I dislike the new format. I think it obscures any extended logical thought trains. I don't doubt that the writers have good thoughts, but it's hard to hear them. Chuck was good, Ariel was poor, Randy was good.
9
Potential jurors who have no opinion on the death penalty would seem to me to be uninformed and uninvolved in our society's problems dealing with everything from race to a woman's right to choose. Are pro-death penalty jurors rejected the same way an anti-death penalty juror might be? The whole scenario doesn't bode well for the person on trial who is innocent until proven guilty and we all know how often that doesn't work in real life. Perhaps the potential juror could plead the Fifth Amendment. It's in the Constitution to protect witnesses why not use it to allow jurors who would be witnesses to a capital court case?
2
A lot of people here are objecting to the new format. I don't mind the format: I mind the superficiality of the authors' responses.
Take Letter 1. We're discussing a matter of life and death, and it is exceedingly obvious to decent people that it is sometimes ethical to lie in order to save a life. Whether or not *this* is such a situation is less obvious - but it is frankly disqualifying that these authors do not seriously consider the possibility that sometimes lying is the most ethical choice. E.g., "he would just be lying", says Amy Bloom, as if lying is *obviously* worse than letting a person be killed when it may be in your power to prevent it.
Moreover, a legal system which claims to provide a jury of your peers, but then systematically excludes certain peers because they deemed inadequately bloodthirsty, is fundamentally rigged. Likewise a legal system which exhibits clear and empirically documented racial bias in the application of the death penalty, or similarly documented abuse of state power in criminal proceedings (in the form, say, of a routine lack of accountability for police officers who perjure themselves). Best ethical practices for engaging with such a deeply corrupt system are complex, to say the least - the authors failed to engage with this complexity in every important way.
Take Letter 1. We're discussing a matter of life and death, and it is exceedingly obvious to decent people that it is sometimes ethical to lie in order to save a life. Whether or not *this* is such a situation is less obvious - but it is frankly disqualifying that these authors do not seriously consider the possibility that sometimes lying is the most ethical choice. E.g., "he would just be lying", says Amy Bloom, as if lying is *obviously* worse than letting a person be killed when it may be in your power to prevent it.
Moreover, a legal system which claims to provide a jury of your peers, but then systematically excludes certain peers because they deemed inadequately bloodthirsty, is fundamentally rigged. Likewise a legal system which exhibits clear and empirically documented racial bias in the application of the death penalty, or similarly documented abuse of state power in criminal proceedings (in the form, say, of a routine lack of accountability for police officers who perjure themselves). Best ethical practices for engaging with such a deeply corrupt system are complex, to say the least - the authors failed to engage with this complexity in every important way.
9
What if you're in a country that jails, beats, and even executes people for being gay? Or for being Christian? Or atheist? Or for speaking out against the government? THEN can a potential juror lie to save the those accused?
American exceptionalism is at work here: we imagine gentle rules of fair play for our civil disobedience, because we're not one of those barbaric countries that makes a travesty of justice. So we can let ourselves off the hook by merely registering our objections and then standing by while somebody who would vote for death is put on the jury in our place.
Why should juries only be drawn from the subset of citizens who support the premise of our justice system? Why can't juries represent all citizens, including those who see the death penalty as inherently evil, not to mention racist?
The fact that we won't accept jurors who oppose the death penalty requires them to lie to get themselves on juries. It isn't the juror's fault that our arrogant system, which thinks itself infallible, has put them in that position.
American exceptionalism is at work here: we imagine gentle rules of fair play for our civil disobedience, because we're not one of those barbaric countries that makes a travesty of justice. So we can let ourselves off the hook by merely registering our objections and then standing by while somebody who would vote for death is put on the jury in our place.
Why should juries only be drawn from the subset of citizens who support the premise of our justice system? Why can't juries represent all citizens, including those who see the death penalty as inherently evil, not to mention racist?
The fact that we won't accept jurors who oppose the death penalty requires them to lie to get themselves on juries. It isn't the juror's fault that our arrogant system, which thinks itself infallible, has put them in that position.
4
This looks like a tempest in a flower pot, completely out of focus. First of all, no one says that the jury decides whether to impose the death penalty. That's presumably the job of a judge or second phase trial. More likely the juror will face the question "Did this accused do that act, leading to such and such a consequence?" That's not an ethical issue but a factual one.
If the question is "Did the act committed violate this (horrendously unethical) law?" the issue is different. There is a narrow but recognized current in American jurisprudence of "jury nullification," or refusal to find guilt in the enforcement of a law the general populace feels to be unacceptably misguided, outdated, applied out of its intended context, and unjust. Rare, but real. A juror may argue for it.
A capital case that might possibly lead to a death sentence doesn't confront a juror with such a case. If it were a capital crime to be a jew, non-white, homosexual, civil rights advocate, dwarf or gypsy, I would reach a different conclusion. Details count. But here the questioner is getting ahead of him/herself. No need to hide one's beliefs, nor blurt them out unnecessarily. If a direct question is asked on voir dire, AND the presiding judge allows it over objection, then tell the truth; don't lie (ethical reason one) and (ethical reason two) waste everyone's time and money by creating a sure basis for retrial.
If the question is "Did the act committed violate this (horrendously unethical) law?" the issue is different. There is a narrow but recognized current in American jurisprudence of "jury nullification," or refusal to find guilt in the enforcement of a law the general populace feels to be unacceptably misguided, outdated, applied out of its intended context, and unjust. Rare, but real. A juror may argue for it.
