The Ethicist

SHUTTLE HOPPING

To avoid driving to the airport and paying for parking, my son instead walks a few blocks to a major chain hotel and takes the free shuttle bus that transports hotel guests to the airport. Some have argued that this is improper, but my son says that since the shuttle is operating anyway, there is no additional cost to the hotel. My son also tips the shuttle driver. What is your opinion? ANONYMOUS, EAST NORTHPORT, N.Y.

It’s easy to make the accusation that your son is acting unethically ­ — he’s taking something that is offered to paying guests without being a paying guest. I would assume that those who make this criticism argue that this is no different than if he walked into the lobby at 8:30 a.m. and ate the complimentary continental breakfast.

If you put a gun to my head and asked, “Is this a form of stealing?” I would be forced to say that it is (and that if everyone in society did this, free hotel shuttles would cease to exist). If I had to answer this question with a one-word answer, my only option would be to write “unethical.”

But I’ve been thinking about this all week, and I can’t see one downside to what your son is doing. He’s not causing any employee to do anything that he or she would not be doing already (and is actually adding to the driver’s tip collection, which is probably a main source of his or her income). He’s also decreasing his carbon footprint by car-pooling instead of driving his own vehicle (this is obviously a minor detail, but this is a minor conflict). If the shuttle is filled to capacity, your son should not take a seat in place of any paying hotel guest, and he should never request a shuttle if one isn’t already scheduled. But this is an unethical act with no negative consequence. It’s wrong in theory, but not in practice.

This article from the ethecist deals with the question of whether someone should used a hotel's shuttle services in order to avoid driving to the airpot and paying for parking while not being a guest from the hotel. The ethecist reaches the conclusion that in theory, yes, it is unethical for this person to do such thing because he does not contribute to the functionality of the hotel and still gets its benefits. But at the same time, he says that in practice, it is not because the shuttle would be operating even if he were not there and he also contributes to the tip the bus driver gets. Both of these conclusions seem to carry great weight to them, but at the same time, a couple of things could be considered before reaching a completely thought-out point on this. It is established that what this man does, in theory, is quite immoral. For you could call him a opportunist who chooses to take pleasure out of the work of others without even contributing to it. It should be taken into the account that whether or not the bus would still be functioning, this man could be viewed not only as an externality for the hotel, but also as a burden. He is not entitled to the service because he is not a guest of the hotel. What if a guest from the hotel, one day, does not manage to get a seat on the bus because this one man, who is not a guest, is sitting in it? Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation in where we would assume the bus is packed, but it is something worth considering. Because that man is occupying a seat he shouldn't otherwise be, how does this reflect on the hotel? Not only would this affect the hotel negatively because a costumer can't get to the airpot, but it would also affect the customer because he wouldn't be getting to where he needs to be because this one man, who again, is not a hotel guest, is occupying a seat. As so it is important to consider that this man's actions do have certain repercussions that could effectively affect other people. And even though the chances that my hypothetical question ever comes into existence are minimal, when talking about moral and ethics, a lot of things have to be presupposed   and taken into account. In the end, I do agree with the ethicist and would say that in theory, what this man does it unethical because he act opportunistically, but in practice, he's actions seems to have no major consequences. But then again, the study of ethics is not so much based on what is practice and what is theory, but yes a reflection of what the conscious perceives as true through a series of complex logical patterns of thinking and biases.  

The Ethicist- Should I have hung up?

My sisters called me on a conference line, hoping to connect the three of us for an important discussion. I wasn’t home, so one sister left a voice mail message and then disconnected — or at least she thought she did. But my voice mail kept recording as she and my other sister continued their conversation. When I returned home and retrieved the message, was I obliged to stop listening and hang up after my sister believed she had ended the call? JANET FLETCHER, NAPA, CALIF.

This is a much harder question than it initially appears. I think most people would reflexively concede that everyone has the right to listen to whatever shows up in her voice mail (and if this were simply a legal matter, I would agree). But it’s not that simple. What you’re really asking about is the ethics of eavesdropping, a conflict I find almost impossible to resolve.

