Psst! When You’re This Estranged From Human, Societal And Cultural Norms And Standards, No Advice Columnist Can Save You

The New York Times “Ethicist” got a jaw-dropping inquiry this week:

Nearly a year ago, I began dating two friends — I’ll call them Rachel and Dave — who were already themselves in a relationship. We all had no experience with polyamory. The throuple ended fairly quickly, with no one being at fault; the other two continued to date but broke up not too long afterward. Since then, Rachel and Dave have dated on and off, Rachel and I were casually together and Dave and I have been close friends who sleep together occasionally. There have also been relationships with others outside this group. At times, we have all behaved badly, sleeping together behind the other’s back, knowing the knowledge would hurt the other. Strong emotions, love and pain have arisen on all sides.

Throughout the past year, as multiple complex situations arose, we have all wished for a model of behavior. Monogamy-centered media suggests that one should avoid dating a friend’s ex-partner. Is this correct? And if so, can this concept be universalized? Do Rachel and Dave get “priority,” in that they should be together and I should not pursue either, because they dated first? What do we owe to our romantic partners and friends when the situations are complex?

His advice doesn’t interest me; you can read it here if it interests you. My focus is on the inquirer, predictably signed in as “Name Withheld.”

Continue reading

Back To The Justice Thomas Scandal: Do Conservatives Really Not Understand The Appearance of Impropriety Judicial Ethics Prohibition, Or Are They Just Choosing To Ignore It?

Ugh.

From the Daily Caller:

Conservative legal scholars are calling attacks on Clarence Thomas for his alleged ethics violations hypocritical in light of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s financial disclosure as a nominee, which shows she omitted portions of her income on previous filings, including money from her husband’s consulting work.

These “conservative scholars” are partisan hacks.

Their argument is that because Jackson’s SCOTUS nominee disclosure papers filed in March 2022 “inadvertently omitted” income her spouse “periodically receives from consulting on medical malpractice cases” (which was disclosed on prior reports), there is a double standard applied to conservative justices. Utter garbage, and I suspect intentionally misleading. There would be no demands for Thomas’s resignation if all that was at issue was the failure to report some ambiguous gifts on his annual disclosure forms. SCOTUS justices have done this many times in the past: it is grounds for criticism and a necessary “Sorry, I won’t do that again” statement. The reason Thomas’s 20 years of unreported vacations with ultra-conservative billionaire real estate developer Harlan Crow is that it looks bad, to the public, to objective judicial ethicists, and to me.

Continue reading

Open Forum!

It sure seems like lots of ethics stuff is swirling around today, and I have no idea where I’ll be going with it at this point.

I’m counting on you to help sort it all out…

On Waco, “Waco,” And Cults

Another horrible occurrence that I did not mention yesterday while review the ethics-related events of April 19 through the centuries was the tragic conclusion of the FBI’s seige against Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, in 1993. After a 51-day stand-off between the federal government and an armed religious cult, the compound burned to the ground, with about 80 members of Branch Davidians, including 22 children, dying in the blaze.

This was an ethics train wreck to be sure, and an unusually deadly one. There are so many documentaries and online accounts of the incident (of various quality and accuracy) that I’m not going to add to them here. I do recommend the 2018 Showtime docudrama series “Waco,” which is now streaming with a fascinating new sequel, “Waco: Aftermath,” currently being presented on Showtime.

There is a natural bias in “Waco”: its main sources were a book by one of the survivors and cult members whose wife perished in the fire, and another by an FBI negotiator who was extremely critical of how the agency handled the situation. Both authors come off as heroes of the disaster to the extent that such a botch can have heroes. When the docudrama premiered in 2018, many reviewers complained that the writers treated the FBI as the villains of the story, with cult leader David Koresh portrayed too sympathetically.

My impression, seeing “Waco” now, is that the series’ creators were on to something that has come into sharper focus in recent years. The FBI abuses its power, is badly managed, has too much autonomy, and can’t be trusted. That should have sunk in in 1993, but the news media was determined to let the hallowed law enforcement agency, Attorney General Janet Reno, and especially President Bill Clinton off the hook. I remember the coverage well: Koresh’s cult was lumped into the paramilitary and survivalist anti-government movement of the period. The Waco siege followed on the heels of the Ruby Ridge fiasco the year before, involving the same federal agencies, the FBI and the ATF. Even though that fatal showdown was ultimately shown to be exacerbated by the Feds (and a lawsuit found the agencies liable for damages), the public and media still were conditioned to regard the FBI as the “good guys.” Sure, it was tragic that people died, but the consensus was that they brought it on themselves, sad as the outcome was. At the time, I found it astounding that Reno wasn’t forced to resign, and that President Clinton escaped any accountability at all.

