Quizzes

Ethics Quiz: The NFL Kicker’s Commencement Speech

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

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 →

Ethics Quiz: That Apple IPad Pro Ad

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

Filmmakers, musicians, writers and other artists began whining about that ad above for the Apple iPad Pro from almost the second it was released. As Sonny and Cher warble one of their lesser efforts, “All I Ever Need is You,” a hydraulic press crushes musical instruments, cameras, a framed picture, paint cans, record albums and other stuff in a colorful explosion of chaos.

“The destruction of the human experience. Courtesy of Silicon Valley,” tweeted actor Hugh Grant. “Who needs human life and everything that makes it worth living? Dive into this digital simulacrum and give us your soul. Sincerely, Apple,” added “Men in Black” screenwriter Ed Solomon. There were lots more metaphorical squeals of indignation and alarm on social media, as
“creative people” accused Apple of gloating over how Big Tech is co-opting the traditional tools of art and on the verge of eliminating the human creativity with artificial intelligence.

So, naturally, as is the norm these days, Apple “assumed the position” and groveled an apology. Pledging that Apple would never run the ad on TV again, Tor Myhren, the company’s vice president of marketing communications, said, “Creativity is in our DNA at Apple, and it’s incredibly important to us to design products that empower creatives all over the world.” The statement continued, “Our goal is to always celebrate the myriad of ways users express themselves and bring their ideas to life through iPad. We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.”

Seriously?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Oh, lots of things: Is there anything unethical about that ad? Do its critics have a legitimate point? Should Apple have caved to their complaints? Was that apology sincere?

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Elected Officials Acting In An Undignified Manner

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

I had to post an ethics quiz on this, especially after beginning the day writing, “I’d say anyone celebrating Star Wars Day today (“May the Fourth be with you!”) on this May 4 needs to get out more. In addition to being a day that promises further depressing developments on college campuses as the decades of progressive, anti-American, and Marxist indoctrination have their predictable (and probably intentional) consequences—though somehow the ivory tower revolutionaries in charge of those campuses were oddly unprepared for them!—this date has an ominous history.”

And there he is, J.B. Pritzker, the Governor of Illinois, posing with his wife on social media to celebrate “Star Wars” in a pose apparently evoking a yet-to-be released “Star Wars” sequel in which Luke and Leia are victims of the Empire’s diabolical fat ray.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Is it responsible for high-ranking elected officials to present themselves to the public looking and acting ridiculous?

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Tanked Free Throw

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Unlike most ethics quizzes, I’ve made up my mind about this incident, but I acknowledge that others may feel differently and have good reasons—maybe—to do so. I hate it, however.

The NBA’s LA. Clippers and Chick-fil-A collaborated on a promotion that if a player on an opposing team misses two consecutive free-throw attempts, fans will win a free Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich. And thus it was that when Houston Rockets’ Boban Marjanovic went to the free-throw with 4:44 to play in the fourth and final quarter of the Rockets’ game against the Clippers with his team leading 105-97 (not an insuperable margin), he had a twinkle in his eye. He missed his first shot, and the Clipper fans stared cheering—for chicken. Marjanovic looked around, pointed at himself, and bounced his shot off the basket rim. The fans went wild, and Marjanovic seemed to revel in his failure.

Yecchh.

…not that I want to influence you, now.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz on this Patriots Day (in Boston) is…

“Was it ethical or unethical for Marjanovic to tank his free throw so the fans could get a free sandwich?”

Just listen to those idiots in the broadcast booth…

I absolutely think it was unethical; in fact, the NBA and his team should fine and suspend Marjanovic. But this is emblematic of why I detest pro basketball only slightly less passionately than I do the NFL. The sport has no integrity. Regular season games are virtually meaningless. Players literally play about 60% harder during the play-offs: you can see it.

This episode was disgusting, and unethical in more ways than one:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Dignity For Arrested Lawbreakers!

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

OK, maybe I just telegraphed my personal bias in reaction to this quiz, so I’ll keep my opinion to myself until the commentariat weighs in. I’ll try, anyway.

New York City has agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed in a 2018 class-action lawsuit by Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz, two Muslim women who claimed their rights were violated when police forced them to remove their hijabs for the police to take their “mug shots.”

The financial settlement requires approval by Judge Analisa Torres of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and I fervently hope…never mind! My mouth is zipped!

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Forrest Fenn Treasure Hunt

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

This is rather old story, but it’s new to me, and of course none of the accounts, including a “48 Hours” episode, explored the ethics issue involved.

Forrest Fenn (August 22, 1930 – September 7, 2020) was a decorated pilot in the United States Air Force. After his retirement he ran the well-known Arrowsmith-Fenn Gallery, later the Fenn Gallery, in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It reportedly grossed around $6 million a year. After Fenn was diagnosed with likely terminal cancer in 1988, he began collecting gold coins and other valuable objects that he placed in a small, ornate box. He decided to hide the box in the wilderness, and to launch a treasure hunt. As his health improved and the terminal cancer diagnosis proved to be wrong, Fenn self-published “The Thrill of the Chase: A Memoir” in 2010. Along with various stories about his exploits, the book also revealed that he had hidden a treasure chest containing gold nuggets, rare coins and gems “in the mountains somewhere north of Santa Fe.” Fenn wrote a (really bad) poem in the chapter titled “Gold and More” that he said contained sufficient clues to allow a clever and dedicated treasure hunter to find the box, with the contents estimated to be worth between one and two million dollars.