A capital case that might possibly lead to a death sentence doesn't confront a juror with such a case. If it were a capital crime to be a jew, non-white, homosexual, civil rights advocate, dwarf or gypsy, I would reach a different conclusion. Details count. But here the questioner is getting ahead of him/herself. No need to hide one's beliefs, nor blurt them out unnecessarily. If a direct question is asked on voir dire, AND the presiding judge allows it over objection, then tell the truth; don't lie (ethical reason one) and (ethical reason two) waste everyone's time and money by creating a sure basis for retrial.
1
After three tries, I am finding this new "ethicist" (apparently, the word is used lightly) "column" (not sure that word applies either, since it's more of a transcript) to be of a shockingly low standard for the NYT Magazine. Part of the problem is that a podcast doesn't translate well to print ... where one expects a more thorough level of argument and thought and, you know, um, good writing. So, this week we have Kenji Yoshino complaining that he's "tired of people citing 'Letter From Birmingham Jail'" when ... in fact, HE was the only person who did so! The letter writer didn't. No one else did. He brought it up, and then, as happens in casual conversation, it became woven into the thread of the conversation as if it were part of the question. In a written piece, no one would accept such twisting logic that led absolutely nowhere.
Later, a question about charities sending cash in the mail devolves into an icky (and not especially germane) conversation about so-called "deformed" children -- again, something it is hard to imagine a writer would put on the page, look at and decide ... oh yes, that's the phrase I intended.
The internetification of magazines has generally failed everywhere it has been tried. It might seem as if it will draw in a different kind of reader, but it doesn't, because of one issue: readers actually like to read. They don't want edited transcripts of show-offy conservations. Or at least I don't.
Later, a question about charities sending cash in the mail devolves into an icky (and not especially germane) conversation about so-called "deformed" children -- again, something it is hard to imagine a writer would put on the page, look at and decide ... oh yes, that's the phrase I intended.
The internetification of magazines has generally failed everywhere it has been tried. It might seem as if it will draw in a different kind of reader, but it doesn't, because of one issue: readers actually like to read. They don't want edited transcripts of show-offy conservations. Or at least I don't.
14
First, I second all the criticism by other commenters of the new format and content of this column.
Second, the ethicists missed the point of the first question, about the conflict between ethical obligations to prevent what the writer sincerely believes to be the wrongful killing of someone by the state, and to be honest to the court during jury selection. Saying "lobby the government to change the law" is not going to prevent that particular defendant from possible execution, and the question was one of ethics, not law.
Is the obligation to prevent execution believed to be wrong greater than the obligation to answer jury selection questions correctly? Is killing someone worse than lying under oath? What if the defendant were jewish and the law only had a death penalty for jews? What if the defendant were black and blacks were more likely to be executed than whites? What if you replace "death penalty" with "life without parole" in the entire question, or are death penalty cases fundamentally different? Is jury nullification ever ethical, and if so when? Is there even a right answer to any of these questions?
These are are profound, and not hypothetical, questions that recur again and again. The role of an ethicist is to discuss, consider the broader implications, challenge us, and help us resolve or at least understand more fully the competing ethical obligations and the implications of our decisions. None of that happened here.
Second, the ethicists missed the point of the first question, about the conflict between ethical obligations to prevent what the writer sincerely believes to be the wrongful killing of someone by the state, and to be honest to the court during jury selection. Saying "lobby the government to change the law" is not going to prevent that particular defendant from possible execution, and the question was one of ethics, not law.
Is the obligation to prevent execution believed to be wrong greater than the obligation to answer jury selection questions correctly? Is killing someone worse than lying under oath? What if the defendant were jewish and the law only had a death penalty for jews? What if the defendant were black and blacks were more likely to be executed than whites? What if you replace "death penalty" with "life without parole" in the entire question, or are death penalty cases fundamentally different? Is jury nullification ever ethical, and if so when? Is there even a right answer to any of these questions?
These are are profound, and not hypothetical, questions that recur again and again. The role of an ethicist is to discuss, consider the broader implications, challenge us, and help us resolve or at least understand more fully the competing ethical obligations and the implications of our decisions. None of that happened here.
6
Wow, wouldn't want to be hiding in these collaborators' houses when the Kant scenario's murderer comes to the door. The word "ethics" should not be legally allowed to be published in the New York Times.
3
Asking this question guarantees a partial jury. How can a jury selected from the general population on the basis of agreeing with a special belief not enumerated in the constitution be considered an "impartial" jury? I think although such questions may be considered "legal," they are undoubtedly unconstitutional. It seems to me that the law defining acceptable punishments and methods of punishments for a variety of crimes is itself constantly changing. Since the standards used in selecting juror's on the basis of a prospective juror's opinions varies from place to place and time to time, would any juror be asked about the preferred method of punishment? Perhaps the juror prefers burning at the stake, beheading, public or private hanging, etc.? The juror who rejects all forms of capital punishment is hardly less impartial than the juror who accepts any or all of them.
1
The juror's question is loaded with nuance. Holding a view which deplores the death penalty does not prevent a juror from voting guilt when the evidence compels it. Capital cases are conducted in 2 phases, the first being the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and then, if guilt is found, whether or not that same jury agrees to assign the death penalty. The fact of the matter is that all becomes clear in the privacy of the jury room, but holding a view which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty is a lot different than the question whether a range of penalties prevents the finding of innocence or guilt.
The penalty phase following a finding of guilt in a murder trial or other capital case, is one that may permit the juror some discretion or latitude if the law allows alternative penalties, such as life or successive life terms.
