She was one of theirs, they don’t allow for much disagreement, and certainly not on certain subjects, and so she has to be othered, lest other people lose the faith. They have to start calling her names (and by this point, they’d discovered “Nazi” and “Fascist”), attribute the worst to her in every situation, and burn all the books that previously gave them joy, and for which she’s already been paid.
Meanwhile, they’re removing from their life something that brought them some amount of joy. Much too much joy, for some of them. But an amount of joy.
How far down the rabbit hole does one go? It’s hard to avoid the knowledge that Rowling is a relatively polarizing figure right now (although perhaps only among a very small audience of terminally online people, if you look at the recent success of Hogwarts Academy), but look at your bookshelves, look at your knickknacks, look at the music you listen to, the food you eat, the vendors you shop from, and I’m sure that you can find something morally objectionable. Where is the line? How far do you walk down that rabbit hole before you’re absolutely miserable and joyles…. Oh shit, I think I just figured these guys out.
You know, there are several songs I listen to where I vehemently disagree with the lyrics. Why do I listen to these songs? Well, they’re nifty tunes and they are enjoyable to listen to.
Just because I enjoy listening to a song doesn’t mean I endorse the sentiments it purportedly poses. Just because I enjoy reading a book doesn’t mean I endorse the author’s personal views. I might or might not. It just means he or she is a good writer. Maybe that’s too low a bar, but there it is.
I feel sorry for people who don’t have the intellectual capacity or flexibility to realize that the whole world does not have the same mindset.
Their loss.