Examining Two Unethical Pathologies

The substacker “Holly Mathnerd,” not for the first time, has a well-written and interesting post about her reaction to a book by the “star” of a reality show I had never heard of and definitely never watched. Christine Brown Woolley’s memoir “Sister Wife: A Memoir of Faith, Family, and Finding Freedom,” released today, is about one of the “stars” of “Sister Wives,” a reality show that has been running for 15 years, including 20 seasons. The show centers on Kody Brown, a fundamentalist Mormon man with twelve children from three wives. His “family” dwells in what Holly calls a “polygamist house”with three apartments branching off a shared common space. That’s Kody above with one of his other wives.

Yikes.

I really don’t care about the details. Polygamy and polyamory (the same thing but without bothering with the marriages) are unethical; never mind the morality issues. Like adultery and prostitution, these are practices that undermine families, real marriages, subjugate women and harm children. Libertarians see nothing wrong with polygamy, or at least think it should be legal, which adequately tells you what’s wrong with libertarians.

I can’t imagine buying a book by a woman who voluntarily submitted to a polyamorous relationship and now wants to make money by writing about what a mistake it was. Gee, ya think? I put Woolley’s memoir in the same category as I would a book by someone who used to shoot nails into his head but who now realizes it was probably a mistake.

From Holly Mathnerd’s account, it seems like the better part of the book is its account of just how phony “reality” shows are, not that this should be a shock to anyone who is familiar with the genre. Holly writes in part,

“…The memoir also peels back the curtain on how fake “reality” really is. Watching the show, you’d think you were seeing the Browns’ daily life: family dinners, arguments, weddings, tears. But Christine makes clear that what you’re really seeing is a carefully curated product — sometimes scripted, sometimes manipulated, always edited with an eye toward what would get people talking on Twitter.

Kody, in particular, seemed to understand this instinctively. He weaponized the cameras. He would drop painful revelations on air — things Christine was hearing for the first time along with millions of strangers — and then claim that the wives couldn’t “control the narrative” because they weren’t “being honest enough.” Meanwhile, what they were really up against was the power of editing: hours of footage boiled down into forty-two minutes that could make anyone look like a saint, a villain, or an afterthought depending on what the producers wanted.

It reminded me of the gaslighting built into the whole setup. The audience was constantly asked to question its own eyes: “No, you didn’t see favoritism; you saw family unity. No, you didn’t see cruelty; you saw tough love. No, you didn’t see neglect; you saw the noble sacrifice of plural marriage.” Christine’s memoir blows a hole in that façade by admitting what fans always suspected: our eyes weren’t lying, the edit was….

Another benefit of the post was that the blogger introduced the term “parasocial relationship,” which I had never encountered before. She didn’t define it, but I looked it up: Google’s bot says that “a parasocial relationship is a one-sided, one-way connection in which an individual develops a strong sense of intimacy, familiarity, and emotional investment with a public figure or fictional character they don’t know personally. These relationships are common and often occur through media, such as television, social media, or podcasts, where an individual feels like they have a personal connection with the person or character on screen or in their feed. While these relationships can be a natural part of human behavior and even provide positive influences, they become unhealthy if they interfere with real-life interactions or daily functioning.” 

Good to know! You can read Holly’s post here….

I Guess, This Being An Ethics Blog, I Have To Post On “Coldplaygate.”

Social media has gone bonkers since last Wednesday night, when Andy Byron, the married CEO of New York-based software development company Astronomer, was caught by a “Kiss-cam” cuddling Kristin Cabot, the company’s head of human resources, on the Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert at Gillette stadium in Foxborough, Mass. When the two realized they were on camera, they went out of their way to look as guilty as possible, pulling apart, with her turning her back on the camera and him ducking out of view.

Morons. When you are caught beyond escaping, life competence dictates that you must have the presence of mind to maintain whatever shred of dignity you may have left. (Practice helps.) The couple’s futile efforts at a cover-up prompted Coldplay front man Chris Martin to say from the stage: “Either they’re having an affair or they’re very shy.”

Then the clip gained millions of hits on X, TikTok and Instagram, so it was easy to identify the illicit lovers. Astronomer announced that it had put Byron on leave, saying, “Astronomer is committed to the values and culture that have guided us since our founding. Our leaders are expected to set the standard in both conduct and accountability.” Over the weekend, Byron resigned.

The incident is an instant classic, which means people will remember it longer than the usual day-and-a-half. The Philadelphia Phillies made fun of the scandal by screening a video on the Jumbotron during Friday night’s game showing the team’s mascot Phillie Phanatic in an embrace with a fuzzy green companion. Commemorative merchandise, such as a sweatshirt bearing the legend “I TOOK MY SIDEPIECE TO THE COLDPLAY CONCERT AND IT RUINED MY LIFE” can be purchased online.