Not supporting the death penalty publicly is not unlike the potential juror who comes to court with the attitude that a defendant must first prove his innocence in order to be given the presumption of innocence. Such an attitude certainly biases that juror from making impartial findings in accordance with evidence, but seldom do jurors admit as much when questioned.
The ethics turns on the question asked the juror. Would a juror vote to acquit if the evidence compels a finding of guilt (no, for the writer) or will the capital punishment phase of the trial prevent the juror from acting in accordance with law (perhaps).
The penalty phase following a finding of guilt in a murder trial or other capital case, is one that may permit the juror some discretion or latitude if the law allows alternative penalties, such as life or successive life terms.
Not supporting the death penalty publicly is not unlike the potential juror who comes to court with the attitude that a defendant must first prove his innocence in order to be given the presumption of innocence. Such an attitude certainly biases that juror from making impartial findings in accordance with evidence, but seldom do jurors admit as much when questioned.
The ethics turns on the question asked the juror. Would a juror vote to acquit if the evidence compels a finding of guilt (no, for the writer) or will the capital punishment phase of the trial prevent the juror from acting in accordance with law (perhaps).
I profoundly disagree with the assertion that "free parking in the commons is a right that everybody has," if we're looking at a philosophical dimension of "rights." (I admit that in current reality, is is effectively a right because of its widespread practice.)
In fact, free parking in the commons is decidedly UNethical, at least in urban places, though again I admit I'm being theoretical: the policy allowing it is unethical, though in current reality the individual act of using it is not. As people have long pointed out, the notion that I should be able to claim, and for hours, days, or weeks, withhold from others over 100 square feet of *publicly owned* space for the outdoor storage of my individual private property is unethical. Indeed, public health (mental too, not just physical) would improve if jurisdictions would charge market prices for such use of publicly owned space! Or at least get there gradually, since doing so suddenly would be an unhealthy economic shock, given the (unfortunate) ubiquity of car ownership.
In fact, free parking in the commons is decidedly UNethical, at least in urban places, though again I admit I'm being theoretical: the policy allowing it is unethical, though in current reality the individual act of using it is not. As people have long pointed out, the notion that I should be able to claim, and for hours, days, or weeks, withhold from others over 100 square feet of *publicly owned* space for the outdoor storage of my individual private property is unethical. Indeed, public health (mental too, not just physical) would improve if jurisdictions would charge market prices for such use of publicly owned space! Or at least get there gradually, since doing so suddenly would be an unhealthy economic shock, given the (unfortunate) ubiquity of car ownership.
2
If I were ever asked my opinion on a particular law (drug, death penalty, etc.) I'd simply say I exercise my Constitutional right to vote on a secret ballot and no government entity has a right to demand that I disclose my political opinions.
It is hard to understand the logic, underlying the reasoning of the potential juror " to lie, to save a life," other than attribute it to religion based fanaticism, devoid of any rationality. Whose life is he/she saving? That of a guilty murderer? What about the jury verdict of guilt, but for the lone juror, beyond a reasonable doubt? The finding of guilt is apart from the punishment face and precedes it. By lying under oath to the Court, the potential juror will be guilty of a serous offense. It amounts to intentional act of subverting the judicial process.
1
Editors: Bring back CHUCKY and lets go back to the OLD format please these (3) are unqualified - Bring back CHUCKY please
#1. If you are open about your facts and opinions in the "voir dire" process then the defense will want you on their team and choose you but the prosecution won't, its tricky but if I were in your shoes, I would state my views openly which in the end you may get selected by the defense, remember if you hold back and your selected it can come back to haunt you because you did not disclose it during jury process, I never get picked for juries, lawyers and both sides think I am too smart and that they won't be able to sway me, judges feel the same way, maybe its because "I always state how much I hate lawyers and that I think the justice system and judges are corrupt"...could that have something to do with my being rejected as a potential juror??? The death penalty in this country should be completely abolished without question and without hesitation, just think we are prosecuting someone for taking a life, but then we turn around and say we are going take your life for taking the other person's life, do you see the absurdity in this - makes no sense at all! Let your conscience guide you
#2. He should do whatever he wants and so should you - stop imposing your will on your husband its called control
#3. Pass the change unto a homeless person on the street and subway - or a single mom who has no food, Pay it Forward, "Give to let others Live"
#1. If you are open about your facts and opinions in the "voir dire" process then the defense will want you on their team and choose you but the prosecution won't, its tricky but if I were in your shoes, I would state my views openly which in the end you may get selected by the defense, remember if you hold back and your selected it can come back to haunt you because you did not disclose it during jury process, I never get picked for juries, lawyers and both sides think I am too smart and that they won't be able to sway me, judges feel the same way, maybe its because "I always state how much I hate lawyers and that I think the justice system and judges are corrupt"...could that have something to do with my being rejected as a potential juror??? The death penalty in this country should be completely abolished without question and without hesitation, just think we are prosecuting someone for taking a life, but then we turn around and say we are going take your life for taking the other person's life, do you see the absurdity in this - makes no sense at all! Let your conscience guide you
#2. He should do whatever he wants and so should you - stop imposing your will on your husband its called control
#3. Pass the change unto a homeless person on the street and subway - or a single mom who has no food, Pay it Forward, "Give to let others Live"
2
What happened to the original Ethicist, one capable of presenting the many facets of an ethical conundrum in clearly and concisely? This triage of faux ethical banter is incapable of doing so. In this case, three minds are not better than one great one.