Much of that result was because of the subsequent Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. Public opinion was turning against the trend of over-aggressive government following Waco: Rush Limbaugh in particular was leading a daily attack on what he saw as as Big Government restrictions on personal liberties (like the right to live out in the desert with fellow followers of a deranged but charismatic religious fanatic who claimed to be chosen by God). Once McVeigh’s truck brought down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, killed 168 people and injured 680, however, public opinion turned decisively the government’s way. McVeigh cited Waco as a major reason for his terrorism, and the Cognitive Dissonance Scale worked its predictable magic: now the Branch Davidians were linked to pure evil. The FBI, and thus the U.S. government, propelled to the other side of the scale, the “good guys” at Waco, at Ruby Ridge, and always.

They aren’t, and weren’t. “Waco,” for all its flaws, makes that contrary conclusion unavoidable.

Continue reading

A “Great Stupid” Classic! Addressing Crash Dummy Employment Discrimination

Res ipsa loquitur.

The scary thing: nobody laughed.

Morning Ethics Round-Up, 4/19/2023: Madness, Violence, Harm, Trust And Fairness

Lots of bad stuff has happened on April 19, but at dawn on this date in 1776, just about 20 minutes from where I grew up in Arlington, Massachusetts, 700 British troops on the way to capture Sam Adams and John Hancock and snuff out the rebellion of the colonists, marched into Lexington. Just 77 minutemen were gathered on the town’s common, Lexington Green, to stop them, having been warned that night by Paul Revere and William Dawes. The Patriots lost the battle, of course, but the Revolution had begun, and the world should be grateful for it. The Green is still there, but it is in the middle of a traffic circle now; it’s hard to imagine that the great American experiment, a nation created to embody ethical values, started in such a place.

1. Madness! Rice is a main food source for about 3.5 billion people, but some of the climate change cultists want it banned. The AFP News Agency posted a video on Twitter that argued, “Rice is to blame for around 10 percent of global emissions of methane, a gas that over two decades, traps about 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide. Scientists say that if the world wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, rice cannot be ignored.” This is, of course, bonkers, though whether it is more or less bonkers than the climate change fanatics insisting that we stop eating meat and start learning to like bugs is a matter of, uh, taste. After Legal Insurrection flagged the video, those who thought it would be persuasive propaganda had second thoughts, and this is all that remains today:

Remember: this is a cult. Causing a famine and widespread death and suffering to “save the planet” is a necessary trade-off to such fanatics.

2. Someone needs to explain to Biden Administration “historic” and “diversity” hires that they still can’t get away with embarrassing the government. Well, they can’t count on it, anyway. Kayla Denker is a transgender activist who U.S. Forest Service and tweeted a video showing her with a gun accompanied by the message, “While advocating for trans people to ‘arm ourselves’ is not any kind of a solution to the genocide we are facing, I do want to say that if any of you transphobes do try to come for me I am taking a few of you with me.” Then a trans ex-student shot up a Nashville Christian grade school, and the tweet went “viral.”

Continue reading

Dear Proudly Obese Lady: It Is Not Everyone’s Obligation To Solve Your Problems

I hate to be unkind, but this is a Popeye if I ever there was one.

Jaelynn Chaney (above) is a fat positivity activist, which is jake with me, sort of, if I apply the “its not the worst thing” rationalization. (Maybe Bud Light will put her on a beer can, if possible.) However, she is now demanding, via a Change.Org petition, that the rest of us pay to make it easier for her (and her not quite as obese love-bunny to fly on commercial airlines.

Poor Jaelynn! As she writes in her repetitious and ungrammatical introduction to her demands,

Air travel should be comfortable and accessible for everyone, regardless of size. As plus-size travelers, my partner and I have unfortunately experienced discrimination and discomfort while flying. During a flight from Pasco to Denver, my fiancé was subjected to hateful comments, disapproving looks, and even refusal to sit next to them, amounting to discrimination. Similarly, on another flight, I was forced to occupy only one seat with immovable armrests that caused me pain and bruises. Being forced to occupy only one seat can result in pain and vulnerability to poor treatment from fellow passengers, including hateful comments, disapproving looks, and even refusal to sit next to them. This mistreatment of plus-size passengers is unacceptable, and it highlights the urgent need for better policies that protect the dignity and rights of all passengers, regardless of size. Unfortunately, plus-size passengers often experience discomfort and discrimination when flying. The lack of a uniform customer-of-size airline policy is unacceptable and must be addressed.

Continue reading

An Ethics Conflict Conundrum: The Fraudulent Friend

From “The Ethicist” (that’s the New York Times Magazine’s ethics advice columnist, his name is Kwame Anthony Appiah, and he’s not bad) comes a new version of an eternal ethics conflict that I have encountered both hypothetically and in life:

My friend told me that she and her husband, who combined earn around $500,000, asked their son’s stepmother to declare him on her taxes for the last two years so that he could get more financial aid for college. Their son doesn’t even live with the stepmother, and she provides no support.

I just learned that her son is now getting a full grant to a very expensive private college. I’m supposed to take a weekend trip with my friend in a few weeks, but I’m so angry about this I don’t know if I can speak to her. Is this fraud? What is my responsibility in this situation?

