If You Know Anything About Ethics, You Don’t Even Ask These Questions, Because You Know The Answers Already

virtual reality

Darrell West, a Brookings scholar, believe it or not, queries, “What happens when virtual reality crosses into unethical territory?” It is the topic of his essay, but the question is self-answering. Virtual reality is, by definition, not real. Ethics is about determining right and wrong in reality, in interaction with real people, real consequences and real dilemmas in the real world.

West doesn’t seem to grasp that, and neither, according to him, does the playwright of a work being presented in my metaphorical back yard: Jennifer Haley, who authored “The Nether” playing at the Woolly Mammoth Theater in Washington, D.C. West tells us that Haley

“…explores the troubling questions that arise when the main character known as Papa uses advanced software to create a fantasy environment where adult clients molest young children and then kill them….  Should there be limits on human fantasies involving heinous thoughts? Do fantasies that remain in the private realm of someone’s brain warrant any rules or regulations by society as a whole?  Even if the bad behavior rests solely in one individual’s private thoughts, does that thinking pose a danger to other people? For example, there is some evidence that repeated exposure to pornography is associated with harmful conduct towards women and that it legitimizes violent attitudes and behaviors. Does that evidence mean we should worry about misogynistic or violent virtual reality experiences? Will these “games” make it more acceptable for people to engage in actual harmful behaviors?”

These are not troubling questions or even difficult questions, unless one is intrigued by the Orwellian offense of “thought crime.” Here, for the edification of West, Haley, those nascent brainwashers out there who find his ethically clueless essay thought-provoking of any thought other than: “How the hell did this guy get to be called a “scholar”?, let me provide quick and reassuring answers to West’s questions: Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: Should A High School Football Team Be Punished For THINKING About Being Unethical?

Beware of unethical thoughts!!

Talk about strict!

Officials at Omaha, Nebraska’s Creighton Prep were horrified to learn learned that about fifty members of the school’s football team had planned an ethically offensive scavenger hunt that included “a group photo with a topless chick,” “a pic with a fat chick,” “steal a yarmulke from a Jewish synagogue” and “get into a yelling fight with a stranger in public,”along with more harmless challenges.

In fact, the players, divided into groups, lost their nerve. Administrators learned that the players vetoed the most objectionable activities in favor of those that were harmless and silly.

“I’m disappointed in their plan because their plan is inconsistent with the mission of their school,” said Rev. Thomas Merkel, president of the all-boys Catholic school. “I’m proud of the fact that they didn’t follow through on their plan.” Not too proud, though:  the students involved received in-school suspensions and were barred from extracurricular activities, including football practice. None of the students were expelled.

The hunt came to the school’s attention when one of the scavenger teams lost its list, which was subsequently found by a student who turned it in to the brass. The administrators determined that the plan “promoted hazing, exploitation of women, theft and other conduct unbecoming of a Creighton Prep student.”
None of which, apparently, the students actually did.

Your Ethics Quiz Question: Is it fair and appropriate to punish the football team members for including offensive tasks on the list, even if none of them were actually performed? Continue reading

Unethical Thought of the Month: Me

Of course,  I am likely to be the only one who can get this “award,” since I am not privy to everyone else’s unethical thoughts. Nonetheless, this was a thought that  deserves a special rebuke, and that raises many questions.

I have always been fascinated by unethical thoughts, because thoughts are not really ethical or unethical. Being ethical often requires transcending our worst instincts and selfish thoughts; one recurring theme in Julian Baggini’s collection of thought experiments, “The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten” is whether a person who automatically does the right thing is more, or possibly less, virtuous than the person who engages in the same conduct despite unethical thoughts that urge him to do otherwise. While some misguided social architects think that the way to a more ethical society is to make unethical thoughts more difficult to have through such measures as censorship and hate crime legislation, that strategy is itself unethical, offending the principle of human autonomy. An evil thought that is recognized as such, rejected and not acted upon has no true ethical implications at all.

Or does it? Continue reading