Quizzes

Comment of the Day: Ethics Quiz: The Dogs of The Titanic

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Recently esteemed veteran Ethics Alarms commenter Michael West has been active in commenting again. For as long as it lasts this time, I am grateful. Under his initial handle texagg04, or “tex” for short, Michael elevated the level of discourse here, and notably vanquished Ethics Alarms’ most aggressive progressive/libertarian warrior among the commentariate, the legendary tgt. (Don’t get me wrong: I like and miss tgt, who was sharp, articulate and civil, but he fled the battlefield.)

One of Michael’s most interesting recent contribution is the one below, which examines exactly the issues I was hoping to have discussed when I composed the ethics quiz about the dogs on the Titanic. Before I turn the floor over to Michael, I want to emphasize a few points that have been obscured in the discussion:

  • One reason I offered this quiz was because I am so sure that my late wife Grace would have wanted to stay with the sinking ship rather than let a beloved pet die alone. I would have had to put her in restraints and drag her into the lifeboat, and she would have divorced (or murdered) me for doing it if I somehow survived. I’m not kidding. And I would have been the one comforting the dog…
  • Several commenters said that they would never take a dog on a ship because of the implied danger. Remember that there were no planes in 1912. For anyone leaving the US to stay overseas or vice-versa, the choice was to bring their non-human companions, not to go, or leave them behind.
  • Passengers did and do take dogs on cruise-ships, and while Michael in other posts reminds us that the Titanic was never exactly marketed as unsinkable, it was marketed as the safest ship there was, which was translated in the minds of travelers as “virtually unsinkable.”
  • I don’t want to contribute to false history. As I stated in the post, there is no evidence that Ann Elizabeth Isham chose to die with her dog, or even that she had a dog with her. She was one of the four First Class women who didn’t get into a lifeboat when the rule was “women and children first.” The others stayed with their husbands, so the story about her Great Dane was posited as an explanation. She could have saved herself and didn’t. Nobody knows why.
  • The sinking of the Titanic is one of those historical events that is so studied and written about that new evidence and theories still keep, ah, surfacing. We may not have heard the last of Ann and her ghostly Great Dane.

Now here is Michael West’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quiz: The Dogs of The Titanic”:

* * *

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Dogs of The Titanic

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

According to J. Joseph Edgette from Widener University, there were twelve dogs that have been confirmed as passengers on the iconic doomed ship, which sank in April of 1912. Three of the dogs survived; they were all small breeds that their owners could wrap up in blankets and hide in their coats. The crew told passengers (only the First Class passengers brought their dogs) that the limited number of life boats meant that dogs would have to be left behind. 

When the ship struck the iceberg and it became clear that it was going down, the dog-loving steward in charge of the ship’s kennel released all of its canine occupants, which then ran all over the ship, surely confused, while the chaos intensified. (How did James Cameron not use that in his movie?) The three survivors were all kept in their owners’ staterooms. Lady, a Pomeranian belonging to passenger Margaret Hays, was one; Sun Yat Sen, a Pekingese belonging to Myra Harper and Henry Harper, was another, and a second Pomeranian owned by Martin and Elizabeth Rothschild was the third lucky dog.

The larger dogs that died included a King Charles Spaniel, a Poodle, a Borzoi, an Airedale, another large terrier, a Chow-Chow, a Fox Terrier, a French Bulldog and a Great Dane.

According to Titanic lore, Ann Elizabeth Isham owned the Great Dane pictured above. Rather than leave him to die alone, she chose to stay behind and comfort her beloved dog as the sea rushed in. Isham was one of the four first-class female passengers who lost their lives on the Titanic, but the only one who allegedly decided to die rather than leave her pet.

In fact, there is no evidence that she really died that way, or that she ever owned a dog, much less died with one. Nonetheless, Isham has acquired a saintly reputation among dog lovers, so let’s assume she did die rather than abandon her dog.

Your Ethics Alarms Change-of-Pace Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was that decision rational and ethical or emotional and irresponsible?

Would you do that under similar circumstances?

I’m pretty sure my late wife Grace would have.

