The Golden Rule

An Old Friend Comes To Call…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

I had a weird Independence Day weekend.

Six months ago an elementary and high school classmate whom I had not seen, spoken to or, frankly, thought about or missed in 50 years contacted me and said he and his family would be taking a cross-country road trip with his 86 foot long trailer in honor of the 250th Anniversary of our nation’s founding. For his D.C. stop, timed to take place on July Fourth, he was wondering if I could accommodate his monster vehicle. (He had checked my Alexandria home’s locale via Google satellite, and saw that there seemed to be a lot of space on my cul-de-sac.)

Let’s call him “Jeff.”

I said “Sure! It would be great to see you!” as a reflex, and promptly forgot about him as well as my commitment.

Well, Jeff arrived as planned after calling me for three days as he drove here. It was immediately clear that he expected me to be his family’s chauffeur, host and tour guide until they departed Monday afternoon. So I was. I took them to museums and D.C. area attractions. I accompanied them to restaurants. They left their trailer and knocked on my door early every morning—earlier than I would usually be up— assuming I was ready to start the day’s events.

This was a weird family. Jeff’s wife (his fourth, I learned) was an Armenian woman 25 years his junior who barely spoke English, and Jeff never indicated that he spoke her language. They had a delightful, happy four-year old boy (whom she dressed like a girl) whom the couple had adopted after his mother, Jeff’s wife’s niece, had been murdered by a serial killer.

Pages: 1 2

Kim Novak: I Hereby Introduce You To “The Golden Rule”…

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Kim Novak is now 92 years old. She is one of the more forgotten sirens of the Hollywood Fifties Golden Age, and to the extent that she is remembered at all, it is because she was one of Alfred Hitchcock’s interchangeable blondes somewhere between Doris Day and Tippi Hedren. Her Hitchcock vehicle, “Vertigo,” is for some reason regarded by film schools as Hitch’s best, but it can’t be because of Novak, who was cool, sexy, but not much of an actress.

They are making a movie about one aspect of Novak’s life because it can be twisted into some kind of woke message: she had a relationship of some sort with quadruple threat (drama, comedy, singing and dancing) Sammy Davis Jr., at a time when white sex symbols weren’t supposed to hang out with black superstars. Chosen to play Kim is current hot blonde Sydney Sweeney. It’s a high profile opportunity for the young woman, who is looking for opportunities to be taken seriously as an actress before her window of genuine stardom closes, just a Kim was, once upon a time.

So what does Kim Novak do? She gives an interview to the U.K.’s scandal The Times and trashes Sweeney, whom she has never met. Novak called Sydney “totally wrong” to play her in the upcoming biopic “Scandalous,” sneering that she “would never have approved” of Sweeney’s casting in the film, because she “sticks out so much above the waist.”

Funny, the degree that Kim was regarded as “sticking out above the waste” was substantially responsible for her having a career in films at all; Bette Davis she wasn’t. The size of women’s breasts that caused them to be lusted after as unusually busty has increased substantially over the decades: Raquel Welch, whose endowments were the object of endless jokes in the Sixties, would be regarded as unremarkable today.

But never mind the fact that Novak’s complaint is silly: she is 93 after all. Because Kim was a rising young actress once, she demonstrates ethical incompetence by not considering how would she have felt if she got a plum part in a Hollywood film biography portraying an earlier era’s blonde sex symbol like, say, Mae West, and Mae had announced in public that Kim was wrong for the role. She would have regarded Mae as a vicious bitch…and she would have been right.

Now Novak has laid the foundation for critics to crush whatever Sydney does in the film, something many of them are itching to do anyway. Woke World hates Sydney because she made a jeans ad that they absurdly claim advocated white supremacy. Yes, they are that desperate.

Nice, Kim. Here’s a little bit of advice that somehow you’ve managed to miss in your nine decades: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Bi…never mind. You owe Sydney an apology, Kim.

Ethics Alarms Presents: The Shortest Commentary on a Question to “The Ethicist” Yet…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The Question: The inquirer’s 15-year old son is dating a 15-year-old girl. The parents just found out that the girl’s parents, who are immigrants and from another culture, do not want their daughter dating yet. The boy’s parents want to know if they should tell the girls’ parents about the relationship or, perhaps, tell their son not to date her. The ultimate question: “I’m worried I could get my son’s girlfriend in big trouble or even put her in danger. Can I just supervise them at my house and absolve myself of enforcing her parents’ rules?”

The Shortest Answer from Ethics Alarms: No.

The Slightly Longer Answer from Ethics Alarms : It’s the Golden Rule, dummy!

The More Detailed Answer: Tell your son that he may not continue dating the girl against the will of her parents, and that if he does, you will be forced to blow the whistle on her.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Remind your son the “Romeo and Juliet” is just a play.

[I didn’t even bother to read The Ethicist’s answer before I wrote this when I saw that Prof. Appiah took over 500 words to explain the easiest of ethics calls. I did notice that he mentioned “Romeo and Juliet,” however.]

