G.O.P Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul has pulled off a record-worthy achievement: he has earned Ethics Dunce status twice in a week’s time, something no one else, even serial Ethics Dunces like Sen. John Kerry and Tom DeLay, were able to do in the nearly seven years the designation has been in existence. He did not earn it the old fashioned way, however, as the old Smith-Barney ads used to say. Most Ethics Dunces do something, but in both cases Paul has proven himself worthy by what he says he believes. This makes him kind of a classic Ethics Dunce. He literally doesn’t understand basic ethical values, or if he does, can’t articulate them. Continue reading
Religion and Philosophy
Ethics Dunce: Rand Paul
The demise of the Tea Party movement may well come when it actually has to put individual candidates before the electorate and the media to carry its message. At least, that is what the ascendancy of Rand Paul, now the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky after his primary victory this week, portends. Paul, before his first week as the nominee is up, has managed to expose himself as unacceptably challenged by the task of reconciling the deceptively simplistic philosophy of libertarians with real world ethics. Specifically, he has declared that he does not support the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s requirement that private businesses serve all members of the public, irrespective of race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation. This position Rand haltingly clung to despite withering interviews on National Public Radio and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show. You can see the latter, in two parts, here and here. Continue reading
More on “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day”
Today, I will be guest-blogging in a day long debate about this topic over at Public Square. Please drop in.
“Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” Ethics
The “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” mess is a wonderful example of how ethics train wrecks begin to engulf anyone who get near them. It also an example of an idea that is clever, funny, well-intentioned, and wrong. Continue reading
Ethics Dunce: Florida House Rep. Janet Long
Once again, an elected official is advocating the Bizarro World ethics principle that those with the greatest conflict of interest in a matter are the only ones who have standing to decide it. Conflicts of interest create bias and interfere with objectivity. They are to be avoided whenever possible. How then does someone like Florida House of Representatives Member Janet Long, a Democrat from Pinellas County, while debating the controversial Florida law requiring women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound procedure, justify demanding that male legislators “stand down if you don’t have ovaries”? Continue reading
The Unethical Ethics Attacks on Arizona
The anger, ridicule and threats being heaped on Arizona for its illegal immigration enforcement law defies fairness and rationality, and has been characterized so far by tactics designed to avoid productive debate rather than foster it. Now, with the help and encouragement of professional bullies like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Arizona is facing an economic boycott, which, like all boycotts, carries the message “we’re going to force you to do what we want, whether we’re right or not.” Meanwhile, all of the over-heated rhetoric diverts the focus to side issues rather than the major problem that prompted the Arizona law in the first place: out of control illegal immigration, and its very obvious—and very serious—negative consequences to the entire nation.
Whether they know it or not, opponents of Arizona’s law are using a common ethics misconception to its advantage. Illegal immigration enforcement is an ethical conflict, which occurs when two or more ethical principles dictate different results, and thus have to be weighed against each other. The attacks on Arizona, however, have framed the argument as an ethics dilemma, defined as a problem in which the ethical course is clear, but powerful non-ethical considerations make rejecting it seem attractive. This allows the opponents of Arizona’s law to inaccurately place themselves in the moral high ground, sniping at Arizona as it supposedly wallows in a pit of greed, meanness, nativism and bigotry….non-ethical considerations all. Much of the media, to their discredit (but the media has so much discredit now that they don’t seem to care any more), is accepting this spin.
The spin, however, is nonsense. Continue reading
Ethics Quote of the Week
“Maybe there’s only one revolution, since the beginning, the good guys against the bad guys. Question is…who are the good guys?”
—Bill Dolworth (Burt Lancaster) in the 1966 Western “The Professionals,” script by Richard Brooks, from the novel by Frank O’Roarke. He is responding to a question from the horse wrangler played by Robert Ryan, who asks why Dolworth and other Americans had fought in the Mexican revolution.
Lancaster’s casual reflection turns out to be significant, because the whole movie hinges on the problems arising from mistaking good guys for bad guys and vice versa. In ethics and in life, it is useful to remember that the people we think are wrong, misguided, ill-motivated, irresponsible and unethical often think the same of us, and might even be right. Even more disturbing is the possibility, always present, that an individual we admire, follow and look to for guidance and inspiration may be one of “the bad guys.”
License Plate Ethics: Is a Hateful Message Unethical If Nobody Understands It?
Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles, following analysis worthy of the cracking of the ENIGMA code during World War II, concluded that a vanity plate reading “14CV88” was “racially offensive” and had to be pulled from the road. Prof. Eugene Volokh raises the issue of whether this violates the First Amendment (he suspects it does), but the more interesting question, at least for me, is whether there is anything unethical about displaying a message like this.
Oh! I forgot to explain to you why you too should be horribly offended at the “message!” Continue reading
Ethics Dunce: George O. Wood
George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, was one of a more than a hundred Christian leaders who signed the “Covenant for Civility”, a statement with the admirable purpose of encouraging respect, moderation and tolerance as citizens debate contentious political and social issues. Now Wood has withdrawn his name from the petition….because he doesn’t want his name on the same piece of paper as those who disagree with him on contentious social and political issues.
“The problem is the tent that has grown so large on the signatures of this that they are including people who are supportive of gay marriage and abortion rights,” explained a spokesman for Wood’s church, the nation’s second largest Pentecostal group. “He says that he cannot be a part of signing a document that includes people who are taking a viewpoint in their own issues that are clearly contradictory to the moral teachings of Scripture.”
Ah.
Wait a minute…What???
I don’t think Mr. Wood quite understands this respect and civility stuff. Respect other points of view, as long as they agree with yours? Use moderation in words, but display utter disdain for others in your actions? Why the heck did he sign this petition in the first place?
Now he’s doing the cause of civility a favor: getting George O. Wood’s name off the petition only strengthens it. Now somebody needs to send it to him to read. On second thought, never mind; he doesn’t respect the names on it enough to have the courtesy to consider it.
Kidder on Apologies
Ethicist Rushworth Kidder, one of the best in the field, has graced us with a superb essay on apologies, inspired by the recent rash of the public variety from various architects of the financial meltdown, not to mention Tiger Woods.
It isn’t long; just wise, fair and perceptive.
Ethics Alarms 