Incidentally, there is another famous dog story about Titanic that has also been debunked. Supposedly a Newfoundland named Rigel belonging to Titanic’s First Officer William Murdoch was able to withstand the freezing waters after the ship sank. As the rescue ship Carpathia approached, nobel Rigel barked so loudly that the ship could locate the lifeboats. 

The tale is fiction. Murdoch had no dog on board. No survivor mentioned “Rigel.” The story apparently first popped up in 1912, in “The New York Herald.” See? The news media was making stuff up even back then. The news reporter also claimed that Donald Trump was to blame for the sinking. 

Kidding!

Ethics Quiz: “Michael”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

As you may have heard, the new biopic “Michael” is on the way to becoming a huge box office hit, which Hollywood needs desperately these days. It is also a film that critics have nearly unanimously panned as pure hagiography. Sure, movies about real people routinely gild the human lily, but “Michael” has taken the whitewashing (Is it tasteless to use that term in reference to Jackson? I think it’s rather appropriate…) to absurd levels. The film stops before the 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse against the pop icon, in part because the terms of Jackson’s financial settlement ($20 million while refusing to admit wrongdoing) with an accuser prohibited the estate from publicly questioning the allegations against him. Thus “Michael” is a big wet kiss to the King of Pop and his fans, omitting the dark and creepy stuff, which in Jackson’s case is considerable. I would argue that it is also defining.

Jackson is played by Jaafar Jackson, one of the singer’s nephews, who looks like Michael might have looked if he were, you know, normal. Telling the life story of Michael Jackson while ignoring his disturbing pederastic tendencies is like making a movie about Errol Flynn or John Barrymore that never shows them taking a drink. Or a movie about John Wilkes Booth that leaves out that little Ford’s Theater incident. How about a Bill Clinton biopic that leaves out Monica? Fatty Arbuckle was a silent film genius: why ruin a movie about him by including that downer of a party he gave where a woman was killed and he was tried for murder?

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Investigative Reporting Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

In this article, (Gift Link) a New York Times investigative reporter explains how he has cultivated a source that he knows is distributing illegal drugs that may be fatal.

He writes in part,

“It was a small-time operation, but one that illuminated a big point for our reporting: A single person, without cartel backing, can order and redistribute potent chemicals.

I wanted to verify his account with others. But I also had to make good on my commitment not to reveal his identity. So I compared the information he was giving me with reporting I’d done with dozens of experts and law enforcement officials who told me what they understood about this market. I also spoke to people in his circle of friends and associates.

All along, I was keenly aware that the drugs Chemical Analyst was selling can be fatal. I asked him about this — as I’d asked other dealers and suppliers — and he professed here to be a libertarian. As a human, I find it terrifying the drugs he sells could kill people. It was painful to watch him use drugs himself, and I often feared for his safety. But as a reporter, I have a responsibility to explain to the public what’s really happening on the drug frontier.”

This is different from most Ethics Quizzes here, because my position is set and unshakable. The reporter’s duty “to make good on [his] commitment not to reveal [the drug pusher’s] identity” must be subordinate to his duty to society as a citizen and responsible human being. Even lawyers are authorized to violate a clients’ confidentiality to prevent death or serious bodily injury to a third party. How many people should die so that the reporter can explain what’s happening on “the drug frontier?” My verdict: none.

The reporter says he’s talked to lawyers and other journalists as well as “experts” and law enforcement officials. I doubt that he has talked with any ethicists.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day(that I have already told you my answer to..) is…

Would it be ethical for the reporter sic the police on this criminal? Could it be ethical not to?

Ethics Quiz: The Mark Twain Prize Mess

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Although the exact sequence of events is in question, the basic fact seems clear: Bill Maher was given the impression that he had been selected for the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, but the offer, or the award, or the honor, was rescinded by President Trump, who has installed himself as the overseer of the Trump Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which decides which wits and comics are honored and that hosts the annual ceremony.

Maher is…annoyed. I don’t blame him. I don’t blame the President for not wanting to approve Maher getting the award either.