Unethical Quote of the Month: “The Ethicist” (Kwame Anthony Appiah)

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

“We are, as I’ve argued before, entitled to a life informed by the fundamental facts about our existence. Even the painful ones? Perhaps especially those. This truth belongs to her.”

—New York Times advice columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah, aka. “The Ethicist” concluding his advice to the inquirer who asked, “My Adopted Cousin’s Biological Parents Were Siblings. Do I Tell Her?”

Kwame is pretty clearly the best of the various “experts” who have manned the long-time feature in the New York Times Magazine; at least he’s a real ethicist, a philosophy prof at NYU. (I say “manned” because the Times has never given the post of “The Ethicist” to a woman. Go figure…) Lately, however, I’ve been a bit worried about the guy, and wondering if “The Great Stupid” is getting to him. More answers like this one, and I’ll be tempted to dub him the “Un-Ethicist,” in honor of the old 7-Up campaign branding the soft-drink as the “Un-cola.”

I’m just going to focus on the quote above and not the whole column, because The Ethicist is stating an absolute principle that is absolute hooey. The inspiration for the edict “The truth belongs to her” was the usual participant in the column, “Name Withheld,” asking whether he or she, as the only living relative who knows the actual family origins of a cousin, (or as Kwame puts it, is “the sole custodian of an intimate truth concealed from the very person it concerns) should spill the rotten beans now, when they both are seniors.

Because the dark family secret can be nothing but disturbing or worse, I see no possible benefit to anyone by revealing it to the cousin now. She knows she was adopted, but she does not know that her biological parents were brother and sister—at least that’s what the inquirer’s now-deceased mother told her “in absolute confidence.” All records are sealed: there is no way for the “truth,” if it is the truth, to come out, as all involved except the adopted cousin are dead. The clueless cousin has a husband, children or grandchildren.

Even in his (as usual) prolix answer, The Ethicist struggles to find any real benefit to the inquirer revealing the secret. Any genetic abnormalities, from which the Clueless Cousin has apparently been spared, would now be detected with modern medical screening and are increasingly unlikely with succeeding generations. So he defaults to the “rule,” encomium, or whatever he thinks it is, that the cousin must have this depressing, disturbing and useless information because “this truth belongs to her.”

Continue reading →

Celebrity Ethics: Scarlett Johansson’s Manifesto

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

For some mysterious reason, Daily Caller reporter Leena Nasir felt compelled to attack Hollywood actress Scarlett Johansson for her statements regarding fans who approach her when she is in public but not in a performing capacity.

“Scarlett Johansson put her arrogance on full display by issuing an unhinged statement about her celebrity status,” the indignant writer declared in an “Editorial.” “Clearly setting her bar as low as it can go, she casually blurted the selfish comments during the interview for her In Style cover story,” Nasir continued. “Johansson launched into a self-indulgent display of arrogance…I don’t think Johansson has a lot to worry about anymore. The people who did follow her career have likely just been turned away. It’s hard to imagine fans will care much about her anymore.”

Wow, two uses of “anymore” within three sentences. When I do that, I sentence myself to remedial writing exercises.

But back to Scarlett: what did the acclaimed actress tell the interviewer to justify such enmity from The Daily Caller? This:

Continue reading →

Look! “The Ethicist” Has A Real Ethics Question That Doesn’t Involve Trump Derangement!

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

The New York Times Sunday advice column “The Ethicist” has been indulging itself by joining in the mass Times mourning over the election of Donald Trump and the failure of the paper’s years long propaganda campaign against him. The past four featured questions have been “Is It Fair to Judge a Friend by the Way She Voted?”, “Can Voters Be Held Accountable for Their Candidate’s Behavior?”, “Am I a Hypocrite for Calling Donald Trump a Liar?”, and my personal favorite, “My Mom Voted for Trump. Can We Let It Go?” It has taken a month to get back to genuine ethics dilemmas and conflicts, but at last Prof. Appiah is where he is supposed to be all the time.

This weeks query was “A Guy I Know Had a Liver Transplant. Now He’s Boozing Again.” [Gift link! Merry Christmas!]It raises more than one ethics question worthy of discussion, including:

1. Should alcoholics who have destroyed their livers be eligible for liver transplants?

2. Is the recipient of a liver transplant behaving unethically if he or she returns to the same lifestyle that ruined the first one?

3. Do the friends of the now boozing liver transplant recipient “have an obligation to tell this man’s wife that he’s still drinking?”

The first one came up for debate nationwide when Mickey Mantle, the hard-drinking baseball great, strangely came up at the top of a liver transplant list despite being predominantly responsible for his first liver’s demise. Organ transplant waiting lists are created using several formulas and weighted values, which makes sense when distributing rare commodities. On the other hand, this is a slippery slope that slides directly into punishing people for not exercising enough, eating too much pizza, smoking or favoring dangerous hobbies, like motorcycle racing, and withholding medical care or insurance coverage of the adverse results. Alcoholism, as I learned the hard way, is not volitional though alcohol abuse is, and good luck telling the two apart.

