Childhood and children

Ethics Villain and Fick Who I Fear Has Lots of Company: Christina Applegate

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Christina Applegate is touring to promote her memoir, “You With the Sad Eyes,” hot off the presses. The “Married With Children” star writes about her illness, multiple sclerosis, and also the abortion she had when she was 19.

“In late April 1991, I fell pregnant,” she writes. “I want to turn away from what happened, but it’s all recorded in my diary. There are moments in my life that are too painful to force into narrative or meaning, so I’ll let my voice from back then speak.” And she does:

“I love this being… I always felt that if I ever got pregnant when I knew it was the wrong time, I wouldn’t have any problem having an abortion. ‘Oh, whatever. It isn’t even a baby yet.’ That’s bullshit. This creature’s incredible — makes me feel whole, safe…I’m fucking pregnant, and I’m killing my child on Thursday. I’m thinking, ‘Where the fuck can I go to recuperate from murder?’…His family will hate me when they find out that I killed their family member because they don’t believe in it. But I can’t have this baby because I have work to do to entertain this fucking world. Besides, I can’t… now.”

Then she says hello and good-bye to the unborn child she is going to, in her own words, murder:

“Hello, little thing. I feel you every moment of my day. Such a tiny existence. Such an immense effect you have. You are a miracle. A tiny handed miracle. I love you, but you know your fate. It’s not your time. I know you didn’t make that decision, but it can’t be your time. You will live on, though. You will live through another. I hope you will forgive me… But mommy can’t be with you right now. But know she loves you — more than any other miracle.”

Pages: 1 2

On The Matter of a Murderer’s Insanity

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Conservative pundits seem to be having a problem with the fact that Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr., the homeless man who slaughtered Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte subway as her fellow riders pretended they were under the sea or something, has been declared incapable of standing trial and prosecutors have delayed his competency hearing by six months.

A horrified conservative writes on PJ Media in part:

“….because soft-on-crime authorities in Charlotte ensured he was always released on cashless bail after his 14 prior arrests, he was free to thrust his knife into a stranger on the subway. Unfortunately, woke medical and legal professionals continue to treat Brown as if he were the victim, a pitiable, crazy man with no responsibility for his actions, rather than as a serial criminal and sadistic killer. The new assessment that Brown is incompetent to stand trial could prevent trying him for the death penalty….”

Ethics Alarms has barely touched on the question of whether not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts (NGBRI) are ethical or even sensible. That’s a big failing, because this is one of the major ethics questions in criminal law, and one that is still unsettled. It may be beyond settling.

Pages: 1 2

Divisive?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”

Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.

Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….

I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”

That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?

In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”

Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.

[Pointer: JutGory]

Pages: 1 2

“The Ethicist” Slaps Down Manipulative Parenting

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

I was stunned that this question made it into “The Ethicist” column, but who knows: maybe it was a week light on difficult ethical dilemmas.

A mother who wanted to use Prof Appiah the way ethicists are often used in the consulting world—to back the client’s opinion after that individual has already made up his or her mind—wanted to be able to appeal to the professor’s authority in a family dispute. Her adult son is morbidly obese and she and her husband fear for his health. They want him to go on a chemical weight-loss regimen with Ozempic or the similar drugs, but he keeps getting fatter and fatter. Years ago, they bought a house for the son, and he is paying them back in monthly installments. Their plan is to waive the rest of the payments and give him the house now, but Big Boy’s father wants to condition their generosity on the son agreeing to use the drugs to lose weight.

An under-discussed sub-value on the Six Pillars of Character is autonomy, listed under the RESPECT pillar. That means allowing those we have contact with in out lives autonomy, and not using resources, power or emotional bonds to control the conduct and choices of others. To me, the answer to The Ethicist’s inquirer is an easy call, and I was pleased that his answer tracked with mine exactly.

Professor Appiah wrote,

Pages: 1 2

Update! “A ‘Great Stupid’ Court Case SO Stupid That It Makes “The Great Stupid” Look Almost Smart…”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The story that the great radio story-teller Paul Harvey would now tell us the rest of was the subject of the post below, from August 2024. As you will see, it made my head explode, but there has finally been a resolution, and ethics and common sense prevailed. Review the horrible case. Will voters really hand power back to the party that not only responsible for such things, but that still wants to establish them as our national standards? Really?

But I digress. Here is the original post, and I’ll add the recent developments at the end…

That crude, ambiguous drawing above got a first grader—we’re talking six-years-old here—suspended. That’s almost all you have to know for your head to explode if it is properly wired.

The Ethics Villains and Dunces are so thick in this fiasco you could use it to lay bricks. I’m almost embarrassed to tell the story, which I first saw at Reason…

In March of 2021, a first grader referred to as “B.B.” ” drew a picture we are told was intended to show people of different races, representing “three classmates and herself holding hands.” (I’d save the money the family was planning on spending on art school for B.B., if that was their intent.) Above the drawing, B.B. wrote “Black Lives Mater” (Latin!) with the words “any life” stuck in-between the slogan and the jelly beans, or whatever they were. B.B. then gave the drawing to a black classmate, as what B.B. testified was intended as a friendly gesture. But the classmate either ratted out B.B. or the principal was told about it by the teacher, or something (because school administrators don’t have anything better to do than to police the political correctness of kids’ drawings).