When I’m walking down the street, riding the subway or sitting alone in a bar, I eavesdrop on other people’s conversations constantly. It’s almost an addiction. I can’t stop myself. Now, my motive for doing so is (seemingly) neutral. I just find it interesting. Still, I always wonder if it’s mildly immoral. It would be obviously unethical to tap someone’s phone or place a glass against my neighbor’s closed door — this would constitute recreational spying without justification. But what if my eavesdropping is simply a product of being wherever I happen to be? What if the conversation comes to me without any effort on my end? Am I obligated toignore all dialogue that isn’t intended for my ears? I’ve worked out various rationalizations to justify my actions: I convince myself that listening is acceptable as long as I don’t know the people and I don’t tell anyone what I overhear. But I know these are pale excuses. There is, I think, something unethical (and arguably dehumanizing) about surreptitiously using other people’s private lives as a form of entertainment.

Your case, however, is even more complicated. For one, the information was delivered directly to your voice mail. Listening to your own messages is normal. It could also be reasonably argued that whatever conversation your sisters had was intended for you to hear, as you were originally supposed to be on the call. Still another argument could be that — if your sisters were indeed talking trash behind your back — you deserved to know this. Of course, you could only verify that suspicion by listening to the entire conversation; you’d need to invade their privacy in order to find out if their privacy warranted invasion, which is a little like justifying illegal police surveillance by pointing out all the criminals it allows the police to arrest. This is the paradox Alfred Hitchcock referred to as “rear-window ethics.”

Judging by the way your letter is written, this event clearly happened a while ago. The bridge has already been crossed: You either listened to the message or you didn’t. My assumption is that you did. If so, were you in the wrong? I have a professional obligation to say that you were. Yet if placed in your position, I know what I would have done, and it would not have involved the delete key.

This Column Entry deals with the idea of eavesdropping, and if it morally acceptable to do so. The woman in question has accidentally overheard his sister continue speaking after she thought the voicemail had closed, listening in to conversation she was not meant to hear. No information is given about what she might have heard.

 From my perspective, there’s really nothing wrong with what the woman did. I would not even call it eavesdropping at this point due to the fact that the woman did not go looking for this information, but instead, it came to her. Of course, she could have hung up the voicemail once she realized it was not part of the message intended for her, but is it really her responsibility to be wary on whether or not what she hears is intended for her? If that were the case, she should walk around town with noise cancelling headphones and only listen in when being personally referred to. There is, however, the argument that what she hears is none of his business. In the example where a person walks by an open door and hears his friends tell an embarrassing story, is he morally allowed to stop and continue listening to the story? I think that in this case, it’s a different situation, as it wasn’t by mistake of the friend that he heard what was said, but by the curiosity of the person in question.

 The ethicist agrees that the message in question was delivered to the person, therefore it was her legal right to listen in, and even more so if it was talking about her. He does not claim that it is the right thing to do as, ultimately, it was not information intended for her. The ethicist, however, lets his personal bias get in the way, as he mentions his own experiences with eavesdropping on people and how often he does it. He uses his own emotion as a way of knowing in this case, as he might try to defend himself for doing something that would be considered unacceptable by social standards, even though it is commonly done. If we were to use reason as a way of knowing in this situation, it is evident that it is not morally acceptable to be listening to conversation that does not involve us, due to the fact that it is also not fair on the person who is speaking thinking that what they are saying is private. Invasion of privacy is the better word, regardless of location. Just because a location is public does not make the conversation so. From my own standpoint, I would not like for people to listen in to my conversations that I have with friends in public. 

