Religion and Philosophy

The Damage of Health Care Reform “By Any Means Necessary”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

I have no idea whether the health care reform bill, assuming it finally gets passed in one form or another, will make things better or worse, and if you are honest about it, neither do you…and neither, I am certain, do most of the elected representatives who will have voted for it or against it (or for it and against it) by the time the dust clears. To only cite the most obvious proof, the bill’s current form was just posted yesterday, giving Congress 72 hours to read and understand over 2,000 pages of technical jargon and badly-written prose. I don’t believe I have ever read 700 pages a day for three days at any point in my life, and if I have, I know it had to be something more diverting than a health care bill.

Relying on second-hand analysis—also by individuals who haven’t read the current bill—simply puts us (and the members of Congress) at the mercy of the biases of those rendering the opinions. For example, one of my favorite commentators, Robert Samuelson, has persuasive arguments against the bill here and here, while one of my least favorite, Paul Krugman, weighs in on the bill’s virtues here and here. Now, I think Krugman has squandered his credibility by blatant untruths in the past (One howler, his infamous statement about the national health care systems of Canada and Great Britain that “We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false” is derisively quoted almost daily by Wall Street Journal blogger James Taranto as he relays tales of national health care horrors from the London press), but the man has won a Nobel prize: maybe he’s right and Samuelson is wrong. I really don’t know.

I do know this, however: whether the bill proves to be disaster or panacea, the manner in which President Obama and the Democrats have gone about passing it has done real and lasting harm.  Continue reading →

Astrology Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Considering absurd hypotheticals can still be valuable. Consider this ridiculous question from a site with the tautological title, “Astrology or Superstition?” :

“Would it be unethical to use astrology to gain advantage over someone in the work environment?”

Obviously not, because astrology is a crock. But if it were not a crock, what would the answer to this question be? Continue reading →

Ethics Dunce: Itawamba County, Miss. School Board; Ethics Hero: Constance McMillan

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

It will be interesting, as well as depressing, to see how many innocent bystanders are injured as various institutions and organizations emulate Washington D.C.’s Catholic Charities’ “solution” to its objection to  gay Americans having legally enforced rights to do what anyone else can. That organization’s draconian solution was that if a benefit can’t be withheld from gays, then the benefit isn’t worth giving. Thus, because it believed that providing health benefits to the now legally recognized same-sex spouses of gay employees would imply endorsement of conduct it considers sinful, the charity eliminated spousal benefits for all new employees, harming the innocent to show contempt for…well, the innocent.

Who could pass up logic and justice like that? Not the Itawamba County, Miss. school board! Continue reading →

Essay: Ending the Bi-Partisan Effort to Destroy Trust in America

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Both the Pentagon shooter and the Texas I.R.S. attacker were motivated by a virulent distrust of the U.S. government, the distrust mutating into desperation and violence with the assistance of personal problems and emotional instability. We would be foolish, however, to dismiss the two as mere “wingnuts,” the current term of choice to describe political extremists who have gone around the bend. They are a vivid warning of America’s future, for the media, partisan commentators, the two political parties and our elected officials are doing their worst to convert all of us into wingnuts, and the results could be even more disastrous than the fanciful horrors the Left and the Right tell us that the other has planned for us. Continue reading →

Provocative Links for Ethical Weekend Reading

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Here is a diverse selection of five ethics-related posts from cyberspace for your weekend reading pleasure:

  • Christopher Hitchens analyzes, critiques and updates the Ten Commandments—and does an excellent job of all three, here.
  • Finally, a former Bush Justice Department official takes aim at the Republican attacks on the so-called “Al Qaeda Seven,” a despicable moniker apparently invented by Mary Cheney. There really is no debate here: the suggestion that attorneys who previously represented accused terrorists cannot be trusted to work in Justice is legally, ethically and logically ignorant. Still, it is good to have a Republican lawyer say so.

