“The Ethicist” Gets A Genuinely Hard Question…And I Don’t Like His Answer

This time, I’d like to concentrate on the answer “The Ethicist” gave to a question more than the question itself. Prof. Appiah was asked by a woman (or man) who had been sexually molested by his (or her) father whether it was time to finally inform family members about the abuse, now that this son or daughter has decided to cease contact with the father for other reasons as well as the obvious one. He or she says the mother and siblings think the decision to cut off Dad is cruel, and that the father should have a chance to make amends—but they don’t know the whole story.

“If I were to share these details with my mother, I’d risk destroying a decades-long marriage in a single conversation,” the inquirer writes. “If I were to tell my siblings, I’d do irrevocable damage to their relationship with our father. Should I continue my silence to protect the rest of my family from emotional harm? Or do I owe it to them to tell them the truth? As I write this, I’m also painfully aware that if I break my silence, he will try to manipulate them into believing that none of this is true, that I’m delusional — he has done it successfully before.”

I’m not a nuanced kind of person regarding situations like this. My reaction: The truth shall set you free. Would I want to know if my spouse or father was a monster? Absolutely. That the information would be painful doesn’t mean I’d rather live in contrived ignorance. The writer has no obligation to protect his father, and it’s not protecting the mother or siblings to enable a lie.

Here’s the philosophy professor’s answer, in a few bite-size chunks:

“Now, an immediate issue is whether your father could be in a position to repeat his crimes with other children — that there aren’t others suffering in silence. If that’s the case, staying silent isn’t an option. You don’t raise this as a concern, but you need to be confident that it isn’t one.” 

And how exactly could that confidence be justified? It can’t be. The writer has already stated that this man has managed to fool his entire family for decades. The rest of “The Ethicist’s” answer is superflous: “staying silent isn’t an option.” A man who molested his own child isn’t trustworthy, and never can be.

Suppose you told him that you’ll keep quiet if he tells the family that he accepts that you don’t want to see him owing to a serious wrong he did to you. The problem is that questions would arise about the nature of that wrong, and that he may not be willing to deal with them. Nor is it obvious that keeping the details vague would leave your parents’ relationship intact. Besides, your father doesn’t sound like the sort of person who could be talked into taking responsibility.

Never mind that: bargaining with the damaging information comes to close to extortion for my ethics alarms.

Even if you reveal the truth, he may be confident, rightly or wrongly, that he can get people to believe you’re not to be trusted.

So what? Don’t be a weenie. Tell the truth, and if the family chooses to believe the abuser, that’s their problem, and their tragedy.

Whatever you decide, though, you shouldn’t be motivated by the thought that you owe this truth to anyone. It’s not that there isn’t reason to care that they know the truth. Many people in your family have relationships predicated on ignorance. They might even feel, were it to come out, that you should have told them before, precisely because we want to live a life in which our important relationships are not based on a failure to understand what our intimates are like.

Yet these reasons to disclose what happened don’t impose a duty on you of doing so. You may judge that they are outweighed by the fact that sharing the truth will cause pain and disruption to many lives without doing enough compensating good. Nor are you obliged to subject yourself to the pain and disruption that your father’s manipulations may bring you.

I disagree completely. There is no duty owed to the father to keep the ugly truth from the family, but the family has a right to know.

“Which brings me to my final thought: Taking measures to protect your well-being isn’t selfish when you are, objectively, the wronged and wounded party. Will your well-being be best protected by your admittedly painful policy of steering clear of both your father and the tumult of disclosure?…”

“It’s OK to be a coward if that’s the easiest path for you.” Again, I disagree.

The last point I have to make is that I doubt very much that the mother doesn’t know about the abuse. Spouses of child-abusing parents almost always either know or are in denial.

I Wonder: Does the New York Times Know That Carol Moseley Braun Isn’t A Persuasive Argument For The Intrinsic Diversity Value of Black Female Senators?

Or does it know but doesn’t want its readers to know?

The Times headline must have been labored over intensely to come up with a phrasing that didn’t read immediately as racially biased, since what is being described is racial bias, if standard “good” racial bias : “Democrats Aim for a Breakthrough for Black Women in the Senate.” The “breakthrough” is electing black women rather than white women or men, meaning that the party is declaring a preference for candidates based on gender and color. Funny, that was called bigotry when I was a lad. But black women are better than white women or any kind of man. Or they deserve success and power more. Or something: I better read my DEI manual again.