The Ethicist on the NFL

I’ve recently begun to question my support for the N.F.L. I suspect that the recent discoveries about concussions and the prevalence of early-onset dementia among players are just the tip of the iceberg. Is it unethical to support a league that seems to know it is detrimental to the health of its participants? And if so, what should my response be? Don’t go to games? Don’t buy merchandise? Don’t watch on television? Start actively opposing the N.F.L.? Write letters? DARREN WILLIAMS, DALLAS

Had you asked if the whole concept of professional sports is ultimately an unethical distraction — because of the amount of resources it consumes, the way it shifts cultural priorities and the manner in which it impacts society as a whole — and if every rational argument affirmed that it was, then every person involved would be incrementally complicit, including the fans. If an entire enterprise is corrupt, culpability is shared among participants.

But that’s not the dilemma troubling you. What you are concerned about involves one disquieting aspect of one specific sport. You want to know if it’s ethically acceptable to watch a game that is dangerous to the athletes who participate. And the answer to that query is yes.

Any adult involved with football is aware of the risks associated with playing a collision sport. We might have been able to make a different argument in 1975, but not today. It is suspected (and widely reported) that every head-to-head collision generates imperceptible “sub-concussions,” slowly damaging the brain without the victim suffering the symptoms of an acute trauma. This means many players are being injured on almost every play they are involved with (in every single game and in every full-contact practice). Football is a brutal activity. But this is a known, accepted reality. Professional athletes accept this risk in exchange for the chance at large financial reward and the right to pursue a rarefied livelihood they love and desire. (College and high-school students willingly do the same thing without the benefit of a salary.) People retain the right to pursue potentially dangerous activities, as long as it’s their own informed choice and they are not endangering ancillary others who have chosen otherwise.

If you think it’s fundamentally barbaric to watch such an endeavor, I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. But you’re not ethically required to hold that view. Yes, you are financially subsidizing a profession that involves elective physical risk. But on a smaller scale, the same could be said for taking your child to the circus; while there might be “big picture” problems with the enterprise,the risks associated with the work are taken on by free people.

Beyond all this, there’s still a valid question over whether something being dangerous inherently makes it unethical, or even particularly bad. Drinking alcohol is more dangerous than not drinking alcohol, but it would seem pretty unsophisticated to believe patronizing a nightclub is immoral, simply because other people who go there might drink themselves to death (and you would be party to that experience).Now, of course, the social factors motivating those people to accept such risks are often problematic — and sometimes more ethically convoluted than the risk itself. It forces us to reconsider the definition of “free.” If someone believes playing football (or working as a trapeze artist) is the only option he has in order to live a full life, then the dangerous choice he’s making really isn’t his own. His agency is an illusion. Yet this possibility doesn’t really apply to your particular problem. For one thing, even the most limited life rarely has only one conceivable career option; for another, it wouldn’t make a lot of sense to penalize the game of football if it actually were an individual’s sole chance at a livelihood. This entire debate eventually becomes a circular loop of contradictory suppositions: Football is dangerous, but the players accept that danger, but they don’t actually have agency over that choice, but their lack of agency necessitates the existence of the dangerous sport they have to accept (lest there be no option at all).

My (admittedly unoriginal) suspicion is that the reason we keep having this discussion over the ethics of football is almost entirely a product of the sport’s sheer popularity. The issue of concussions in football is debated exhaustively, despite the fact that boxing — where the goal is to hit your opponent in the face as hard as possible — still exists. But people care less about boxing, so they worry less about the ethics of boxing. Football is the most popular game in the United States and generates the most revenue, so we feel obligated to worry about what it means to love it. Well, here’s what it means: We love something that’s dangerous. And I can live with that.

This article primarily deals with the issue of concussions in the NFL. The man asking the question is curious about whether or not he should support the NFL if it is proven that playing can lead to early dementia and other disabilities. 

From a personal standpoint, I would argue that if the man enjoys participating and watching the sport, then he should not have any issue. There is clear evidence that playing football can lead to the earlier development of disabilities, and this is clear to everyone. The players know the risks of playing the sport, and it is their choice to do so. In this aspect I am in agreement with the ethicist. If the players are fine with putting themselves at risk of injury for the pay check then it is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, the issue arises about whether it is the spectators that in a way "force" the players to risk themselves for the reward, because the mass amount of spectators makes the rewards so great. This may be the case for a small percentage of the players, who do make millions off of endorsements and simply from their pay check, but an even larger percentage plays the sport as a career, and for fun. People often do not realize that their are 53 players on every teams roster. A select few of the those elite players make the big bucks. The other players may get payed well, but would be able to find just as well paying of a job without the huge risk of injury. The ethicist does not address the fact that players may just love the sport, and are willing to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations simply for the fun and love they have playing the sport. 

