Last week, the McBurney YMCA in the West Village of New York City fired Santa Claus, who traditionally takes gift requests from children at its annual holiday luncheon, in favor of Frosty the Snowman. Why, you ask?
John Rappaport, executive director of the McBurney YMCA, explained, “We realized that change is sometimes good, and that Frosty is a great winter character who would appeal to a broader number of kids.”
Translation: Continue reading
I am sure “Ellen S.” is a sincere, caring, lovely person, but the Ethics Police need to put an electric monitor on her tongue that sets off a warning every time she tries to utter the word “ethics.” There are many divergent ethical systems and many legitimate ways of analyzing an ethical problem, but Ellen’s sincere, caring blog illustrate why so many people’s eye glaze over when ethics comes into a conversation, and worse, it shows why so many otherwise educated people let their conduct be governed by rationalizations. The latest post on Ellen S.’s blog for the WEGO Health website illustrates my point; I didn’t have the courage to read more, and you will see why.
The post is entitled “Was Hitler More Ethical Than You?” Continue reading
Buffalo Bills wide receiver Steve Johnson dropped what would have been a game-winning touchdown pass in Sunday’s game against the Steelers, who eventually won. Rather than accepting responsibility and accountability for his failure, Johnson took to Twitter to blame…God.
His tweet shouted in indignation…
“I PRAISE YOU 24/7!!!!! AND THIS IS HOW YOU DO ME!!!!! YOU EXPECT ME TO LEARN FROM THIS??? HOW??? I’LL NEVER FORGET THIS!!!! EVER!!! THX THO…” Continue reading
Colleague Rushworth Kidder has an enlightening ethics post on his Institute for Global Ethics site. After watching two diners scoop up handfuls of a restaurant’s butter tubs on their way out, Kidder queried friends about whether the conduct was unethical. His question sparked a longer debate than one might expect, and more valuable too. Kidder writes… Continue reading
Predictably, Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger striking down California’s voter approved Proposition 8 has infuriated foes of gay marriage, who have condemned his opinion as judicial activism, a rejection of democratic process, and an agenda-driven farce. Walker himself is being attacked for having a conflict of interest, because he is widely believed to be gay himself. (The belief that a gay judge cannot rule objectively on the issue of gay marriage while a straight judge can is itself an expression of bias.) This is not surprising. What is surprising, at least to me, is that the only substantial argument critics of the opinion can articulate is based on the exact proposition Walker rejected in his opinion: that laws should be able to prohibit conduct based on morality and tradition alone, without quantifiable and verifiable reasons relating to the best interests of society. By insisting that a California law that would withhold a fundamental right—marriage—from a class of Americans must justify itself with reason rather than tradition, Judge Walker ruled that it is ethics, not morality, that should govern American law and justice. Continue reading
His opinion declaring the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in California unconstitutional is here.
The opinion really begins on page 110. Opponents of the opinion are calling it “judicial activism,” “overturning the will of the people,” and “ruling by fiat.” Don’t buy it. The judge logically, fairly and appropriately explains why withholding the basic right of marriage from same-sex couples is a violation of essential values and American principles of ethics and law. Forget about the pundits and the spin: read what Judge Walker wrote.
Over at “The Economist” website, two articulate and well-qualified opponents are debating the wisdom of state sanctioned gambling. The debate will be “settled” by a vote of the site’s readers.
The two advocates cover the topic thoroughly and well, and I will link to the debate rather than attempt to supplement it in detail, except to say this: Continue reading
British “corporate philosopher” Roger Steere has developed an on-line “Ethicability” test that is worth the time to take. (I know…I hate the title too.) Of course, self-evaluations of ethical conduct are notoriously suspect, as the Gallup Poll proves every year. (Most Americans think they are the most ethical individuals they know.) This one focuses on integrity, however, and the computer-generated scores and the personal assessment are thought-provoking. I took it; I think anyone who knew me well would have been more accurate, but it wasn’t wildly off the mark.
See how you do, and if you have a couple more minutes, post your reactions at Ethics Alarms. Is this sort of thing useful?
The test is here.
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.
When a writer posits an intriguing theory and then fails to support it credibly, there are only a few alternate conclusions the reader can reach. One is that it is a viable theory, but the advocate didn’t have the skills to explain it. Another is that it is a mistaken theory, and the advocate is wrong. A third is that the failure of the writer to make a case for his theory shows how wrong it is.
A recent article in The Guardian is in the last category, I suspect. It is an argument so inadequate and dominated by flaccid rationalizations that it nearly disproves the proposition it is supposedly defending. The thesis: “Immortality isn’t unethical.” Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 