But never mind: it was the beginning of the article that struck me like a John Wayne punch in the jaw:

Carol Moseley Braun, one of only two Black women to have been elected to the Senate in U.S. history, was in Paris on Wednesday when she was informed that another Black woman, Angela Alsobrooks, had won the Democratic nomination for an open Senate seat in Maryland.

“Praise the Lord,” she said with relief and surprise. “That’s wonderful.”

…“It’s been a long time coming,” said Ms. Moseley Braun, who became the first Black female senator when she was elected from Illinois in 1992 and now serves as chairwoman of the United States African Development Foundation. The second, from California, is now the vice president, Kamala Harris. A third, Laphonza Butler, Democrat of California, was appointed to fill a vacant seat, but is not running for re-election.

Ah, Carol Moseley Braun! (That’s her above.)The first, “historic” black female Senator was, not to beat around the bush, a serial crook, protected by the corrupt Democratic establishment under Bill Clinton, and now by the New York Times, because anything that undermines the DEI, “good discrimination” narrative isn’t news “fit to print,” or in this instance, history fit to print.

Continue reading

I Hate to Say “I Told You So,” But I Told You So: Tucker Carlson Had Shown Himself To Be Exactly What Ethics Alarms Said He Was…

… a smug, narcissistic, ethics-challenged, unprincipled, Machiavellian demagogue who helps pollute our civic discourse rather than enhance it. Of course, Tucker had already proved that, but because he was fairly articulately bloviating cherished right-wing talking points and arguments every night on his top-rated Fox News show, conservatives and Republicans were blinded to his rather obvious flaws. (Do I have to post the Cognitive Dissonance Scale again? Nah, I’ll just link to the tag this time…)

Upon the arrival of Carlson’s 100th show since Fox News fired him (one more example of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons), several publications have noted that Carlson’s focus has descended into cheap tabloid territory as he desperately seeks publicity, clicks and eyeballs. Of course he has. Carlson doesn’t need the money (he’s a trust fund kid and has a net worth estimated at $30 million); he could easily maintain whatever integrity he had and present serious, useful analysis from the conservative side on whatever platform he used as he waits for his Fox contract to run out. Nah, he wants fame and power. Sooooo….(From Unherd)

Continue reading

So It’s Come To This: A Brief But Depressing Addendum To “In the Hallowed Halls of Congress, Ethics Dunces, Dolts, and Disgraces All Around”

In the comments to the previous post regarding the juvenile incivility and playground level exchanges of insults in the House of Representatives last week, Chris Marschner notes in part,

“Today, our representatives are products of our public education system where the original classics have been banned for being offensive to one group or discarded as irrelevant to current society. Linguistic presentations today reflect the gutter because that is how the teachers they had speak.’

Last night, before Chris issued his comment, I had already resolved to write about the following revolting development:

In a new episode of “Blue Bloods,” the long-running CBS police and family drama that Ethics Alarms awarded “Ethical TV Show of the Year” several times back when I was doing such things, the show concluded with Erin ( Bridget Moynihan), the NYC prosecutor and police commissioner Tom Selleck’s daughter, making an erection joke. At Sunday dinner. And not even an original or particular funny one.

The discussion around the dinner table of this devout Catholic extended family—where grandpa constantly reminds the brood to “keep it civil”—involved the fifth wedding anniversary of youngest son Jamie (Well Estes) and his policewoman wife. The group noted that traditionally this was the “Wooden” anniversary. Erin then asked, “So, Jamie, are you up to giving her wood?”and punctuated her witticism with a suggestive upward arm thrust.

Hearty laughter all around.

I look forward to next season, when Sunday dinner is disrupted by Grandpa (Len Cariou) loudly farting during dessert.

How can anyone still argue, as I have many times, that Donald Trump is too crude to be President?

In the Hallowed Halls of Congress, Ethics Dunces, Dolts, and Disgraces All Around

A House Oversight Committee meeting was pondering whether Attorney General Merrick Garland be held in contempt of Congress when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), responded to a question from Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) by saying, “I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading.” Stay classy, MTG! (In truth, MTG has never been classy). “That is absolutely unacceptable,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez interjected, proving that she’s not wrong all the time. “How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person?”

