This was weird; I wonder if The Ethicist (his friends call him Kwame Anthony Appiah, or just “Professor”) just felt like slapping down someone despicable. When I read the creepy question posed, I immediately thought, “Who needs an ethicist to answer this?”
“Name Withheld” (that guy writes an awful lot of questions to The Ethicist) wrote in part,
Are there really so few genuine ethics dilemmas to discuss that Prof. Appiah, aka.”The Ethicist,” has to resort to answering dumb questions like this? An inquirer asks,
I’m in my 30s and have multiple motor and vocal tics that started in my early teens and have never gone away. As far as I can tell, I fit the diagnostic criteria for Tourette’s syndrome… Can I say I have Tourette’s without being formally diagnosed? I’m wary of doing so, given that self-diagnosis is looked down upon for medical issues generally and specifically in the case of Tourette’s; there has been a recent rash of people on social media falsely claiming to have it. But I feel that telling people that I have Tourette’s, which is a label many people recognize, would allow me to talk about my tics more freely and in so doing help counter the mild shame I have around them. It might even educate others on the range of severity with which Tourette’s can present, i.e., that it’s not always so noticeable. But I’m very concerned about seeming to co-opt a group’s struggles, and I don’t know if I need a formal diagnosis to be welcomed into groups for people with Tourette’s, either. What is your view?
I find the latest query posed to The Ethicist to have such an ethically obvious answer as to be unworthy of publication, unless the objective was to demonstrate how weak and intellectually dishonest ethical the position of pro-abortion advocates is.
Here it is:
I’ve always supported a woman’s right to choose, not least because legal access to abortion once saved me from an untenable situation. I also believe that if a woman chooses to abort, her wish should supersede any opposition to it by the father. The physical, practical and emotional effects on a woman obliged to carry a child to term (and to care for it afterward) are, in my view, far more significant than they are for the father.
But what about the reverse? What about a case in which the father (in this case, my son) is adamantly opposed to having a child, but the woman (his ex-girlfriend) wants to keep the pregnancy? While it’s not relevant to the moral question, the pregnancy is shockingly unexpected given a medical issue of the father’s. And the couple’s relationship has almost no chance of success, even without a pregnancy. Given that the woman has neither a willing partner nor a job and is already responsible for a child from a previous relationship, her decision to continue with the pregnancy is viewed by most in her circle as reckless and certain to risk her already precarious mental health. Here, her right to choose to carry the child will have a profound impact on three (soon to be four) people and is likely to be very difficult for all.
Is it right to force someone to be a parent, even if in name only? Many people, me included, would say no if that person is a woman. Recent events have shown how fraught this issue is. And yet a man who does not wish to be, has never wanted to be and was told that his chances of ever being a parent were nil can find himself in a situation where his opposition carries no weight. While it’s evident that he will have financial obligations, what might his moral responsibility be?
What a god-awful, ethically-obtuse letter to be send for publication, never mind circulated by an ethicist! Let’s see:
For some time now, I’ve noticed that the reader ethics questions posed to Kwame Anthony Appiah, the New York Times Magazine’s proprietor of “The Ethicist” advice column, have become more obvious, often embarrassingly so. Appiah, a real ethicist (he teaches philosophy at NYU) is easily the best of the advice columnists who have held his job, though, naturally, I would be better still. But the point of the column, presumably, is to educate readers about ethical decision-making and standards for ethical analysis. A question that provokes the reaction, “What? Are you kidding? DUH!” does not accomplish that objective.
Now, it’s possible that Appiah is a competent ethicist but a lousy question selector. It’s also possible, since the descent of The Great Stupid over the land and related recent cultural disasters, like eight years of terrible role models in the White House, the politicization of public education and universities, and the continuing deterioration of popular culture, which, believe it or not, used to specialize in ethics lessons for the masses, ethical literacy is in a death spiral.
Ethics Alarms 