Overall I would agree with the ethicist who determined that the author of the question, should not bother with this issue. However, there may be some underlying bias to his opinion. We know the ethicist is an adult male, and also may very well be a fan of football. This would impact what advice he gives, since he would surely move to support the sport if he is in fact a fan. Personally I have the same bias, and I am aware of it. If an advocate for         anti-sports or something like that was asked this question, their answer would be to completely boycott the sport. 

In the end this becomes a question about whether or not the writer is comfortable supporting the sport, when he knows the players may get injured or develop a disability later in life. There is not huge underlying ethical debate simply because the majority of the general public enjoy this support, and ethics are defined by society. 

A Quick-Change Artist

My next-door neighbor, who recently quit her job to pursue painting, asked if she could practice by making a portrait of my child. She said she would charge me the cost of supplies since it was for practice, and I agreed. When she finished the painting, she notified me that she had decided to charge me several hundreds of dollars because she had learned in art class the importance of correctly pricing her work. Although I was upset by the change in price, I did not want to ruin the relationship, so I paid what she asked. What was the right thing to do? NADIA, CHICAGO
Your neighbor started this transaction by asking you for a favor. You did not commission the work; she requested the opportunity to practice her craft. Now she’s acting as if this were a business transaction, based on a philosophical argument about art that does not remotely apply to the situation at hand.

Here is what you should have done: You should have agreed that it is indeed important for an artist to properly price her work. But you should have also noted that the aesthetic value of art can never truly be quantified, unless the artist is willing to view her work as a commodity that’s subject to the harsh, anti-intellectual realities of capitalism. You should have explained that — tangibly — a piece of art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it. This being the case, you should have offered to pay a price representing the painting’s actual value to you as a consumer, which (I’m guessing) would have roughly equated to whatever the art supplies originally cost. If she had balked at the offer, you should have said that you understand her position completely, and that you are subsequently granting her the freedom to sell this amateur portrait of your daughter to whoever is willing to pay the premium she requires.

Firstly, I would like to take notice to the way this was phrased. She said that he she asked him for an opportunity to practice. When someone says the word "practice" it often has the connotation being something that isn't the final version of something. In this case I think that is the word that tricked the person involved the most. Obviously she had a different vision of it in mind. 
Also I think that she didn't quite understand the things that she learned in art. I think that her art class was trying to teach her things that she might need in the future, when her painting actually start being sold. She took this opportunity to "practice" painting also as an opportunity to practice pricing her work. 
The way that she wasn't honest about how much she was going to charge her neighbour isn't correct. If she was going to charge him a greater sum that what she had initially say the honest thing to do is to notify the person involved.  We could consider this a "dishonest trick" on her part. And wasn't a very moral thing to do. Moral, from the latin moralitas most nearly means the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are "good" and those that are "bad". It follows a certain code of conduct that derives from a standard that a person believes or from a particular culture/religion. In this specific situation it seems that the two people have two different moralities. I perceive what the woman did as immoral because it is not something that I believe is right. The woman however might have been raised in a completely different environment have have a different moral code and thinks that it is fine. Also, the woman might be having a hard time working on her art and the result was so good in her eyes that it deserved to be paid that amount of money. She wanted to gain the profit she deserved for the amount of work she put into it. 

At the same time I understand how Nadia didn't want to ruin their relationship over the payment of the painting. Some people's ethics, customs and habits, tell them that they should go along with a person and not go against their will in fear to lose them. She states that he had a doubt and was upset about doing this but she valued the friendship more than the money. That is her moral code. However I disagree with the fact that she payed the totality because that is my moral code and I think she should have gotten some explanations or at least told her that at the begging she said it was only a "practice."Moreover, something that I think I would need to know before making a decision would be knowing how much she said she would charge him and by how much it changed. 