Greene then turned her wit, such as it is, on AOC, asking, “Are your feelings hurt?” “Oh, girl? Baby girl,” Ocasio-Cortez replied, trying hard to sink to the ridiculous Republican’s level, “Don’t even play.” Then Greene asked Ocasio-Cortez, “Why don’t you debate me?,” and AOC snapped back, “it’s pretty self-evident.”

I wonder what she was referring to? Jean Kerr once wrote that it was folly to argue with a six-year-old because you would inevitably start sounding like one.

“You don’t have enough intelligence,” shot back Greene, eschewing the more sophisticated, “I’m rubber and you’re glue” bon mot.

Continue reading

Cornell’s Fleeing President Shows Why Trump’s Much Condemned Statement That “Any Jewish Person That Votes For Biden Does Not Love Israel And Frankly Should Be Spoken To” Was Substantially Correct

Substantially correct, but rhetorically sloppy and needless inflammatory….in other words, typical of Trump.

Martha Pollack announced earlier this month that she will step down as the president of Cornell, running neck-and neck-and -neck-and neck with the other Ivy League indoctrination camps in seeding anti-white hate and anti-Semitism. She championed the Democratic Party led race-focused DEI initiative at Cornell in the wake of a non-racial incident in which a bad cop hastened the demise of a life-time petty perp and addict overdosing and resisting arrest in Minnesota. This, in turn, led to targeting of Jewish and pro-Israel students, to such an extent that Jewish students felt unsafe and threatened on their own campus; one student was charged with seriously threatening a Jewish massacre. Pollack has been weak and enabling toward the pro-terrorists even for an Ivy League president, resulting in terrible publicity for the school and many millions in lost donations.If she was “doing what she thought was right,” she didn’t even have the guts to follow-through on her misguided agenda: perhaps seeing the proverbial writing on the wall, she’s quitting before she can be fired.

But in the grand tradition of weenies and cowards everywhere, now that she is immune from consequences, Pollack took one last, disgusting swipe at her victims, praising the Hamas-supporting demonstrators in an email released on May 14. As Cornell professor William Jacobsen correctly noted, the message  amounted to gaslighting. “The entire statement was demeaning and insulting, except to the anti-Israel protesters,” he wrote. It praised the students who threatened the Jews on campus and expressed “gratitude” that the demonstrations weren’t worse. The missive to the campus read in part:

Continue reading

Stop Making Me Defend Justice Alito!

Ugh. The old “public officials are responsible for keeping their wives in line” canard, which for some reason is only applied to conservatives by the mainstream news media. Or we could file this under “Hail Mary attempts to get the Supreme Court’s conservative Justices to recuse themselves so SCOTUS won’t strike down the totalitarian Left’s conspiracy to “get” Donald Trump by any means necessary, and law, ethics and democracy be damned.”

A New York Times headline yesterday shouted, “At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display.” Wow, what symbol was that? It was an upside-down American flag, seen flying over (much reviled, almost as much as Clarence Thomas) Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s house for a few days in January 2021. Because the flag was up in the period between the January 6 riot at the Capitol Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Times infers that the flag meant that Alito thinks the 2020 election was stolen from former President Trump.

Of course the Times dredged up some unethical ethics experts to deceive their readers about the seriousness of this. “Judicial experts said in interviews that the flag was a clear violation of ethics rules, which seek to avoid even the appearance of bias, and could sow doubt about Justice Alito’s impartiality in cases related to the election and the Capitol riot,” writes the Times, ostentatiously avoiding mentioning the names of the experts who said, as I would have, “What? This is nothing!”

“It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Professor Amanda Frost at the University of Virginia law school. This is “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases,” she said.

Uh, no it’s not, but that analysis is the equivalent of the professor wearing an “I am a partisan hack!” sign on her forehead.

Continue reading

Friday Open Forum: Try To Be More Astute Than The Washington Post (It Won’t Be Difficult)

Before turning the stage over to all of you (on Fridays “all” is hyperbole), I have to let you gawk at this, smoking gun evidence 1) of why I stopped getting the Post delivered to my front lawn; 2) that bias makes you stupid, and by “you” I mean especially Trump-Deranged Washington Post pundits; and 3) that the mainstream media thinks Americans are morons. Note the giggly, lowest common denominator tone of this piece of junk.

