The Apology Scale

Ethics Quiz: Fauci’s Apology

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Francis Turner, a Brit I have never heard of who is currently living in Japan, has a substack up titled “Pleading the Fifth when you have already received a Presidential pardon is like wearing a mask after being fully vaccinated.” It’s a good line, but untrue. There were good reason, in Fauci’s villainous mind, for not testifying honestly in a Congressional hearing. He’s a narcissist and an unapologetic former Deep State operative, and he knows the Axis of Unethical Conduct is invested in defending him forever as long as he never betrays it. To testify honestly, Fauci would have to admit he was wrong, that he lied, and that terrible damage was done to the nation because of his lies and mistakes. It would mean accepting responsibility and being accountable. People like Fauci aren’t capable of doing that.

It was this argument by Turner, however, that fascinated me.

“I’m willing to forgive people but has to be a quid pro quo that is an acknowledgement that there is something to forgive. If you can’t admit you made mistakes and that those mistakes killed people, bankrupted businesses and so on then you don’t get my forgiveness. And as I tweeted1 people who got things wrong up to about June 2020 get a pass because there was a ton of confusion and (especially from the PRC) misleading information so figuring stuff out was hard. But anyone who continued to advocate school closures, isolation of the elderly, mask safety theater and so on after that date needs to apologise. Anyone who insisted on vaccination of everyone, including the young, and wanted passports, mandates or other coercive measures needs to apologise. Anyone who mindlessly mocked recommendations for Hthe world a huge favor by admitting that they made mistakes and apologising for them.CQ, Zinc, Vitamin D, Ivermectin and so on needs to apologise […]. So does anyone who deliberately misinterpreted President Trump’s remarks about disinfectant to imply that he said people should inject bleach. In fact the mainstream media needs to do a general apology for their un-questioning slavish devotion to “the science” even when said “science” changed its mind and their related trashing of anyone who didn’t follow “the science” as it was declared to be at the time….

“In the midst of all the “under the advice of my attorneys I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, to refrain from answering your questions” blather, Herr Doktor Science notably failed to apologise. Not in his opening statement, and not when explicitly asked to by Senator Bernie Moreno. He just repeated his 5th amendment spiel… The world has moved on. But I read some of the Fauci diaries. I’ve read the commentary on it by Alex Berenson and Jeff Childers and many others. And my frustration has come raging back…”I don’t require a jail term, repayment of all the moolah or even an admission of guilt. Just man up (almost everyone concerned is of the male persuasion), put on your big boy trousers and say sorry.It can be just that one word. “Sorry” No need to say why you are apologising. No need to say who to. Just say the word.This particularly applies to Herr Doktor Science because he’s got a presidential pardon so saying sorry won’t land him in jail. Unless of course he shares other people’s skepticism about the validity of the autopen pardon he received…

“Sir Elton John says ‘Sorry seems to be the hardest word’ but that’s no excuse to not say it.”

Pages: 1 2

Now THIS Is An Unethical Judge!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia had a habit of having noisy sex with a police commander in her chambers during office hours. This resulted in a “chambers workplace that was extremely uncomfortable and troubling for clerks,” a judicial panel concluded.

Gee, ya think?

Ross was nominated to the bench in the Northern District of Georgia in 2014 by President Obama. Of course she was. She’s a Democrat, she’s black, she’s arrogant, and she’s unqualified to be a judge. A special committee released damning findings of misconduct in a report two weeks ago. Ross was found to have lied about having sexual intercourse in her chambers—judges aren’t supposed to lie either—but inexplicably, the Eleventh Circuit and Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability decided sufficient punishment was to bar Ross from serving as a chief judge and require her to write apology letters to her clerks. Other than that, she only received a private reprimand. The disciplinary report signaled a whitewash by stating, “Although the special committee is deeply troubled by the conduct in which the judge engaged, the subject judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary.” She lied to investigators! She was screwing around during work hours. That’s “diligent service to the judiciary”?

The lack of serious sanctions is indefensible. Ross shattered the following Canons in the Federal Judicial Code of Ethics:

Pages: 1 2

“When Is The Best Apology The Worst Apology?”….The Trilogy! Plus An Addition To The Apology Scale

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Unbelievable! Never did I suspect, when I wrote the post about the ridiculous, racist, vicious terrorism-supporting professor Mika Tosca, that her insultingly insincere and dishonest apology would become the model for Jew-haters now crawling out of the ooze of 2023 corrupt progressivism. And yet…here we are! This morning I posted about Beverly Hills doctor Andrew Thierry, who posted on on Instagram that “Zionists are gynocidal, demonic, greedy, pedophilic retards,” and then expected us to believe that his words were misunderstood, and he was sorry for that. Now we learn that, to channel the doomed character Randy in the “Scream” films, that we aren’t merely dealing with an ethics horror sequel, but a trilogy. For Cornell University history professor Russell Rickford, who said that he was ”exhilerated” over Hamas killing babies, children and civilians in its October 6 sneak terrorist attack and taking hostages too, is now trying to apologize…because he senses that his job might be in jeopardy. So he’s lying.