Bill Maher has been one of the cheap-shot artists who has compared the President to Hitler. He has made the indefensible claim that Trump is a hypocrite because he has married immigrants but opposes “immigration.” I have made it clear that I rank Maher as smug, unethical and lacking integrity, kind of like a stand-up version of Tucker Carlson. He is not half as smart as he evidently thinks he is, but is not without talent, not without career accomplishments, and on his merits, not unqualified for the Mark Twain Prize. Nor would he be the least justified recipient; that distinction would be a tie among Tina Fey, Julia Louis Dryefus and—yuck—Adam Sandler. Will Farrell was a weak choice as well.

The award is also permanently discredited by the many superior comics and wits it has snubbed since the awards began in 1998, such as Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Dave Barry, Larry Gelbart, Phyllis Diller, Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld, P.J. O’Roark, Joan Rivers, Robin Williams, Gene Wilder, Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, John Hughes and others.

The Mark Twain Prize didn’t take a hard partisan turn until it honored Letterman in 2017, Tina Fey (who was chosen then primarily because she mocked Sarah Palin) in 2018, then Jon Stewart in 2022. Maher can be counted on to stand up in the Kennedy Center and insult his putative host, if not call call Pam Bondi a “cunt,” as he is wont to do. I see good reasons why the President of the United States might choose not to allow that.

Politics ruins everything now, and it may be that partisan venom has made the Mark Twain Prize impossible to continue. I would say that would be too bad, if the award weren’t already corrupted and arbitrary.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is...

Was it unethical for Trump to block Bill Maher’s Mark Twain Prize?

Ethics Quiz: No Applause, No Applause, No Applause!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

Hmmmm…

In Tacoma Park, one of the most woke and wonderful communities in already insufferably progressive Maryland, Mayor Talisha Searcy ordered the crowd at a recent city council meeting not to applaud the various statements made by citizens as the council sought comments on a study regarding the city’s rent stabilization laws.

“I just want to make sure I’m learning about how to facilitate civility within a community,” the mayor said as she ordered the audience to “refrain from cheering, booing, signs, all that good stuff” as well as applauding. Many in the crowd were not pleased. When a spectator shouted that prohibiting clapping is “undemocratic,” the mayor delivered the stunning theory that “clapping for some and not all is not democratic” and that “we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.”

Okay, she’s an idiot, an ethics dunce, an expired hippie, and the most obnoxious species of progressive squish. These are the kinds of people,who demand that nobody at a meeting ever condemn even the most brain-dead idea because it might hurt the feelings of the dim bulb who offered it. Searcy is the kind of person who loves the passive-aggressive “I hear you” that usually means, “but I’m going to forget you ever said anything so stupid.”

There is no defending her claim that “clapping for some and not all” is undemocratic. However, I am interested in whether it is ever ethical to ban positive reactions, politely expressed.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s “Islamaphobic” Quote

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

Oh, I find this fascinating, especially in light of the previous post.

Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian Muslim New Yorker and activist, said in a social media post that dog poop littered snowdrifts in the city proved that dogs should have no place in society as indoor pets because, she wrote, “like we’ve said all along, they are unclean.”

Responding to this obnoxious assertion of foreign values and priorities over American ones, Representative Randy Fine (R-Fla.) replied, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

Naturally the Mad Left exploded with horror and indignation, with the usual calls for the insensitive Republican’s resignation and worse. But the truth is, if we are being honest about our own culture and priorities, if every Muslim in the United States joined in a mass ultimatum stating, “This is non-negotiable. Either the United States gives up its dogs as house pets, or we’re leaving!” the overwhelming majority of Americans—including me—would say, “Gee, that’s a shame. Well, bye! Good luck in your future endeavors!”

The Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was it unethical for Rep. Fine to say what he did?

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The I.C.E. Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Sarai Jimenez, a special education teaching intern at in Pajaro Valley School District’s Watsonville, California-based MacQuiddy Elementary, endorsed the presence of I.C.E. officers in her town in a comment on Facebook last month.