The box was finally found in Wyoming in 2020, and shortly after that, Fenn died. His treasure hunt, however, had sent over a hundred thousand would-be Indiana Joneses of both sexes and varying skills into the mountains with Fenn’s doggerel in hand as a treasure map. Many became obsessed with the quest. Five men died in separate incidents looking for Fenn’s box, and several others nearly perished. After the first two fatalities, Fenn was implored to call off the hunt, but he showed no indication that he felt that he had any responsibility for the fatalities, saying in response that all outdoor activities come with some risk. He also insisted that the box “was not in a dangerous place.”

You can guess this question by now. Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was Fenn’s treasure hunt ethical, or was it reckless and irresponsible?

I know my answer, and here are three clues to what it is: “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,””Rat Race,” and “attractive nuisance.”

It’s Time To Play That Exciting Game Show, “Cute, Silly,or Wrong?”!

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Hello everybody! I’m your host, Wink Smarmy, and welcome to “Cute, Silly,or Stupid?,” the popular ethics game show where our panelists try to decide whether an individual or organization is doing or saying something that strikes a positive emotional chord with the public sincerely, or whether they are cynically grandstanding or virtue signaling to achieve popularity, influence, money, or power. Welcome panel! And here’s today’s challenge…

A video posted to Facebook by the Richmond Wildlife Center shows Executive Director Melissa Stanley dressed as a giant mother fox to feed a red fox kit (that means a baby fox, not a kit you use to assemble foxes) rescued by the center earlier this month.

“It’s important to make sure that the orphans that are raised in captivity do not become imprinted upon or habituated to humans,” the post said. “To prevent that, we minimize human sounds, create visual barriers, reduce handling, reduce multiple transfers amongst different facilities, and wear masks for the species.”

Here’s the video:

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Slapping Down the Daughters of the Confederacy

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

On the heels of the previous post about intolerant progressives came my awareness of the news that both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly, dominated by Democrats, passed bills that would eliminate long-standing tax exemptions for the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group that was founded in 1894 for female descendants of Confederate soldiers. The group’s mission was and is to honor Confederate ancestors through memorial preservation—an increasingly difficult job—and charity work. It is currently exempt from paying property taxes and recordation taxes, which are charged when property sales are registered.

This week the State House of Delegates passed a bill revoking the group’s exemptions as well as the property tax exemptions for two other Confederate heritage groups, the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Inc. and the Confederate Memorial Literary Society.

To state the obvious, the three non-profit groups have been targeted because many legislators don’t like their beliefs and activities. Don Scott, the Democratic speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, said it was important to revoke the exemptions from “organizations that continue to promote the myth of the romantic version of the Confederacy.”

How dare they?

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: The Gratuitous Diagnosis

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I am 100% on the other side of an ethics question recently raised for the New York Times’ ethics advice maven, “The Ethicist.” You tell me which of us you think is right.

Details aside, the inquirer asked if he should, as a retired neurologist, tell a woman he admittedly barely knows but whom he has been in frequent contact with recently that he believes she has Parkinson’s Disease…

….There’s been no occasion to mention my professional background, and I’m now uncertain about whether I should tell her about it and my clinical impressions. Her disease, at its current stage, is likely to be successfully managed with oral medication. However, it is neither obvious that she will have access to skilled neurological care nor that she will be willing to seek it. And a new diagnosis of Parkinson’s, without prompt treatment, on top of her recent loss and the challenges that have followed, may further overwhelm her. My wife is in favor of my informing her, because treatment would benefit her quality of life. I’m hesitant, as there has been no invitation to become more involved in her personal life, and I cannot provide her with a supportive doctor-patient relationship. What would you recommend?

I’ll tell you which of us ethicists believe what after you’ve formulated your own answer. For now, Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is,

What would YOU recommend?

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Hating Satan

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Michael Cassidy, the former Mississippi candidate for Congress who destroyed the Christmas seasonal display put up by Satanists at the Iowa State Capitol building , was ultimately charged not just with criminal mischief, which is a misdemeanor and what such vandalism would usually draw as an offense, but felony third-degree criminal mischief. The enhanced charge was justified, according to the prosecutor, because the act was committed “in violation of individual rights” under Iowa’s hate crime statute.

The statue Cassidy attacked was of Baphomet, who isn’t exactly Satan but close enough for horseshoes, or goatshoes. The ancient pagan deity is used as a symbolic trademark by the Satanic Temple, a largely satirical pro-atheism and anti-religion organization. He’s a little like Mickey Mouse is to Disney. Understandably, however, serious Christians regard using Ol’ Baphy’s image to “celebrate” the Christian holiday of Christmas as blasphemy, which it is, because that’s how the Satanic Temple rolls. It think blasphemy is a joke. To that group, all religion is a joke.

Michael Cassidy is one of millions who don’t get it.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Should a hateful act against a statue that mocks Christianity be treated as a hate crime?

“Evidence shows the defendant made statements to law enforcement and the public indicating he destroyed the property because of the victim’s religion,” triggering the violation of individual rights enhancement, said Lynn Hicks, a spokesman for the Polk County Attorney’s Office.

Wow, an entire office of assholes! The man committed a crime and an act of civil disobedience, protesting what he views as the absurdity of the state having to give a supposed Satanic organization equal representation with other religions in a holiday display. I have no idea what is gained by over-charging and taking the apparent position that it’s illegal to hate the personification of evil. Some legal commentators have climbed into the high weeds about whether atheism or Satanism are legitimate religions; the same weeds are available for debates over Pastafarians (The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and Scientologists. It’s an unnecessary issue here.

Hate crimes are thought crimes and, at Ethics Alarms, unethical to charge whatever they involve. Michael Cassidy should be allowed to hate Satan, Baphomet, their followers real or satirical, those who mock Christianity and Christmas and anyone or anything else he chooses, as long as he doesn’t also destroy property.

I, for example, hate grandstanding prosecutors.