Quaking
By lying you are skewing the entire justice system. By claiming to be an atheist then admitting you are a Quaker to sabotage Justice just confirms your hypocrisy. Recuse yourself.
Park It
Is this really an ethical problem? No. Its a nagging problem. He should just park his wife in the rented spot.
Charitable Ponzi
The money you receive is the perfect cover for a con game. Think about it - any money you send they obviously send out to others to get more. At a nickel each $1 is 20 more potential "donors". Its bad enough they play the guilt marketing on you, but its a Ponzi scheme and I'd bet if you look at their books you will find a small percentage of the donations actually go to actually helping the cause.
Quaking
By lying you are skewing the entire justice system. By claiming to be an atheist then admitting you are a Quaker to sabotage Justice just confirms your hypocrisy. Recuse yourself.
Park It
Is this really an ethical problem? No. Its a nagging problem. He should just park his wife in the rented spot.
Charitable Ponzi
The money you receive is the perfect cover for a con game. Think about it - any money you send they obviously send out to others to get more. At a nickel each $1 is 20 more potential "donors". Its bad enough they play the guilt marketing on you, but its a Ponzi scheme and I'd bet if you look at their books you will find a small percentage of the donations actually go to actually helping the cause.
3
I agree. Civil disobedience should be transparent and not come in the form of an anonymous saboteur.
3
That is what 'Jury Nullification' addresses, to judge the facts and the law as it relates to the case at hand.
Aren't ethical questions those of what is morally correct? As such, laws may or may not be relevant. Slavery may have been legal, but was hardly morally correct. Loving someone of the same sex may have been illegal, but it is hard to see how it was morally wrong. The only interesting question here is the first, which is asking if it is ethical to behave unethically in one way (lying) to prevent an unethical outcome in another way (execution.) Let's pretend it's 1859 and I have an escaped slave hiding in my attic. This person will be killed (and horribly) if caught. The police (who, in this case, are also the ad hoc judge and jury) ask if I've seen this escapee. Is lying morally correct? The other questions are just daft.
3
Selection for jury duty in a capital case is a two stage process, involving voir dire (which occurs prior to any jury trial no matter what the crime) and a "death qualification" phase (yes, that is what it is called), which occurs only in capital cases. Persons who are opposed to the death penalty but who would otherwise survive the voir dire are removed from the jury pool during death qualification. Thus, Nico could not be selected for a capital case in the first place, as s/he suggests.
2
I'm going to disagree with the other commenters and say that I don't hate the new format of the Ethicist column. I have to admit it was more fun to read the last ethicist knowing that I and many commenters would disagree in the comments. With this format there's not one person to go against and the article itself gets to start the argument. It dilutes the impact of the column.
Since this is taken from a real conversation, it is a little bit meandering. If you want to keep this format against all the criticism, I would suggest tightening up the back-and-forth with heavy editing. Or have 2 people who (intelligently) disagree. Or maybe a moderator who summarizes things and 2 people who disagree. Not sure you have space for that.
As I am writing I see "Right, and this ain't that." and then "You brought it up, pal." in the column. I would also lose the fake-sounding banter. It's off-putting.
Since this is taken from a real conversation, it is a little bit meandering. If you want to keep this format against all the criticism, I would suggest tightening up the back-and-forth with heavy editing. Or have 2 people who (intelligently) disagree. Or maybe a moderator who summarizes things and 2 people who disagree. Not sure you have space for that.
As I am writing I see "Right, and this ain't that." and then "You brought it up, pal." in the column. I would also lose the fake-sounding banter. It's off-putting.
1
What a bizarre idea that civil disobedience must be "open and notorious" to be real civil disobedience. So... those who covertly ran the underground railroad ought, instead, to have publicized (and thereby undermined) their actions? Odd thinking.
8
I recently got one of those solicitations containing a nickel. It was fake.
prospective jurors are sworn to tell the truth. either don't swear or don't lie. and besides, the odds that your jury trial is a capital case are miniscule.
4
As a regular and longtime Ethicist – now Ethicists – reader, I do not object to the new format. So far, in fact, I welcome it. Someone below objects to the banter among the panel members, but Randy Cohen, for instance, engaged in a fair amount of humor that certainly took up as much space as these folks' banter, and I have enjoyed the light side in both formats. Comments from some of attorneys below on the jury question, however, do indicate that the panelists may want to research the issues a bit more before they have their conversations. So far, so good.
'...Shafer: ...What I generally do with the money is take it and give it to the next available panhandler. The person I give it to puts it to immediate valuable use, and I sort of wash my hands of the money...'
And Shafer knows this exactly how?
And Shafer knows this exactly how?
1
I agree with you NM. Shafer's engaging in situational ethics: Remember the expression "giving change doesn't make a change?" By "washing his hands of the money" he ignores that the panhandler is probably going to use what he begs to buy cheap liquor or drugs rather than real food. (But the panhandler is there to begin with because we as a society can't be bothered to deal with his problems.) Better he should save up all that change, add it to a nice round number and send a check to a local charity that will at least try to do something more to better the panhandler's life than helping him find oblivion. Otherwise, just spend those nickels and dimes on what makes you happy Mr. Shafer. It's more honest.
Giving a nickle to a pan handler is an insult. I also question charities that spend money meant for a specific need on sending coins, bags, note pads, etc. to potential donors. In my opinion they're wasting money that could be better used and the freebie stuff probably comes from China and is made by exploited labor, perhaps even by children.