Lastly, I agree with the Ethicist in when he says "a piece of art is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it." This goes along saying that Nadia should have been the one to decide wether or not she was willing to put that much money into the painting. She should have offered her own price. The author closes by saying that if the artist wasn't willing to grant her the price she suggested then Nadia should have given the artist the right to sell the portrait to anyone who was willing to pay the price. In my opinion this is the best way to solve the solution. You don't lose the friendship but at the same time you don't pay for something you don't feel is worth the price given. 

Deconstructing Dilemma

I was on the subway when another passenger passed out. The train made an emergency stop, and medical responders assisted the person, despite her screaming — after she came to — that she wanted to be left alone. If the woman was saying she did not want to be helped, even if in critical condition, is someone ethically allowed to obey her and let her suffer? Or would it be a crime to let her suffering continue? ELISABETH BUCHWALD, SCARSDALE, N.Y.

If an injured party is not acting reasonably, the seriousness of the medical condition cannot be deduced without professional assistance. Moreover, a person screaming in public might be mentally ill (and could be seen as a threat to other passengers). But things are different if the injured person remains calm. According to a standard E.M.T. training guide, a “mentally competent adult has the right to accept or refuse emergency medical care.”Let’s imagine the person in question coolly turned to the emergency responders and said: “Look, this has happened to me before. I know what’s going on here. I just need to get off this train at the next stop and go home. I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused the other passengers, but this is not an emergency.” Had this been the case, the emergency personnel could ask a few more questions and — assuming the answers were sufficient — leave the person alone. If someone can rationally justify the decision to refuse medical aid, he or she must be granted that privilege. But the key word here is “rationally.” This person has inadvertently caused a significant disruption to public transport; she should not be punished for doing so, but she does need to demonstrate that she is of sound enough mind to take care of herself — both for her own good, and for the good of the other passengers (who are now involuntarily involved with the situation simply by being on the same train).

This column is an interesting dilemma that tightens the tension between ethics and morals. In a case where a person with a serious medical condition screams and denies the help of medical responders, should we ethically be —and I love the word the asker uses— allowed  to leave the women alone and let her suffer? The ethicists takes on the answer that I’d expected from most people: a solution that lies in the middle region of a spectrum of “interference” and “non-interference”. One may say that the critical information when considering the situation is the illness of the person, but I think that the real dilemma comes in exactly because we do not know the details the background regarding the illness of the person. While I certainly don’t blame the ethicist for choosing the middle path, I feel as if the issue hasn’t been fully addressed in the way s/he used their words. The reply to the question begins with, “If an injured party is not acting reasonably…” and s/he also writes, “If someone can rationally justify…” What is the boundary of reasonable and non-reasonable. How about rational and irrational?  To me it seems as if the ethicist is almost avoiding, irking from the topic of what is reasonable. S/he leaves out that detail, either assuming that people can tell what that is or uncomfortable to draw lines for people. In the latter case, a simple acknowledgement may have been a more persuasive answer than overlooking the definition.

There seems to be a faulty logic in the first sentence, not only because of the vague premise, but also because of the weak link between the If and thens. S/he dismisses completely the inability of non-professionals to realize the seriousness of a medical situation. We, as non-professionals, may not know the symptom name, the curing methods and possible prescriptions, but if someone on the streets is screaming, lying on the floor short of breath (assuming that this constitutes as “not acting reasonably”), even the dullest of us would know something is not right. On second thought, this is even contradictory. The ethicists assumes that we can use our “common sense” to deduce what is “reasonable,” but we can’t use our “common sense” to realize a serious medical situation when we see one?