This is a gift article from me, meaning you don’t have to pay for it like I do. Its title is “How in the world is Trump’s trial not hurting him?” How in the world can even Washington Post Trump-hating columnists ask such a stupid question?

Well, you can muse on that mystery if you choose. I have a Serbian/Canadian podcast on conflicts of interest to do, and no, I’m not joking.

Ethics Quiz: The NFL Kicker’s Commencement Speech

Only in the age of social media, mandatory conformity, and militant political correctness would a conservative Catholic commencement address at a tiny conservative Catholic Benedictine College, in Atchison, Kansas about 50 miles northwest of Kansas City, turn into a national controversy. Oops, I don’t want to bias the ethics quiz: forget the way I phrased that.

Harrison Butker of the Kansas City Chiefs, the place-kickers for the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs, was invited to give the Commencement speech for the 2024 graduating class, seemingly an odd choice, but then maybe not. Butker had been outspoken the Cathodic Church in recent years, and I strongly suspect that he delivered exactly what the leadership of Benedictine College was seeking at the ceremony last weekend.

To gauge the reactions on social media and elsewhere, however (it sure sounded like his speech was well-received by the students) you would think his address was from the fiery depths of Hell, as if he had supported Hamas terrorism or anti-Semitism or something. He was roundly attacked on Instagram, TikTok and Twitter/”X.” About 125,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for the Chiefs to fire the kicker; typical progressives: if you don’t espouse their views and support their agendas, then you don’t deserve to make a living. The reliably despicable NFL felt it had to oppose the player’s statements, as if anyone thought he was speaking for the league rather than for himself. “Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity,” Jonathan Beane, the NFL’s senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, said in a written statement. “His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.” Naturally, the most corrupt and hypocritical league in sports felt it had to pander to the woke, and do so by uttering the magic word, “inclusion,” thereby falsely suggesting that Butker advocated exclusion. Best of all, Kansas City used its official social media account to reveal Butker’s residence, doxxing him. Nice. The city is sorry though. That will do him a lot of good when someone burns his house down.

I could quote the sections that has the Angry Left on the warpath—can I say that?—but instead I’m going to publish the whole speech. Then I’ll ask the Ethics Quiz question, and give my answer, abut which I feel strongly. Here is the speech:

Continue reading

Never Mind the “Unethical Quote” Part, This Is Conclusive Evidence That NYC Mayor Eric Adams Is An Idiot

At his weekly news conference two days ago, talking about New York City’s shortage of lifeguards for its public pools as the simmer months approach, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said,

“How do we have a large body of people that are in our city and country that are excellent swimmers and at the same time we need lifeguards? The only obstacle is that we won’t give them the right to work to become a lifeguard.”

He really said this. He did! I wouldn’t lie to you about something like that. That’s what the mayor of New York City said, and he wasn’t joking.

After the predictable response (well, Adams apparently is incapable of predicting it, but almost everyone with their cerebrum installed properly would be), the mayor’s attempt at “walking back” his idiocy only raised more doubts about his intellectual fitness (or rather, eliminated them). Adams suggested that illegal immigrants (he called them “migrants,” which doesn’t change what they are) could fill other key jobs in the city, in nursing and food service , for example. “Why people want to just hang onto swimming when I listed that we need to allow people to work,” he said. “Let people work.”

  • Yup, let’s allow people to break our laws and defy our immigration procedures, and be rewarded for it. Good plan! Why should any American respect our laws when elected leaders like Adams take that position? Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) asked: “Do other Democrats like Joe Biden think breaking the law is qualification for employment in our country?” Why yes, Marsha, they do.
  • Somebody explain to the mayor that attaching any skill or characteristic to an entire group is at the core of stereotyping and bigotry. May I assume that Adams, as a black man, has great rhythm and can play a mean banjo?
  • Q: Since apparently wading or swimming across the Rio Grande is regarded as a career credential, why don’t our DEI obsessed Ivy League colleges extend swimming scholarships to these talented and buoyant “visitors”?
  • A: Because “not drowning” doesn’t make someone an “excellent swimmer.”

The signature significance test: Would any public figure who isn’t an idiot say this in a public forum, even once, without intending to be funny?

I don’t think so.