2
The "ethicists" seem to be arguing that subverting an immoral law must be public to be legitimate, in the tradition of civil disobedience. But that is the wrong analogy. The people who illegally assisted runaway slaves in this country, or those who illegally hid Jews from the Nazis in Europe, were not public about their defiance of the law-- if they had been, their defiance would have been ineffectual in saving lives. The same is true here.
7
Bring back Randy Cohen.
6
the three ethicists missed the main point in the juror question: the rule of law. once we all adopt the view that we can subvert laws if we don't like them (*why* we don't like them is a much less consequential issue), then the rule of law breaks down. and that is the single greatest calamity a society can suffer short of foreign invasion. civil war is just the extreme example of the breakdown of the rule of law.
the point is that even civil disobedience has rules: it's civil, and it's the refusal to obey. the refusal is public, which means it has consequences that extend beyond the specific: you're not just freeing a murderer by subterfuge, you're challenging openly the whole system by which murderers are judged and punished.
the point is that even civil disobedience has rules: it's civil, and it's the refusal to obey. the refusal is public, which means it has consequences that extend beyond the specific: you're not just freeing a murderer by subterfuge, you're challenging openly the whole system by which murderers are judged and punished.
6
Except this:
- the death penalty is a barbaric act of political theater that demeans everyone involved with it for no legitimate purpose. It has been outlawed - briefly - in the United States; it has been abolished in almost every other developed country in the world; and its haphazard, prolonged and cruel imposition and administration in the United States now serves principally to emphasize the gross racism and wider unfairness of a once-proud criminal justice system and wider and fundamental failures of political governance; and
- this questioner has a material moral choice: if he or she does participate, even at the price of deceit, he or she has some chance to save a life. If he or she does not, that chance is lost. The balance between a deception, however grave, and letting someone die for no good reason and far too many bad ones, is a straightforward moral choice.
It is, in particular, not a matter of "the rule of law": that presupposes a rational and fair criminal justice system with proportionate and effective penalties. It is also not a matter of civil disobedience: that is an act of public defiance intended to seek change: this is an act of private conscience in the face of persistent public obscenity.
- the death penalty is a barbaric act of political theater that demeans everyone involved with it for no legitimate purpose. It has been outlawed - briefly - in the United States; it has been abolished in almost every other developed country in the world; and its haphazard, prolonged and cruel imposition and administration in the United States now serves principally to emphasize the gross racism and wider unfairness of a once-proud criminal justice system and wider and fundamental failures of political governance; and
- this questioner has a material moral choice: if he or she does participate, even at the price of deceit, he or she has some chance to save a life. If he or she does not, that chance is lost. The balance between a deception, however grave, and letting someone die for no good reason and far too many bad ones, is a straightforward moral choice.
It is, in particular, not a matter of "the rule of law": that presupposes a rational and fair criminal justice system with proportionate and effective penalties. It is also not a matter of civil disobedience: that is an act of public defiance intended to seek change: this is an act of private conscience in the face of persistent public obscenity.
7
I don't believe the commenter michjas is correct.
IIRC, when one judge tried to penalize a juror (for omitting their arrest on drug charges during voir dire) the judge was b***-slapped by the appellate courts.
It appears the only realistic remedy a judge has is dismissal of a juror.
IIRC, when one judge tried to penalize a juror (for omitting their arrest on drug charges during voir dire) the judge was b***-slapped by the appellate courts.
It appears the only realistic remedy a judge has is dismissal of a juror.
2
Just because that happened once in one jurisdiction does not mean the appellate decision was correct (or that there aren't missing facts in the assertion that may shade the issue) or that no judge anywhere can punish a juror for lying other than dismissing them from the jury.
Should any charity pay its CEO or CFO more than 100K per annum? Should they indulge in mass mailings? Forget about the nickle or the horrible notepad or the (and they are getting worse) return labels. ENUFF already...
7
If you are committed to these three ethicists, why not alternate one per week and rotate them? Then they can get serious and give us concise points of view. Most of us, I would suggest, read this column to be challenged to think, not to eavesdrop on friends chatting.
40
Wow, somebody actually *cares* about a nickle or quarter they get in the mail from some random charity???
I do find this interesting though. To me it's an example of what I consider to be a very strange mindset, which requires an ethical examination of even the most trivial aspects of one's life. I've run into this with a family member, who gets upset when I fail to go out of my way to recycle some specific item. Most of the time I actually do recycle, but sometimes it just isn't worth the effort, and frankly I just don't care enough to make the effort in all cases. It just isn't that important. Nor do I care about coins I get in the mail -- I stick them in my pocket, throw the envelope away, and forget about it. (Occasionally I'll get something that's just insulting or offensive, and if there is a post-paid envelope I mail it back to them empty. But even then I usually can't be bothered).
Anyway, while they say the unexamined life is not worth living, maybe it's also possible to examine it just a little too closely?
I do find this interesting though. To me it's an example of what I consider to be a very strange mindset, which requires an ethical examination of even the most trivial aspects of one's life. I've run into this with a family member, who gets upset when I fail to go out of my way to recycle some specific item. Most of the time I actually do recycle, but sometimes it just isn't worth the effort, and frankly I just don't care enough to make the effort in all cases. It just isn't that important. Nor do I care about coins I get in the mail -- I stick them in my pocket, throw the envelope away, and forget about it. (Occasionally I'll get something that's just insulting or offensive, and if there is a post-paid envelope I mail it back to them empty. But even then I usually can't be bothered).