The school’s principal, Jesus Becerra, admonished B.B., saying that the drawing was “inappropriate.” B.B. was ordered to apologize to her classmate, prohibited from drawing any more pictures in school, and prevented from going to recess for two weeks.

Continue reading →

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Hero: Laura Hughes

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

The widow of high school teacher Jason Hughes, 40, who died during a student prank gone horribly wrong in Gainesville, Georgia, is demonstrating how some human beings can overcome anger, bitterness and the emotional need for retribution, choosing compassion and empathy instead.

Around 11 p.m. on March 6, Jordan Wallace, Elijah Tate Owens, Aiden Hucks, Ana Katherine Luque and Ariana Cruz, all 18-years-old, toilet-papered trees outside the Hughes’ home, a continuation of their school’s tradition of such pranks during exam week. As the group piled into two vehicles to flee, Jason Hughes ran out of his home to confront the teens, but tripped and fell into the road. Wallace, who had already begun speeding away in a pickup truck, accidentally ran over the prone teacher. The teens left their vehicles to render aid, but Hughes perished in the incident.

All five teens were charged with criminal trespassing and littering on private property; Wallace has has been charged with first degree murder as well as reckless driving.

Laura Hughes, who is also a teacher, is pleading with authorities to drop the criminal charges. “We ask that you continue to pray for our family and also for the students involved in the accident along with their families,” she said in a statement to reporters. “Please join us in extending grace and mercy to them as Christ has done for us…This is a terrible tragedy, and our family is determined to prevent a separate tragedy from occurring, ruining the lives of these students.”

The late father of two (above, next to his wife) wasn’t trying to angrily confront the pranksters but “was excited and waiting to catch them in the act,” Laura told the New York Times. Insisting that her husband was not pursuing the students to reprimand them but rather to express comradery with their innocently-intended prank. Hughes said that criminal punishment “would be counter to Jason’s lifelong dedication of investing in the lives of these children.”

First degree murder sounds like extreme over-charging by authorities. The entire episode is a blazing example of the caprices of moral luck. I agree that the students’ punishment should be left to the school if Laura Hughes doesn’t want to press charges. Ethics tells us that it is time to mitigate the damage, not to make the damage worse.

Apparently A Majority Of Younger Americans Think The U.S. Invented Slavery. I’ll See You At The Wood-Chipper…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

A few days ago, I saw a chart showing what U.S. demographics believed that the United States invented slavery. I noted it for a future post, and now I can’t find it, but I found plenty of authority that supports that assertion. Coleman Hughes, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and a fellow and contributing editor at their City Journal, has been making this point for years. Way back in 2016, The College Fix wrote in part,

For 11 years, Professor Duke Pesta gave quizzes to his students at the beginning of the school year to test their knowledge on basic facts about American history and Western culture.

The most surprising result from his 11-year experiment? Students’ overwhelming belief that slavery began in the United States and was almost exclusively an American phenomenon, he said.

“Most of my students could not tell me anything meaningful about slavery outside of America,” Pesta told The College Fix. “They are convinced that slavery was an American problem that more or less ended with the Civil War, and they are very fuzzy about the history of slavery prior to the Colonial era. Their entire education about slavery was confined to America.”…

The origin of these quizzes, which Pesta calls “cultural literacy markers,” was his increasing discomfort with gaps in his students’ foundational knowledge.

“They came to college without the basic rudiments of American history or Western culture and their reading level was pretty low,” Pesta told The Fix….

Often, more students connected Thomas Jefferson to slavery than could identify him as president, according to Pesta. On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three out of the 32 correctly identified him as president. Interestingly, more students— six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.

Pesta said he believes these students were given an overwhelmingly negative view of American history in high school, perpetuated by scholars such as Howard Zinn in “A People’s History of the United States,” a frequently assigned textbook.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Movie Star’s Daughter

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I have no idea what’s right or wrong in this scenario, so it makes an appropriate topic for an ethics quiz. The realm is high fashion and modeling. There are few things I know less about than those subjects. I’m kinda weak on metallurgy and thoracic surgery too.

That’s Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban’s daughter, Sunday Rose, above. The teen recently became the object of vicious social media scorn following her appearance at New York Fashion Week on February 13, 2026.

The 17-year-old’s big time modeling debut at a Calvin Klein show put her under a harsh spotlight. Many mocked her runway demeanor and declared that her qualifications for high-profile modeling opportunities consisted of famous parents and a movie-star mother, and nothing else. The central ethics issue is nepotism. One social media critic wrote, “Remember when models were stunning, unique and natural? Not just some celeb’s child.”