Ethics notes…

Continue reading →

An Unsolicited Letter From Ashley Madison…

Today this unwelcome turd turned up on my mailbox from a “Kerry Brad”…

Good morning!
What if I told you the typical Ashley Madison member isn’t a reckless playboy but a brown-haired engineer, a highly successful Virgo, and – more often than not – the eldest child in their family? New data from Ashley Madison, the discreet dating platform with more than 80+ million members worldwide, reveals a surprising reality about who’s engaging in non-monogamy – and it’s not who you might expect.

The numbers tell a fascinating story:

  • More than one-third (33%) of respondents say they’re happy in their marriages/relationships.
  • 70% of members stick to just one affair at a time, debunking the myth of serial cheaters, while only 2.7% have had four or more affairs simultaneously.
  • Women seek affairs earlier than men – 13% of women have been in their relationship for less than a year before looking elsewhere, compared to just 3% of men.
  • While men in engineering and trades make up a significant portion of members, women in sales, IT, and law enforcement also turn to affairs.
  • Virgos, Geminis, and Scorpios are among the most likely to stray.

This data challenges everything we think we know about who joins Ashley Madison and why. I’d love to connect you with Paul Keable, Chief Strategy Officer at Ashley Madison, who can dive deeper into the typical profile of an Ashley Madison member, what this reveals about modern relationships, and more. Let me know if this data would be a fit for an upcoming story. I look forward to hearing from you, either way!

The letter cam complete with a copy of the company’s member survey. Not familiar with Ashley Madison, you lucky stiff? Its website homepage used to welcome viewers (maybe it still does; I am not moved to check) thusly:

Continue reading →

Goodbye, Elphie, and Thanks

My sister had to have her beloved Havanese Elphie (short for Elphaba, the character in “Wicked”) euthanized early this morning just after midnight. That’s not Elphie above, but it’s close: I don’t have a picture of her.

I’ve dreaded this day for my little sister almost from the moment she brought Elphie home as a puppy 16 years ago. My sister not only had never owned (or lived with) a dog before; she had been phobic about dogs her entire life, an unfortunate mindset she inherited from my mother. But true to her defiant, determined character, once my sister, divorced after a miserable marriage, knew that both of her children would be moving far away from the D.C. area, she set out to become a dog owner. “I’m not going to come home to an empty house every day,” she told me, “and for once, I want to have someone close who is always happy to see me.”

She researched dogs for a full year (“Dogs 101” on the Animal Planet channel was a crucial resource), ultimately deciding on the Havanese, the Cuban bichon, as the ideal “starter dog.” It was a wise choice, as the breed is small, friendly, devoted to its owner and innately adorable. I was amazed how quickly the little dog made a positive difference in my sister’s life and whole outlook on life. Always insecure and prone to depression, she seemed happy literally for the first time since childhood. Within months my sister went from being a dog owner to a dog nut, learning all the breeds, bonding with the last two dogs Grace and I owned (sweet Rugby and then Spuds), and vastly enlarging her circle of friends by meeting the other dog owners in her neighborhood, and my sister had never had a large number of friends before, and often none at all.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: A Spammed Commenter…

…who shall remain nameless.

This:

“Experience the future of companionship with an AI girlfriend chatbot. Designed to listen engage and respond with intelligence and warmth this virtual partner offers meaningful conversations, emotional support, and personalized interactions. Whether you seek a friend a confidante or just casual chats this ai girlfriend chatbot companion is always there for you anytime anywhere. Enjoy a unique ever-evolving connection powered by artificial intelligence.”

I think a blow-up doll is more ethical. The product is as perilous as crack or heroin, and destined to cripple and manipulate vulnerable, lonely people, like, say, me. It is the logical and inevitable next step from 800 sex chat phone lines. They can’t be made illegal; someone will undoubtedly argue that AI girlfriend chatbots can be therapeutic and even, on balance, capable of accomplishing more good than bad.

Sure. As for me, I’m reminded of this post from 2017: The Unibomber Had A Point.

Res ipsa loquitur.

“The Ethicist” Finds a Rationalization! Welcome #64 A: “It Didn’t Mean Anything”

Rationalization #64 A, The Cheater’s Defense or “It Didn’t Mean Anything” is a rather narrowly applicable addition to the list: it arises when a half of a supposedly committed couple has sexual relations with a third party. I have entered it as a sub-rationalization to the infamous Yoo’s Rationalization (“It isn’t what it is”) because betraying a spouse, partner or lover does mean something, probably many things.

The Ethicist received a question from, as always, “Name Withheld,” whose partner had cheated on her and used that phrase, “It didn’t mean anything.” She asks, years after the event, “I still don’t understand why cheaters use the phrase ‘‘(She/he) didn’t mean anything to me.’ How does one even respond to a statement like that?”

Kwame Anthony Appiah, in his usual measured fashion, says that the line “is how cheaters try to reassure their partners that their infidelity wasn’t going to lead to a serious relationship and needn’t spell the end of their existing one; that a fling was ‘just sex.’’’ But that still doesn’t translate to “It didn’t mean anything.” Having sex out of one’s committed relationship probably means, among other things,

  • The cheater isn’t as committed as he or she had led the betrayed partner to believe.
  • The cheater cannot be trusted.
  • The cheater has a drinking or substance abuse problem.
  • The cheater has some apparent needs that the supposed love of his or her life isn’t supplying
  • The cheater lacks some degree of impulse control.
  • The cheater is an easy mark for an aggressive come-on from an attractive member of the opposite sex (in other words, the cheater is a typical heterosexual male.)