Anyway, while they say the unexamined life is not worth living, maybe it's also possible to examine it just a little too closely?
18
First, as a matter of law, it is clear that the cash or anything of value sent unsolicited in a charitable appeal belongs to the recipient, with no obligation to pay anything for it. This is true whether the object is a coin, a calendar, a set of address labels, or those cheesy figurines we used to get in the mail at our house.
Second, I agree that the trick of sending cash in order to create a bogus sense of obligation is the unethical element in this transaction, not the recipient's choice to keep the money.
Third, the charity knows that there is no legal obligation on the part of the recipient, and that most recipients will not donate, and the charity has calculated that the return on the total investment, including the coin, is sufficient to justify the cost of solicitations and coins sent to non-paying recipients.
Finally, if the recipient is concerned about the financial impact of keeping the money without making a contribution, it may be comforting that the coin in the envelope (conveniently glued to the ask card so as to make it hard to get without opening the envelope and handling the request) is likely a small fraction of the cost of the solicitation, and the charity would be spending pretty close to the same amount with or without the coin.
Second, I agree that the trick of sending cash in order to create a bogus sense of obligation is the unethical element in this transaction, not the recipient's choice to keep the money.
Third, the charity knows that there is no legal obligation on the part of the recipient, and that most recipients will not donate, and the charity has calculated that the return on the total investment, including the coin, is sufficient to justify the cost of solicitations and coins sent to non-paying recipients.
Finally, if the recipient is concerned about the financial impact of keeping the money without making a contribution, it may be comforting that the coin in the envelope (conveniently glued to the ask card so as to make it hard to get without opening the envelope and handling the request) is likely a small fraction of the cost of the solicitation, and the charity would be spending pretty close to the same amount with or without the coin.
5
Jack, from Vermont, actually understands why charities use this method:because it works. Amy Bloom dismisses this possibility when she says, categorically, the method is ineffective. If it were, the charities would stop using it.
Both the business and science of fundraising are equipped with measurement tools that show what works and what doesn't, and the methods are continuously honed as more data is collected.
Both the business and science of fundraising are equipped with measurement tools that show what works and what doesn't, and the methods are continuously honed as more data is collected.
On January 23, 2000 the Ethicist column had a question from A. B., Philadelphia, an ardent foe of capital punishment. Called for jury duty in a death penalty case, he was asked if he (maybe A. B. is a she) would be able to impose a death sentence. If A. B. answered no, he said, he would have been left off the jury and replaced by a juror who believes in the death penalty. A. B. went on: “If I had lied and said yes, perhaps I could have saved the defendant’s life.”
Now we have Nico from a Midwestern state who believes the death penalty is inherently wrong and is considering hiding his beliefs “to improve my odds of selection so I can subvert an unfair system. . . . [D]o the means justify the ends to save a life?.”
As a matter of ethics, I’ll leave the answer to Nico’s question, recycled 15 years after the same question from A. B. of Philadelphia, to the troika of ethicists. As a lawyer, I can tell Nico that if he (it is a he, right?) does what he has in mind and is found out, he will be the criminal defendant. And I can tell him further that his defense of a higher purpose behind his deliberate unlawful conduct will not take him very far.
Now we have Nico from a Midwestern state who believes the death penalty is inherently wrong and is considering hiding his beliefs “to improve my odds of selection so I can subvert an unfair system. . . . [D]o the means justify the ends to save a life?.”
As a matter of ethics, I’ll leave the answer to Nico’s question, recycled 15 years after the same question from A. B. of Philadelphia, to the troika of ethicists. As a lawyer, I can tell Nico that if he (it is a he, right?) does what he has in mind and is found out, he will be the criminal defendant. And I can tell him further that his defense of a higher purpose behind his deliberate unlawful conduct will not take him very far.
8
As a trial lawyer, I'd advise that your civil disobedience has a big price. Lying under oath to a judge is a felony with a maximum punishment of five years in prison. If you end up being the only holdout, as in the Arias case, your fellow jurors will out you. And if you are prosecuted, because the consequences of your lie are immense, you will surely go to jail for a period of years. That doesn't answer the ethical question but it ups the ante for choosing to protest. Whatever ethics may say, common sense says don't do it.
13
As a fellow trial lawyer, I can say from experience that many jurors in civil cases return inadequate verdicts because, despite their oath, they consider information not admitted into evidence.
Most commonly, they assume a plaintiff's medical bills were paid by their health insurer, so they do not award this item of damages.
What they don't know is that most health insurers assert a lien on the verdict, so the plaintiff still has an out of pocket amount due for medical care. And we are not allowed to talk to jurors about these liens.
Best to keep your oath, or just don't swear it.
Most commonly, they assume a plaintiff's medical bills were paid by their health insurer, so they do not award this item of damages.
What they don't know is that most health insurers assert a lien on the verdict, so the plaintiff still has an out of pocket amount due for medical care. And we are not allowed to talk to jurors about these liens.
Best to keep your oath, or just don't swear it.
5
Maybee trial lawyers should talk more often like this here. If true, this means there is no justice when justice is done. The liens you speak of should be made known and considered in the facts of the case. That they aren't is mere legal slight of hand intentionally to thwart justice. Intent still matters. If this is the case, then the defense should have wrapped up the lein into the facts of the case covering that contingency. If they don't, since it's a well known fact to insiders only, it is failure to act in the interest of the client and the lawyers are fair game for even larger awards.
Wait. Your example disproves your point.