“Yay!!! We need ICE in Watsonville!! It’s been getting out of hand,” Jimenez wrote, as you can see above. But the parents in Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where 84% of students are Hispanic and, given California’s sanctuary state aspirations, might belong to families with one or more illegal immigrants, considered Jimenez’s support for ICE….that is, enforcement of U.S. law…unconscionable. Many complained, and Jimenez was placed on leave from her job in Pajaro Valley School District. It appears that she will be fired, if she hasn’t been already.

“You can’t just tell the world how you feel and not expect repercussions from people because of how they feel about I.C.E.,” local parent Jorge Guerrero said. If I were awake completely, which I’m not, I would compose several alternate versions of this statement with provocative substitutes for “I.C.E.”

Jimenez tried to save her job by groveling a politician-style denial rather than an apology,“I’m sorry that the comment was taken out of context,” she told reporters. “But my actions speak so much louder than all those hateful bullies’ words.” The hateful bullies are the ones who bombarded her with threats and insults until she took down her Facebook page. “You are a shameful disgraceful disgusting woman,” one critic wrote.

Predictably, though apparently not by the interning teacher, the school administrators sided with the bullies if not their methods (although firing someone for supporting law enforcement is a lot more harmful than insulting her).

MacQuiddy Elementary Principal Sara Pearman said in a statement that Jimenez’s comment “does not reflect the values” of the school or district.

Hmmmm…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it ethical to fire Jimenez for expressing support for law enforcement officials doing their jobs?

I think this is a close call. Some points:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The United Nations

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

The New York Times reports (Gift link!) that the United Nations announced it was “facing imminent financial collapse and would run out of money by July” because the United States had not paid its annual dues for 2025. If the situation isn’t rectified, the U.N. will be forced to shut down its New York City headquarters this summer. Also in jeopardy: the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “which responds to global emergencies like conflicts and natural disasters.”

U.N. secretary general, António Guterres, sent a letter to all 196 member states warning of “imminent financial collapse.” “The crisis is deepening, threatening program delivery and risking financial collapse,” he wrote. “And the situation will further deteriorate in the near future. I cannot overstate the urgency of the situation we now face.”

The United Nations’ 2026 budget is $3.45 billion. That is supposed to cover what the U.N. calls its “three core pillars of work: peace and security, sustainable development and human rights.”

What has the U.N. done for “peace and security” lately? “Sustainable development”…sound like “climate change” to me. Human rights? The U.N. criticizes the United States for alleged human rights violation, while letting actual human rights atrocities.

The United States is entirely responsible for the current crisis, because 95% of the money owed to the United Nations is our share. And this is because the United States pays a ridiculously excessive share of the expenses of an organization that has increasingly done this nation little good and a great deal of harm for decades.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The Deranged Librarian

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I know I still haven’t written the promised post defining standards for diagnosing Trump Derangement. In posts like these, however, I am amassing evidence.

Morgan L. Morrow, a 39 year-old librarian at Jackson County Public Library in Ravenswood, West Virginia, used her TikTok account to call for the murder of President Trump, writing, “Surely a sniper with a terminal illness can’t be a big ask out of 343 million.”

Then she really went on a roll with this mad screed:

“If you voted for him, if you didn’t vote, if you voted independent, genuinely, I hope you get shot in the face three times at point-blank range or I hope you get shot in the back while on your knees being pistol-whipped. If any part of you thinks that I wouldn’t say that if I knew who you are? I have a pretty good idea of who you are, you haven’t hidden your ignorant villainy nearly as well as you think you have. And I said what I said.

This isn’t intolerance or woke hatred, it’s reactionary. You had a hand in what is happening today and I can only hope that one day you suffer as much as the immigrants, the people of color, the LGBTQ+ people have suffered for generations and how much mothers and nurses are suffering right now because you actually condemned them to this injustice with your vote. We ‘told’ you what would happen and you ignored us. In 2016, I was ‘fear mongering’ and even when they described it to you point by point in Project 2025, you actively made the choice to be willfully idiotic. No, and I mean NO amount of apologies or excuses will ever earn my forgiveness. You are as stupid and evil as your red cap leader and I hope you rot in hell with him.”

Pages: 1 2