Continue reading →

Review: Ethics Alarms Concepts And Special Terms

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Recently updating the Ethics Alarms list of concepts and frequently used terms reminded me that I had been meaning to post them for review and assistance to those relatively new here. Of course, the link has always been right there at the top of the home page, but I have this sneaking suspicion that it isn’t visited very often.  Here, then, is the up-to-date list.

CONCEPTS

Non-Ethical Considerations: Defined above, non-ethical considerations are important because they are often the powerful impediments to ethical conduct, and the cause of many conflicts of interest. Non-ethical considerations are many and diverse, and include:

  • The need and desire for shelter, health, wealth, fame, security, self-esteem, reputation, power, professional advancement, comfort, love, sex, praise, credit, appreciation, affection, or satisfaction
  • The desire for the health, comfort, safety, welfare and happiness for one’s family, loved ones, friends, colleagues, an co-workers
  • The pursuit of vengeance or retribution
  • Hunger, lust, pain, ambition, prejudice, bias, hatred, laziness, fatigue, disgust, anger, fear
  • …and many more

Ethical Dilemma: This is an ethical problem in which the ethical choice involves ignoring a powerful non-ethical consideration. Do the right thing, but lose your job, a friend, a lover, or an opportunity for advancement. A non-ethical consideration can be powerful and important enough to justify choosing it over the strict ethical action.

Ethical Conflict: When two ethical principles demand opposite results in the same situation, this is an ethical conflict. Solving ethical conflicts may require establishing a hierarchy or priority of ethical principles, or examining the situation through another ethical system.

Ethical Gray Area: Gray areas are situations and problems that don’t fit neatly into any existing mode of ethical analysis. In some cases, there may even be a dispute regarding whether ethics is involved.

Reciprocity: The ethical system embodied by The Golden Rule, and given slightly different form in other religions and philosophies. It is a straight-forward way of judging conduct affecting others by putting oneself in the position of those affected. Reciprocity should always be available in any ethical analysis, but it is frequently too simple to be helpful in complex ethical situations with multiple competing interests.

Absolutism: Absolutist systems do not permit any exception to certain ethical principles. The champion of all absolutists, philosopher Immanuel Kant, declared that the ethical act was one that the actor was willing to have stand as a universal principle.

One principle of absolutism is that human beings can never be harmed for any objective, no matter how otherwise worthwhile. Absolutism has the advantage of making tough ethical calls seem easy, and the disadvantage of making debate impossible. One sees absolutism reflected today in the controversies over war, torture, abortion, cloning, and capital punishment.

Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism accepts the existence of ethical conflicts and the legitimacy of some ethical dilemmas, and proposes ethical analysis based on the question, “Which act will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people?’ It entails the balancing of greater and lesser goods, and is useful for unraveling complex ethical problems. Its drawback, or trap, is that utilitarianism can slide into “The ends justify the means” without some application of absolutist and reciprocity principles.

Consequentialism: In formal ethics, utilitarian schools of philosophy are sometimes lumped together as “consequentialism,” in that the ethical decision-making is based on seeking the best result. Here we just uses the above term, utilitarianism.  Consequentialsm, in contrast, is the flawed belief that the rightness or wrongness, or even wisdom, of chosen conduct is measures by its actual results rather than its intended results. If “if all worked out for the best,” in other words, the conduct that created the desirable result most have been ethical, whatever its intent or however the conduct was determined to be necessary or desirable. This is a fallacy.

Cognitive Dissonance: Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon first identified by Leon Festinger. It occurs when there is a discrepancy between what a person believes, knows and values, and persuasive information that calls these into question. The discrepancy causes psychological discomfort, and the mind adjusts to reduce the discrepancy. In ethics, cognitive dissonance is important in its ability to alter values, such as when an admired celebrity embraces behavior that his or her admirers deplore. Their dissonance will often result in changing their attitudes toward the behavior. Dissonance also leads to rationalizations of unethical conduct, as when the appeal and potential benefits of a large amount of money makes unethical actions to acquire it seem less objectionable than if they were applied to smaller amounts.

Moral Luck: The common situation where an unethical act is only discovered, noticed, or deemed worthy of condemnation due to unpredictable occurrences that come as a result of the act or that affect its consequences. Moral luck is the difference, for example, between two mildly intoxicated drivers, one of whom arrives home without incident, while the other has an unwary child dash in front of his automobile, leading to a fatal accident that he couldn’t have avoided if completely sober. Yet the unlucky driver will be a pariah in the community, while the more fortunate driver goes on with his life.

SPECIAL TERMS USED ON ETHICS ALARMS

Continue reading →