Randy Cohen Watch: “The Ethicist” vs. Integrity, Accountability, and the Law

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Randy Cohen, “The Ethicist” of the popular New York Times Magazine column, frequently gets in trouble when he opines on the law, legal ethics, and how lawyers interact with society. This week he was at it again, and he got in trouble, all right. Big time.

Bruce Pelligrino wrote to the column to get “The Ethicist’s” take on the actions of a friend, who told Bruce he wanted to hire a lawyer to challenge a speeding ticket even though he had admitted to the police officer, in the presence of his children who were passengers in the car, that he had been driving 51 m.p.h . where the limit was 35.

“I think he should accept the consequences, learn from the experience and give his children a lesson in ethics,” wrote Pelligrino. ”Shouldn’t he just pay the ticket?”

Cohen sided with the speeder, opining…

“Even those who think themselves guilty are entitled to their day in court, and there is civic virtue in their exercising this right. A trial is a way to hold officials accountable for their conduct. Was the radar gun accurate? Was the speed zone clearly marked? Did the police officer behave properly? And what, given all the circumstances, is an appropriate punishment? Little of this could be scrutinized if everyone simply paid the ticket. It would be a court-clogging nightmare if every self-confessed speeder demanded a trial, but it is a fine thing if, now and then, some people do.”

Randy appears to have misunderstood the question, believing that Pelligrino’s friend was being charged with an arcane S.E.C. violation, or some intricate form of criminal conspiracy. The guy was driving too fast, knew it, and got caught! What does Cohen mean “Even those who think themselves guilty”? The driver admitted he exceeded the speed limit on the basis of his own car’s speedometer; he didn’t “think” he was guilty; he knew with complete certainty he was guilty, and said so to the cop who stopped him.

“The Ethicist” thinks “it’s a fine thing” for that driver to renege on his admission and impugn the policeman’s behavior, challenge the speed limit posting and question the radar gun to get out of a wrongful fine for an act he admits he committed. How could this course of action possibly be called ethical?

Here is what really is “a fine thing,” Randy: integrity—sticking to one’s word and backing it up with action. The driver said the ticket was correct. It is dishonest and irresponsible for him to turn around and challenge it as Cohen suggests. Here’s something else that is “a fine thing,” Randy: accountability—admitting when you have done wrong when you know it and accepting the consequences. The purpose of the legal system is not to encourage citizens to try to avoid just consequences for admitted violations of the law. Yes, as Cohen correctly notes, everyone has a right to challenge charges in court, but as anyone who calls himself an ethicist is supposed to know, it is not always ethical to exercise a right. Banks have the right to kick elderly homeowner out onto the street as soon as they fall behind on their mortgage payments. I have the right to limit my circle of friends and business associates to straight, white, Protestant bigots. I have the right to be blatantly incompetent in my free ethics commentary, and, like Randy in this case, to give mistaken and even harmful advice. All of these things are still unethical, however.

The Ethicist’s answer to Mr. Pelligrino’s query is unethical too, dramatically so. Cohen is saying that it is reasonable and ethical to force a trial on a traffic offense when…

  • The driver admitted the offense to the police officer…
  • …in front of his children…
  • …in order to challenge the veracity of the officer, who took his admission in good faith…
  • ….requiring the officer to appear in court, taking him away from community law enforcement duties…
  • …taking up court time, using taxpayer-funded personnel, that should be devoted to cases where the facts are genuinely in dispute…
  • …with the objective of avoiding the payment of a just fine to the government, where it would be used for community purposes, in order to transfer money instead to the pocket of, not just a lawyer, but the unethical species of lawyer who is willing to take unconscionable cases…
  • …thus teaching the driver’s children, if the driver prevails, that the objective in life is use the system to avoid accountability, even when you deserve to be punished, and..
  • …that respect for the law is less important than avoiding a thoroughly earned fine, and
  • …that speeding is all right if you can get away with it, thus…
  • …increasing the likelihood that the children themselves will regard excessive speed this way when they become drivers, and also increasing the chances that their driving habits will cause harm to themselves or others.