To be honest, no, I don’t remember when models were natural. Were they ever? Most of them look like freaks, with odd proportions that resemble newspaper drawings of women wearing dresses, and too many of them have looked like recent concentration camp escapees in make-up. But again, I don’t get the whole fashion thing, why it exists, or why anyone pays attention to it.

To my untrained eye, I see nothing about Sunday Rose (what an awful name!) that explains why she is a model except her Hollywood pedigree. Do you? She’s not particularly pretty, seems sullen, and resembles the original “Young Sherlock” in drag. See?

Some models resemble whomever that is with Young Sherlock…

But the real question is how to treat the children of the rich, famous and powerful fairly. Surely the fact that she is Nicole Kidman’s daughter shouldn’t prevent a young, talented, aspiring model from pursuing her dream, but how can unfair advantages be avoided? Nepotism is even more advantageous in Hollywood. Acting success is normally based more on luck and opportunity than stand-out talent, but the children of already established stars are born lucky.

Should they be blamed for accepting what their lineage hands them? Horror writer Joe Hill deliberately used a fake name on his first attempts to follow in his father’s footsteps (Dad is Stephen King) so he could be sure that his work was judged on its own merits. He’s an ethics hero for that, but the list of the offsprings of movie stars who used their names to get on screen and went on to respectable careers, sometimes even surpassing their parents, is too long to publish.

Still, if the the daughter of a movie star puts herself out in range of public judgment, is it unfair for critics to take aim? Does it change the question if she is only 17, like Sunday Rose?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

What is ethical treatment for the beneficiaries of nepotism in modeling or any other competitive field?

 

Ethics Quiz: Ethics Zugzwang From “The Ethicist”

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

This time, not only does “The Ethicist,” aka. Kwame Anthony Appiah, give a bad answer to a reader’s ethics advice request, but I agree with it. [Gift link here.]

That’s because I don’t have a better answer, and that’s because there is no good answer. They are all bad; terrible in fact. The reader is in ethics zugzwang, from the term common in chess commentary, a situation where a player has no good moves available, only disastrous ones.

But I’m making this an ethics quiz on the chance that one of you out there in Ethics Land may have better answer than either of us.

As usual, it’s the pesky “Name Withheld” writing (What messes that poor boob gets into, with new ones every week!),

“My wife and I recently became the legal guardians of a teenager, and we are struggling with how to ethically navigate the emotional complexities of this arrangement.

“We met this person through our children’s athletic community. They come from an extremely difficult situation involving neglect and emotional abuse. A year ago, we offered them our home temporarily. As we learned more about their circumstances, we decided to pursue legal guardianship until they turn 18. We have no familial ties — we simply wanted to offer stability, safety and a chance at a better future.

“From the beginning, we agreed with our ward that we would treat them as we treat our own children — same expectations, same privileges and full support. For a few months, this arrangement seemed to be working: Our ward’s grades improved, they joined family activities and outings and appeared to settle into the rhythm of our family life. Then, little by little, they withdrew from us, no longer spending time with the family, and started getting worse grades again.

“Our ward has indicated that we intervene too much in their life and has complained to others that we’re “suffocating.” We’ve made adjustments — offering alternative meal arrangements, allowing them to stay with trusted friends on occasion and making space for their independence. Still, the distance has widened.

“My wife and I are about to engage in therapy with our ward. I am not looking forward to it; I worry that even in that safe space, I will not take well the possible complaints and criticisms we may hear from them.

“What obligations do we have — beyond the legal ones that we’ll meet — to our ward, and to ourselves, as we navigate a painful emotional landscape? And what moral, economic and emotional obligations should we anticipate when they turn 18 and become independent with no real support network?”

Yikes.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

What is the most ethical course for the couple to take now?

All I can offer, at least this early in the morning before a shot of coffee into my jugular, is “No good deed goes unpunished!” Somehow I don’t think this desperate couple will appreciate Oscar’s wit in their current dilemma.

Comment of the Day: “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

What a joy to wake up this morning not only to a spectacular Comment of the Day, but also to a note from an MIA commenter who was last seen in these parts almost nine years ago! I welcome Lisa Smith back to Ethics Alarms with a well-deserved Comment of the Day honor, for her note on the post, “On Lincoln’s Favorite Poem, and the Poems’ We Memorize…”

(I couldn’t resist leading this off with one of two brilliant Charles Addams cartoon about “The Raven.” The other has Poe pondering as a raven, perching over his door, says, “Occasionally.”)

***

I don’t know – Poe’s Raven has one of my favorite lines; it isn’t at all profound, but it is profoundly delightful to speak and to allow to roll over the brain like a cool river. I memorized the entire poem when I was a teen in the late 70’s and can still recite it. (But for the life of me, I can’t remember the “new” neighbor’s names, even though they have been here five or six years. Their dog is Annie. My priorities are laid bare, I suppose.)

“And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain thrills me, fills me with fantastic terrors never felt before.”

There may be errors in there. I write it from memory alone. [JM: Pretty close! “And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain, thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before”]

Poetry makes equals of us all. From Bukowski to Shakespeare. They speak to each person in their own way.

Pages: 1 2