“The Ethicist” waffles and settles on,

Continue reading

Unethical Quote Of The Month: Yale Junior Bianca Nam

“Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing. ..The burden is not on us to talk our mouths dry and educate others, and frankly it is past the point of being an intellectual challenge. It’s an insult to our personhood, experience and rights to have to hold some of these “debates.” …Abort the conversation.”

—Yale Daily News columnist Bianca Nanin her essay rejecting the concept of civil discourse and debate among students on issues she has made up her mind regarding what the “right” answer is.

20 years old, after nearly three years of education at one of the nation’s elite institutions of higher learning, and this is what Bianca Nan has learned. Not only is she and her ideological clones right about a wide range of political and social issues, but it is a waste of time to even listen to differing views and debate their validity, because such points of view are inherently dangerous and not worthy of debate.

What issues does she consider so settled and self-evident to right-thinking people that her virtuous and superior viewpoint cannot and should not be challenged? Not just abortion, though that is certainly one: she writes,

Continue reading

Weekend Ethics Round-Up, April 15, 2023: Remember Jackie Robinson!

April 15 is one of the more momentous dates in history, and not just history, but ethics history:

  • Abraham Lincoln died in the early morning hours of April 15, 1865, after being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth.
  • ” The Titanic” sank in 1912, killing more than 1500 passengers and crew, with almost too many ethics-related episodes to count, from the head of the White Star lines grabbing a seat in a lifeboat while many of America’s rich and famous stayed on board to allow “women and children first,” to the negligence and hubris that led the ship’s owners and captain to allow an inadequate number of life boats, to the so-called “mystery ship” that ignored the “Titanic’s” calls for help while the captain of the “Carpathia” risked his own vessel to race to pick up survivors, and much more, the disaster is one of the richest subjects for ethics discussions of all.
  • The Boston Marathon bombing occurred in 2013, as two Muslim brothers planted pipe bombs that killed three of the assembled spectators while injuring 260, many of whom lost limbs. The young men acted, it is now believed, entirely on their own, motivated by “extreme Islamic beliefs.”

The greatest ethical impact of all on this date, however, may have come from Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s apartheid in 1947 by stepping onto Ebbetts Field in Brooklyn and ending 50 years of discrimination in the sport, while establishing an advance in civil rights generally that propelled the crucial movement forward. You know all about Jackie, don’t you? You should; so should your kids, grandchildren, sisters, cousins and aunts. He’s enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, and also in the Ethics Alarms Hall of Heroes as an Ethics Hero Emeritus.

Today was Jackie Robinson Day around the MLB ballparks, with every player wearing Robinson’s retired uniform number, 42.

1. What the heck is going on at Newton North High School? Last month, as discussed here, the once-celebrated Boston area high school, got caught racially segregating auditions for the school play, telling white students that their talents were not needed. This month, the same school hosted “Missy Steak,” a drag queen, as she spoke to and sang to students in a 30-minute assembly celebrating of “Transgender Bisexual Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day.” The Boston news media seems to think it is decisive that more supporters of promoting non-conventional sexual behavior in school showed up than protesters. After all, ethics is based on “majority rules,” right?

I see no competent or responsible argument for any sexual behavior to be promoted as part of public education, other than essential law and ethics.

2. What? Justice Alito didn’t automatically side with the radical, loose cannon judge trying to ban abortion pills approved by the FDA? The New York Times reports:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. issued an order on Friday temporarily ensuring that a common abortion pill would remain widely available while the Supreme Court considered whether to grant the Biden administration’s emergency request to preserve the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug.

The order was meant to maintain the status quo while the justices studied the briefs and lower court rulings, and it did not forecast how the court would ultimately rule in the most important case about access to abortion since its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

Justice Alito set a brisk schedule for the court’s consideration of the case. His order, an administrative stay, instructed the groups challenging the F.D.A.’s approval of the abortion drug, mifepristone, to file their brief by Tuesday at noon.

The stay itself is set to expire on Wednesday at midnight, meaning the court is very likely to act before then and could in the coming days further curtail access to abortion, even in states where it is legal.

Justice Alito did this because, though he is probably the most conservative member of the Supreme Court who shouldn’t have resigned by now, he still is a competent jurist who knows garbage judging when he sees it. There is no way that Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk‘s unethical ruling will stand; nevertheless, Times SCOTUS reporter Adam Liptak couldn’t resist implying that a judicial restriction on abortion is in the wind. This is pure fear-mongering and partisan manipulation of public opinion.

3. Speaking of the Honorable Judge Kacsmaryk, the Washington Post revealed that as his Senate confirmation hearings for Federal judge approached, he had his name scrubbed from a law review article he had submitted. As part of the confirmation process, Kacsmaryk was required to list all of his published work on a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited.” The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a conservative legal journal that Kacsmaryk had edited as a law student at the University of Texas. But he did not l list the article for the Senate, obviously feeling his views in it might endanger his confirmation.

He should resign too.