I have  read “The Ethicist” for years, I have learned that Randy Cohen has unseemly problems with honesty, a reflex prejudice against law enforcement, and shocking and brazen cluelessness on matters of legal ethics and the exercise of legal rights. Bruce Pelligrino managed to ask a question that involved all of them, and the result was one of the most indefensible answers I’ve seen from Cohen yet.

Ethics Dunce: PZ Myers

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

PZ Myers, according to his blog, Pharyngula, is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota. Yesterday, however, he was just one more arrogant, mean-spirited bully (if this were not an ethics blog, I would have used the term “jackass”), ridiculing Catholics who chose to follow the traditions of their church by displaying a smudge of ash on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.

Like all bullies, he chose the weakest and most defenseless targets for his attack: “little old ladies,” whose religious devotion made him want to “pull out a hankie, spit on it, and clean them up.” Continue reading →

Trust, Redemption, and Bank-robbing Lawyers

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

The story of Shon Hopwood is certainly an inspiring one…so far. While serving more than a decade in federal prison for a series of armed robberies, his time in the prison law library turned him into an expert in case law, and he pulled off a rare feat: a petition for certiori he prepared on behalf of a fellow prisoner successfully persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Now Hopwood is out of prison, and is turning his life around. He has been working as a paralegal, he now has a family, and at 34, he plans to apply to law school.

It is likely that a law school will admit him, but not at all certain that any state bar would give him a license. Can a former bank robber pass the profession’s character requirement? Should he, no matter how good he is at writing Supreme Court briefs? Continue reading →

Sunday Ethics Trio: CREW, Coercion and Condiments

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

The C Street Horror…Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appears to have jumped the rails in its hysterical protest of President Obama appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast, a venerable if odd event that dates from the Eisenhower administration. Some of CREW’s objections are that the event’s organizers, a group with the admittedly sinister-sounding name “The Family,” preaches “an unconventional brand of Christianity,” (As does Rev. Wright. So what?) lacks transparency (Just like the Obama administration of late. This is a matter worth investigating, exposing and reforming, but if the President has to boycott organizations based on a lack of transparency, he’ll be living on the streets), has been “linked” to unsavory causes (Translation: CREW doesn’t like the group’s politics), and that the C Street Christian home the group maintains in Washington has housed a lot of politicians with ethical problems, like Gov. Mark Sanford and Sen John Ensign. That’s a bizarre complaint, don’t you think? Continue reading →

More Tebow Ad Ethics: Allred’s Complaint

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The much-anticipated Super Bowl ad telling the story of how quarterback Tim Tebow was born because his mother rejected a doctor’s advice to have him aborted for medical reasons is spinning off ethical issues at a dizzying rate.

Some are easily settled, as Ethics Alarms has already noted. There is nothing wrong with a Super Bowl ad raising substantive issues in the middle of beer commercials and tackles, as some have (incredibly) argued. There is nothing unethical about CBS changing its policy regarding issue-oriented commercials.  The fact that the network rejected such ads in the past does not make it hypocritical now. CBS, having ended a blanket prohibition, must now be fair and reasonable in deciding which issue ads to accept. Let’s see how it goes before we cry foul.

And there is nothing “anti-choice” about a woman’s story of how she chose not to abort her son, and is glad she did. It is not even an anti-abortion ad, unless the pro-abortion movement literally believes that it is wrong not to have an abortion. She had a choice, and she made it. The message of the ad does encourage thought about the consequences of having the procedure, which is unequivocally good.

Now, however, Hollywood lawyer and woman’s rights advocate Gloria Allred has suggested that Tebow and his mother are spinning a tale that is inspiring, powerful, and full of baloney, and she has sent CBS a letter of protest. Continue reading →