The holdout juror in the Jodi Arias case WAS outed by fellow jurors, that is, accused of being anti-death penalty without exception. Yet the judge not only didn't replace her, she has also not been charged with perjury.
Assuming she did lie in voir dire as accused, she simply had to keep her mouth shut to save herself, and perhaps the life of the accused murderer.
Standing up for what you believe isn't supposed to be easy, but it is possible. Can anyone cite a case of an anti-death penalty juror being charged with perjury?
The holdout juror in the Jodi Arias case WAS outed by fellow jurors, that is, accused of being anti-death penalty without exception. Yet the judge not only didn't replace her, she has also not been charged with perjury.
Assuming she did lie in voir dire as accused, she simply had to keep her mouth shut to save herself, and perhaps the life of the accused murderer.
Standing up for what you believe isn't supposed to be easy, but it is possible. Can anyone cite a case of an anti-death penalty juror being charged with perjury?
1
"there are ways of expressing that view other than engaging in dishonest or potentially illegal behavior".
There's the assumption here that this is just some sort of political statement. I suspect the letter writer sees it as a practical life-or-death issue. Sure, go try to change the law, but in the meantime there is one very specific defendant in front of you is at risk of being murdered by the state. So why not do both? Lying is by far the lesser of the two evils. "And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
"[guilt-tripping is] stupid, ineffective, manipulative and not nice."
How do you know it's ineffective? I suspect the people who engage in it have actually looked at the data and concluded that it is effective. It's like advertising: I may be tempted to think that web advertising is ineffective because I never click on any ads, but the fact that people pay billions of dollars to Google, Facebook, and even the NYT for web ads suggests that it works for them.
There's the assumption here that this is just some sort of political statement. I suspect the letter writer sees it as a practical life-or-death issue. Sure, go try to change the law, but in the meantime there is one very specific defendant in front of you is at risk of being murdered by the state. So why not do both? Lying is by far the lesser of the two evils. "And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."
"[guilt-tripping is] stupid, ineffective, manipulative and not nice."
How do you know it's ineffective? I suspect the people who engage in it have actually looked at the data and concluded that it is effective. It's like advertising: I may be tempted to think that web advertising is ineffective because I never click on any ads, but the fact that people pay billions of dollars to Google, Facebook, and even the NYT for web ads suggests that it works for them.
6
how much longer are you going with this fiasco format? enough already.
68
Agreed!
13
I like the format. Tough ethical questions usually don't have simple answers and getting three heads involved proves the point. You, the reader, must then draw your own conclusions. With just one ethicist, the grey gets eliminated and one is left with just black or white.
1
I couldn't agree more completely.
Ethical and Legal are not synonymous. If you literally have a life in your hands, you are surely free to prioritize your ethical values over a procedural law. Just as you might choose to drive over the speed limit on the way to the ER, you might choose to lie to save, or take, the life of an innocent or guilty accused thus taking the ethical (by your own standards) high ground over the law. Most people will not do anything more important during their lifetimes. Adherence to one's deeply held ethical beliefs takes priority to adherence to a highly flawed jury selection process with the self-serving backing of the law protecting it from people who "lie" about their beliefs.
11
The new "Ethicists" format continues to put a minimum of thought into a maximum of words.
1. Even if you oppose the death penalty (as I do), that doesn't entitle you to lie about it in court. If asked, explain why you oppose the death penalty; you might convince other potential jurors to follow your example.
2. The "ethics" of charities sending loose change as an inducement to contribute has been covered elsewhere. You are under no obligation to give to any organization who sends you any unsolicited gift. If you don't want to accept the coin that's sent, simply mark the envelope as "REFUSED" and "RETURN TO SENDER" and put it in the nearest mailbox.
1. Even if you oppose the death penalty (as I do), that doesn't entitle you to lie about it in court. If asked, explain why you oppose the death penalty; you might convince other potential jurors to follow your example.
2. The "ethics" of charities sending loose change as an inducement to contribute has been covered elsewhere. You are under no obligation to give to any organization who sends you any unsolicited gift. If you don't want to accept the coin that's sent, simply mark the envelope as "REFUSED" and "RETURN TO SENDER" and put it in the nearest mailbox.
42
Aren't all of our actions and judgments based on our belief system? Why should we have to put aside our morality and our ethics when we play a part in society? Can we truly have a separation of state and church (or belief system)?
3
I think the questions this week are good and the discussion is good. I have high hopes for the column!
2
While this question is caged in terms of truthfulness, the real ethical obligation is recognize that jury service is not about you.
I'm opposed to the death penalty on religious and secular grounds. I'd vote against, I've advocated against it and criticized it. However, as a juror, I'm not being asked to determine the rightness of the policy or to "put a person to death" as is perceived in the popular imagination, I'm being asked whether or not the prosecution has proved the charges and sentence the State alleges and seeks. It's difficult and imperfect, but it is proving unworkable to have a jury system where the cultural perception is that your individual mandates (including many not as fundamental as the writer's at issue) trump your responsibilities as a juror either in permitting dishonesty or self-serving disqualification.
The right to serve on a jury was a hard fought one for many different groups of people at different times and is one of the most important and under-appreciated rights a person can hold in their society. Don't take it away from yourself because it's hard.