2. The second question is also squarely in an ethics gray area. Once the liver is in an individual’s body, he or she should have complete autonomy. Sure, it’s irresponsible for someone with obligations to others to take unnecessary risks with his or her life, but that’s true with or without a new liver. I can’t define a special obligation to those who did not receive a particular liver that should affect the recipient’s decisions going forward. What happens to the new liver won’t help or harm those who didn’t get it.

3. The third question is the easy one, and Golden Rule 101. Would you want to be told if your loved one was secretly endangering his or her health? Sure you would. However, if the wife in this case has been paying attention to her alcoholic husband, I doubt very much that anyone needs to tell her that he’s drinking again.

But did he vote for Donald Trump????

Unethical Website “Above the Law” Provides a Vivid Example of What Americans Voted Against This Week.

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I keep banishing “Above the Law,” (ABL) the wildly unethical partisan and woke-biased legal gossip site, from my email and it keeps sneaking back in. This story, by Kathryn Rubino (who once concocted an alleged “scandal” about me), is so outrageous it is beneath the site’s previous bottom of the barrel lows. I didn’t think that was possible. Impressive.

A tax partner in a major law firm (his name isn’t necessary, since the issue is ABL’s abuse of him, not the lawyer himself) engaged in a dispute over the management of his apartment building and the behavior of fellow residents. ABL’s breathless headline, “Biglaw Partner Drops Slur In Dustup With Neighbors.” ‘Oh oh,’ I thought, as did many other readers. “He must have called someone a ‘nigger.’ That’s going to get him in trouble with the firm.”

That wasn’t the slur, however. He emailed a complaint that read, “The retarded tenants of 6W opened the fire alarm door to my terrace.”

Continue reading →

Olympics Ethics Quiz: The Sexist Commentator

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

The Horror.

Bob Ballard is a veteran sports announcer with the BBC who has reported on sports since the mid- 1980s. He’s been involved in covering several Olympic games. However, a wan sexist joke he uttered that would have been standard fair on sitcoms in the 1960s got him sacked from the Paris Olympics broadcast.

After the women’s 4×100 meter freestyle relay that ended with a gold for Team Australia, Ballard felt compelled to comment on the team’s delay leaving the Paris Aquatic Centre. “Well, the women just finishing off. You know what women are like, hanging around, doing their makeup,” Ballard said. Immediately his female broadcasting partner Lizzie Simmonds, a former Olympian and his Eurosport co-host, struck. “Outrageous, Bob,” she said. “Some of the men are doing that as well.” Ballard laughed.

Eurosport, which distributes the Olympic broadcast in Europe (owned by the same company that now owns CNN) confirmed that the comment caused Ballard’s Olympics to be terminated. “We can confirm that Bob Ballard has been removed from our commentary roster with immediate effect,” it said in a statement this week.

Take THAT, insufficiently female athlete-extolling pig at the Parity Olympics!

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Was Ballard’s dismissal, fair, proportional and just?

Continue reading →

When Ethics Alarms Don’t Ring: The Nebraska Gas Heist

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

HEY EVERYBODY, FREE GAS!

Weeeell, not exactly free, but close enough, apparently, for a previously law-abiding, 45-year-old Lincoln, Nebraska woman, Dawn Thompson, to embark on a life of crime. I would love to hear what rationalizations she used to convince herself that what she did was okay. I’d bet anything that she employed a bunch of them.

Her gas-stealing rampage began to unravel when Lincoln Police got a call from Bosselman Enterprise’s loss prevention manager on Oct. 20, 2023. A Pump and Pantry had reported that someone was ripping them off. An investigation revealed that the convenience store’s gas pumps had received a faulty software update a year earlier in November of 2022. The update managed orders and reward cards, but it also allowed anyone who swiped a rewards card twice to shift a pump into its “demo mode.” Once it was set in that sequence, gas was free as far as the pump was concerned. One rewards card had been repeatedly used to fool the pumps, and police traced it to Thompson.

Continue reading →

Everyday Ethics Dilemmas: The Abandoned Tools

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I was walking Spuds down a street in our neighborhood when I noticed a group of tools, five or six, lying in the grass on the strip between the sidewalk and the street. They looked new: I’d guess it was about 50 dollars worth, maybe 75. There was no automobile in front of the house, though that didn’t necessarily mean no one was home.

What’s a good neighbor to do?

These were nice tools, and kids are walking around the neighborhood constantly: maybe no one would take the tools, but maybe someone would. There’s a useful but dishonest rationalization in such circumstances: they’re abandoned! I thought about picking them up and carrying them up to the front door. I considered picking up the tools, carrying them home with Spuds, and driving by later to see if the owners were home. I was tempted to just toss them from the strip to the lawn, where nobody could argue that the strip between the road and the sidewalk is public territory.

If I had not been struggling to keep my exuberant dog under control when the cooler weather makes him especially rambunctious, my calculations might have been different. In retrospect, I see that this was a Golden Rule test: what would I want someone to do if it were my tools being left behind and left to their own resources?

At the time, however, with promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep, I decided to leave the tools where they were. I didn’t feel an obligation to do anything because there isn’t one (and also a useful rationalization that I need to add to the list: “This isn’t my problem”) , but clearly the more ethical course would have been to protect my neighbor’s property.