Family

Friday Open Forum, God Save The King Edition

/ Jack Marshall / 28 Comments

As usual, a tour of the U.S. by a major head of state is causing a news stir and ethics issues. Perhaps nothing will ever top the uproar over Nikita Khrushchev’s visit during the Kennedy administration, when Nikita wanted to go to Disneyland and Walt wouldn’t let him in. President Trump has been on good behavior with King Charles and didn’t even slam the monarch on Truth Social after Charles delivered a number of subtle shots at Trump during his speech before Congress.

What is it about the royal family that makes so many Americans go all weak in the knees? My father strenuously objected to it, saying more than 50 years ago that the U.S. public should treat Great Britain’s kings, queens, princes and princes as what they are: embarrassing relics of a feudal system that we rejected and that should have died out in the 18th Century. He said he wouldn’t cross the road we lived on (Brunswick Road, Arlington—it had a “dead end” sign on each end) to greet any of them.

Dad would have probably approved of Mayor Mamdani’s brush off regarding King Charles, as when asked what he would say to the king if the two spoke, answered, “I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond.” That’s one of the crowns jewels.

Meanwhile, there is much to talk about in the Wide, Wide World of Ethics. So talk, already…

Now THAT’S Nepotism!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

The Philadelphia Phillies (that’s a baseball team, for those of you tragically unschooled in the Great American Pastime) have fired manager Rob Thomson and named former Yankee star and past major league manager Don Mattingly as interim manager.

The Phils are off to a terrible start, especially for a team that has been a World Series contender for four years and was supposed to be one this season. Firing a manager in April, especially a skipper as successful as Thomson has been, is rare indeed, but the Boston Red Sox just did it. Baseball teams are like that: they tend to get caught up in fads. With this firing, many think the New York Mets will follow suit and fire that team’s manager. The Mets, another expected contender with a huge payroll, have been worse than either Boston or Philly. It may also be germane that all three cities are infamous for having impatient and unforgiving fans.

But I digress. Here is the issue: Don Mattingly is an experienced manager and was Thompson’s bench coach, essentially the in-game strategy consultant. He would make perfect sense as Thomson’s replacement, except for one fact…

Mattingly’s son Preston is the Philadelphia Phillies general manager.

That’s Don on the left and Preston on the right above.

Stop Making Me Defend Jimmy Kimmel (AGAIN)!

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

The latest unfair conservative assault on Jimmy Kimmel led me to do a quick survey of all the Ethics Alarms “Stop Making Me Defend X” posts. With this one, Jimmy indeed becomes the leading non-political figure in number of SMEDX entries, with three. I bet you can guess the leader in the political figure category: yes, it’s Donald Trump. (In second place is Joe Biden.)

President Trump was the subject of the very first such post, way back in 2015 when I was writing a “Letting Donald Trump be President is like letting a chimp pilot a passenger jet” post almost weekly. The list of figures (and sometimes other things) that have prompted rueful defenses here is a rogues gallery: Kathy Griffin, Robert De Nero, Bill Maher, Bill and Hillary, Eric Swalwell, Eric Adams, Chris Cuomo…the most recent was Jeff Bezos, just a week ago. The previous SMEDX effort in defense of ABC’s disgusting late night host was last September. I began it like this, quoting my first defense of this asshole in 2017, and I wouldn’t change a single word today:

“I detest Jimmy Kimmel. I loathe him. He is the most revolting of all the Left-Licking late night and cable progressive comics, worse than Colbert, Maher, Samantha Bee, all of them. All of them combined. He is an ongoing blight on the ethics of American society, and yet he is self-righteous in the process.’ My opinion of Kimmel has, if anything, deteriorated since I wrote that.”

However, the current conservative pundit, website and MAGA attacks on Kimmel as the symbol of Axis hate-rhetoric that irresponsibly encourages Trump Deranged assassins is completely unfair. (So are the attacks on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his “total war” statement.)

On his show last week, Kimmel was riffing on what he might say if he were the MC at the upcoming White House Correspondents’ Dinner. “Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said. Of course Kimmel didn’t know that there would be an assassination attempt that night. But more importantly, there was nothing violent about the joke at all. In fact, it was well-constructed; the line can be interpreted in several ways, but taking it to be referring to Trump’s assassination is not among them.

Melania is considerably younger than her husband: in an earlier era, she would be called a “trophy wife.” I think I may have heard a wag make nearly that same joke decades ago when I attended a trial lawyers association convention. The number of decrepit antediluvian millionaire lawyers with gorgeous 20- or 30- something women on their arms was fairly revolting. Kimmel’s joke could have easily been made about the late professional bimbo Anna Nicole Smith when she married, at 26, an 89-year-old billionaire. Remember?

I can see why the First Lady was insulted by the innuendo (a bit “too close to the bone”), and, taking a cue from her husband, exploited Kimmel’s bad luck to pounce on Jimmy the way Jimmy pounces on the President literally every night his show airs. Nonetheless, it was unethical. “Tit for tat,” revenge and deliberate mischaracterizations are still unethical no matter how much the target “has it coming.”

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s ‘Bimbofication’ Scandal'”

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Not only was this Comment of the Day a sharp analysis of a weird story: I learned about “The Lavender Scare.” under President Eisenhower.

Here is our Netherlands correspondent Cees Van Barnveldt’s COTD on the post, “Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s ‘Bimbofication’ Scandal'”...