Of course it meant something. The statement, like many rationalizations, is a lie. “The Ethicist” concentrates on what the use of the rationalization means: that the cheater, in addition to cheating, is manipulative jerk. “Cheaters demean the people they cheated with by dismissing them as meaningless, demean their partner by implying their pain is unjustified and demean their relationship by saying that they betrayed their beloved’s trust for a liaison they insist was insignificant,” he concludes.

Yeah, that too.

Pro Ethics Tip: If Your Boyfriend Asks You To Be The Bride In a “Fake Wedding,” Run Away

An Australian woman had been dating her husband-to-be for a few months in Melbourne after meeting him on a dating app. Then he invited her to a “white party” in Sydney, telling her to bring a white dress to fit the theme of the event. When she arrived at the party venue, the only other people there were the boyfriend, a photographer, the photographer’s friend, and a marriage officiant. The friend explained that he had planned a fake wedding to increase his social media following (he has 17,000 followers on Instragram) and he needed her to play the bride.

She is, I should interject here, an idiot, because she shrugged and said, “Ok!” She did call a freind to ask if there were any risks to being a bride in a “fake wedding,” and the friend said, “Nah! Go ahead!” Here’s another pro tip: if you are an idiot, the chances are high that your friends are idiots too.

Continue reading →

Reflections On The Ethical Holiday

 

“Christmas is built upon a beautiful and intentional paradox; that the birth of the homeless should be celebrated in every home.”

—G.K. Chesterton.

“It’s Christmas Eve. It’s the one night of the year when we all act a little nicer, we smile a little easier, we cheer a little more. For a couple of hours out of the whole year we are the people that we always hoped we would be.”

—Frank Cross (Bill Murray) in “Scrooged”

CHARLIE BROWN: I guess you were right, Linus. I shouldn’t have picked this little tree. Everything I do turns into a disaster. I guess I really don’t know what Christmas is all about. Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?

LINUS: Sure, Charlie Brown. I can tell you what Christmas is all about.  Lights, please?

“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. And they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, goodwill toward men.’”

That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

—Charles M. Schulz

“Our hearts grow tender with childhood memories and love of kindred, and we are better throughout the year for having, in spirit, become a child again at Christmas-time.”

—Laura Ingalls Wilder

“Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn’t before!

What if Christmas, he thought, doesn’t come from a store.

What if Christmas…perhaps…means a little bit more!”

—Dr. Seuss, “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”

“Want to keep Christ in Christmas? Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, forgive the guilty, welcome the unwanted, care for the ill, love your enemies, and do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

— Steve Maraboli, in “Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience”

“My idea of Christmas, whether old-fashioned or modern, is very simple: loving others. Come to think of it, why do we have to wait for Christmas to do that?”

— Bob Hope

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

“There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say,’ returned the nephew. ‘Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round—apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that—as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!”

—Fred, Scrooge’s Nephew, in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” Continue reading →

An Ethics Movie Where The Ethical Choice Is Clear But The Hero Doesn’t Make It

Netflix has a Christmas movie (well, if “Die Hard is a Christmas movie, this is) about a TSA agent caught up in a diabolical scheme to kill all the passengers on a commercial airplane for some reason or another—that part doesn’t really matter. In “Carry On,” our hero stumbles into the plot and is made the unwilling pawn of the villains, who are ubiquitous, brilliant and high-tech. Through an earpiece, the agent learns that the love of his life who is also pregnant is being watched by the bad guys and will be murdered at any second if he doesn’t use his position to get a piece of luggage containing a device that will release nerve gas through security screening. Suspense, thrills and unexpected twists ensue.

Continue reading →

I Know, I Know: “The Heart Wants What the Heart Wants.” Tough. Grow Up.

Norfolk Southern’s board has fired CEO Alan Shaw after an investigation found that he has been “engaging in a consensual relationship with the company’s chief legal officer,” the colorfully named Nabanita Nag. She was also canned from her positions as executive vice president corporate affairs, chief legal officer and corporate secretary.

Those are the lovebirds above.

Because this is a firing for cause, Shaw might have lost millions of dollars in what otherwise would be a “golden parachute.” This kind of vertical messing around is always stupid and unethical (but so romantic!), but it is particularly reckless for a CEO who is on metaphorical thin ice already, for then the “King’s Pass” is not going to be in play.

His two-year tenure included bitter labor negotiations that nearly resulted in an economy-crippling strike and the horrific derailment in East Palestine, Ohio that released tank cars full of toxic materials. This was not a good time for the company’s chief executive to go all Woody Allen.

But there is never a good time. When Cupid’s dart strikes, the only professional, ethical decision is to suck it up and resist, or play Edward the Eighth and abdicate “for the woman you love.”

The fact that Shaw was married to someone else should have giving him a strong hint that his ethics alarms should be ringing.