She also seems to have a bias, a stereotype than if one remains calm, he or she is alright. This may be true to some extent, as in this situation where we are dealing with strangers, but I think this is where difference cultural upbringings could divide people’s stance. The ethicist is not wrong to claim that and even quotes the standard E.M.T. training guide, but her argument definitely weakens when she doesn’t mention the delicacy of the issue, the illness, which is another detail she did not mention. There seems to be more weight on the side of “let’s trust the outward rational appearance of the patient.” By delicacy I mean that patients with some serious diseases still may need help even when when they seem calm. Should a person be dismissed just because their state of depression doesn’t necessarily show up violently in public?

Also, the ethicist limits the situation with an imagined response of a “mentally competent adult”, if it is at all possible to determine on the spot. There are so many components to the response of the patient that the omission of one phrase may flip situations. If the patient had said that this has had happened to them before, but does not say they “know what’s going on here,” that, to me, would not compel me to let the patient go.

Going back to the different cultures aspect, I would feel morally wrong and perhaps ethically as well to leave a suffering person alone. Being brought up in a Korean family and society where interest in others is not entirely weird or rude and where denial can actually mean a yes, I wouldn’t be able to “leave the person alone.” Those words just seemed too cold to me.  Again, difference of perspectives and environments seem to shape the ethics and also the morals of individual. However, this is not a strictly cultural difference. I would think that this is not just ethics pertaining to certain cultures, but more of a universal ethics. Why, then, would people criticize and be upset when we see videos of people passing by a person near to death? Again, I, myself, may be generalizing as well.

While the ethical boundary here would be to intervene at a minimal level and offer one’s assistance to the suffering patient, I think it is morals, the individual guiding compass, that determines the level of interference in the face of some stranger who refuses help. It would be ethical to have compassion in the very least, which I feel derives from our way of living in groups and societies whereas to go against a refusal would have different cultural meaning to different people. While I understand the ethicist’s point of view to leave the person alone with rational justification, I would still think that this is not just a matter of morals but also of ethics whether or not to leave a person in pain.

Ethicist

Vivian Rebrin

TOK- Ms.Hunt

Ethicist

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/magazine/my-parents-paid-for-my-education-does-that-mean-i-need-to-take-a-soul-crushing-job.html?_r=0

I read an article on how if your parents paid for your education, do you need to take on a job that you hate only because it pays well? This article showed the implications of having had your parents pay your entire life for your education creating high hopes for your future. Like the article said, every family is different. Some are stricter and some could care less. However, personally I feel like it’s my duty to take advantage of all the opportunities my parents have provided me with and so I will try my hardest to achieve a high paying job due to it but it’s not only because of my parents it’s because I believe that if I do what I love I will be successful and I know my parents will support me in my career choice. In terms of ethics, I believe it’s unfair for parents to even expect that out of their children. It was their own will to pay for a good education for their child because they felt that it was their moral duty to do so. However, it’s the child’s individual choice to do what they want to. I disagree with the authors choice of words in saying that if you asked your parents to pay for your college tuition in the hopes of having a specific career that it means you binded a contract with them. People change their opinions all the time and maybe with the college education their parents provided them with they’ll realize they’re actually more interested in pursuing something else. I’ve seen examples of this in television shows such as Americas Next Top Model. In the show several women who have pursued their modeling careers left their college education in order to go on the show and pursue their true passion. One of them went to Princeton and her parents were very upset that she threw away the chance to go and get a job right after graduating instead of going to a television show where her chances of succeeding are low. It was the parents choice to give their child the best conditions they could especially if they had the means to provide it to them. This is why I believe it’s also the child’s choice to choose which path it wants to follow.

Deconstructing an ethical dilemma

Please find any column online by The Ethicist from the New York Times.  Read the dilemma and the answer. Copy  and paste them onto the blog using a smaller font. Then, in a larger font,  please deconstruct the column using ToK strategies, Ways of  Knowing, Areas of Knowledge, the difference between morality and ethics, bias, etc. Talk about what details were selected  and what was left out, how competing ideas were weighed, etc.  Definitely mention if there's other information you would need to know before making a judgment. 

After you deconstruct everything you can deconstruct, then reconstruct by saying to what extent you agree with The Ethicists's conclusion and why or why not.