***

I am not going to milk the hypocrisy on the side of the Democrats angle here, except to says that a member of a party that celebrates people like Admiral Rachel Levine as Assistant Secretary of Health, and Sam Brinton as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition and transgenderism in general should be ethically estopped from ridiculing Bryon Noem for his particular sexual interests. You cannot explain to me that transgenderism is normal and acceptable, and Bryon Noem’s sexual interests are not.

In the 1950s there was a Lavender Scare, in which LGBTQ+ people were disqualified from working for the U.S Federal Government. President Dwight Eisenhower signed EO 10450, which defined “sexual perversion” as a security risk (blackmail), leading to the firing of over 10,000 employees. Intense investigations involving lie detector tests and interviews with families and neighbors were launched to identify gay and lesbian employees; those who were not cleared in these investigations were forced to resign. EO 10450 was rescinded under President Obama.

Sexual morals have liberalized since the 1950s. The election of Ronald Reagan as POTUS ended divorce as a disqualifier for high office in elections. The Bill Clinton impeachment fiasco settled issues as well: consensual sinful sexual conduct is not a disqualifier for the Presidency. That settled the matter for conservatives too: popular politicians do not have to resign for extramarital affairs and other sins. Trump as POTUS is supported by conservative Christians despite his colorful marital and sexual past. Elon Musk has 14 children with multiple women, which did not disqualifying from DOGE. Scott Bessent as Secretary of Treasury is openly gay. Many do not see transgenderism as a kink or perversion anymore, disqualifying a person from office (Rachel Levine). So why is Bryon Noem’s interest in cross dressing a matter of ethical concern? Shouldn’t we simply see this issue as a personal matter, only of interest to the Noem family?

One of the main reason the issue is raised is that the Noem family professes to be evangelical Christians. The double life of both Bryon and Kristi Noem violates Biblical morals. Kristi had a longstanding extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski, which I think was an ethics issue due to the work relationship of Kristi and Corey. Many were surprised that husband Bryon, who was fully aware of the affair, did not file for divorce. Did he not have any self respect? Was he tied to Kristi with golden handcuffs? Did he perhaps have a cuckold fetish? Now we know what was happening. Bryon quietly quit the marriage a long time ago, indulging in his own sexual interests. And Kristi knew about it, and did not care. This is not the picture of a Christian marriage. But not living up to Biblical norms does not make it an ethics issue in a society that has said farewell to Christian sexual ethics.

Ethics Observations On Byron Noem’s “Bimbofication” Scandal

/ Jack Marshall / 40 Comments

Bryon Noem, the husband of recently fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, was revealed to be fond of dressing up in women’s clothing, often with massive fake breasts, while paying to interact with others portraying “bimbos,” the Daily Mail reported in a “scoop” that appears to be well-sourced.

His wife issued a statement to the New York Post saying she was “devastated” and her family was “blindsided.” President Trump only commented that he felt badly for the family and that his former DHS head’s husband’s odd hobby was “news to him.”

Predictably, the revelation, which 56-year-old Byron Noem has not denied, thrilled progressives, who pointed to his wife’s alleged hypocrisy in opposing LGBTQ rights, and horrified conservatives, who are as kinky as anyone else but don’t like admitting it.

What’s going on here?

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

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.

Oh Canada! The Government Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia Slippery Slope…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments
@the.free.press

One out of every 20 deaths in Canada is now caused by the government’s assisted suicide program. What’s even more shocking is how fast the deaths are approved.

♬ original sound – The Free Press – The Free Press

It is reassuring to know, at least for me, that the ethics issues EA has been most adamant about continue to inspire the same analysis from me. On the topic of legal human euthanasia (assisted suicide), the position here hasn’t changed since the policy, now legal in Illinois, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey,New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington first began to spread. Gee, I wonder what those states have in common? Oh…right. An ideology that devalues life: that’s today’s progressive movement and its Democratic Party.

This toxic and corrupting culture holds that individual life is not precious, but rather is subordinate to the needs of the many. Letting people kill themselves, or, if necessary, allowing their families and care-givers to let them be killed, costs a lot less than letting the old, sick, depressed and poor try to hold on to every last minute of existence. Masquerading as individual “choice,” the versatile word that encompasses letting mothers snuff out burgeoning young life in their wombs for their convenience and career advancement, the right to have the government kill you quickly metastasizes into a cultural norm where autonomy, courage, fortitude, individualism and reverence for life erodes in the interests of affording a nanny state.

Euthanasia is a straight violation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative; it also, in cases where the object of this kind of “palliative care” is forced on victims, as it frequently is in Canada, a Golden Rule breach. The only ethical system it can be squared with is Utilitarianism, but only of the most brutal kind that was used as the justification for the mass murders under Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

I personally authorized the hospital pulling the plug on my 89-year-old mother when she lapsed into a coma after unsuccessful surgery. My father, who always told us that he would not be a financial or other kind of burden on his family, managed to die during a nap, also at 89, apparently by force of will. My ethical assessment of the Left’s fondness for assisted suicide has been aired frequently on Ethics Alarms, most thoroughly in a series of posts in September of 2019: The Euthanasia Slippery Slope: A Case Study, Comment Of The Day: “The Euthanasia Slippery Slope: A Case Study”, and Addendum: To “The Euthanasia Slippery Slope: A Case Study,” Hypothetical And Poll.

In the first post, I wrote, “I believe that permitting an individual to kill another with the victim’s consent is so ripe for abuse—Dr. Kevorkian comes to mind—that it crosses an ethical line that should be thick, black, and forbidding.  The alleged consent of the doomed can too easily be coerced or manufactured for the convenience of others.” That position hasn’t changed one whit.

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.