I'm opposed to the death penalty on religious and secular grounds. I'd vote against, I've advocated against it and criticized it. However, as a juror, I'm not being asked to determine the rightness of the policy or to "put a person to death" as is perceived in the popular imagination, I'm being asked whether or not the prosecution has proved the charges and sentence the State alleges and seeks. It's difficult and imperfect, but it is proving unworkable to have a jury system where the cultural perception is that your individual mandates (including many not as fundamental as the writer's at issue) trump your responsibilities as a juror either in permitting dishonesty or self-serving disqualification.
The right to serve on a jury was a hard fought one for many different groups of people at different times and is one of the most important and under-appreciated rights a person can hold in their society. Don't take it away from yourself because it's hard.
17
I was also raised Quaker, and share the first writer's abhorrence of the death penalty. I am also a lawyer, which means I wouldn't be selected for a jury in the first place, but I always assumed that if miraculously selected for a death penalty case I would tell the truth - that under no circumstances could I participate in condemning another human being to death - and would be excused.
Having read the writer's letter, though, now I am not so sure. I don't believe there is anyone who would ALWAYS vote for the death penalty, under any circumstances, so I don't believe that people on both ends are removed from the jury. Instead, the jury is composed solely of people who believe the death penalty is a justifiable option - some of whom would be quicker to impose it, and some of whom would be slower. It's still a weighted jury, and - knowing how flawed our criminal justice system is, knowing how many have faced the death penalty for crimes they did not commit, and for the incredibly important mission of saving a human life - might this act of lying in the cause of civil disobedience be justified? I'm not convinced by the ethicist's argument that it isn't ... I'm really going to think about this!
Having read the writer's letter, though, now I am not so sure. I don't believe there is anyone who would ALWAYS vote for the death penalty, under any circumstances, so I don't believe that people on both ends are removed from the jury. Instead, the jury is composed solely of people who believe the death penalty is a justifiable option - some of whom would be quicker to impose it, and some of whom would be slower. It's still a weighted jury, and - knowing how flawed our criminal justice system is, knowing how many have faced the death penalty for crimes they did not commit, and for the incredibly important mission of saving a human life - might this act of lying in the cause of civil disobedience be justified? I'm not convinced by the ethicist's argument that it isn't ... I'm really going to think about this!
19
But the essence of civil disobedience is that it is done as a public expression of one's beliefs and acceptance of the negative consequences that will arise from that expression, i.e., MLK wrote his letter from JAIL, which is where the prospective juror will end up if she lies about her beliefs and is found out
Thank for this thoughtful response. To the other lawyers in the comments emphasizing the illegality of hiding your views: part of civil disobedience is a willingness to face the legal consequences. The fact that there are legal consequences is what makes it civil disobedience. The fact that the letter writer is struggling to decide shows that he is, indeed, concerned not only about the legality, but also about violating his duty to society. His proposed act is not thoughtless or casual; I think it does rise to the level of principled civil disobedience and should be looked at in that light.
1
My problem with this issue as a potential juror is not only how to deal with my opposition to a death sentence, but also that if those who are opposed to the death penalty are excluded from the jury pool, that increases the likelihood that any defendant who is convicted will in fact be sentenced to death. Thus, in my view, this is not just a question of my personal values, but of basic fairness to the accused. I have handled this by deciding that I would not hang a jury in the sentencing phase to prevent a death sentence, which makes me feel it is legitimate not to check the the "opposed to the death penalty box" on the form.
However, despite the fact that I see this as ethical, I'm not at all sure that a judge would consider it legal.
However, despite the fact that I see this as ethical, I'm not at all sure that a judge would consider it legal.
3
Wow ... give you credit, that's ingenious. I've also struggled with this, and I see your reasoning, but I don't really feel you've solved it. I hope you're never in that actual situation - where you'd have to either violate your own beliefs or hang a jury - I think you might either find yourself feeling you were obliged to hang the jury after all, or else coming away feeling great remorse over voting to execute the person.
1
As an atheist I feel obligated to tell the court of my skepticism about all things spiritual. The last time I was called to jury duty the prospective jurors were asked to do the whole "....so help me God" oath. I objected and after some confusion between the prosecutor and judge I was excused. I thought my belief was information that both the prosecutor and defense needed in case they cared to invoke cultural religious beliefs to support vengeance or mercy. Most, to the point of being vanishingly small, jury candidates will never be seated on a death penalty trial. Drunk driving is much more likely and can test your belief system as much as any situation that requires you to make judgement on another person.
2
This one's really simple. On voire dire, you may not be asked your religion. Period. On the other hand, you may be asked your beliefs and opinions.
You will have been sworn (or affirmed) to tell the truth. So do so. Answer the questions truthfully. That's all. If you're chosen, so be it; if not, ditto.
You will have been sworn (or affirmed) to tell the truth. So do so. Answer the questions truthfully. That's all. If you're chosen, so be it; if not, ditto.
17
Is the letter writer currently sitting on the Jody Arias jury?
4
Putting in my personal vote for big NIX on this new format. It's boring, directionless and without a clear, well-thought-out conclusion. I could get the same kind of answers talking to a bunch of strangers in a bar. I miss Randy and Chuck! Please, get one person of their caliber to write this.
I've given this column 3 weeks but I think I will be skipping it from here on, which is a pity because it was among my favourite column in the magazine in years past.
I've given this column 3 weeks but I think I will be skipping it from here on, which is a pity because it was among my favourite column in the magazine in years past.
130
Don't forget Ariel. By the end of her term, she was doing a good job, too. But overall, I agree with you, this format is unappealing, and I have little hope these participants will figure out what would make it appealing.
How about this position re: parking: For every redundant parking space I rent and DON'T use, thereby causing incrementally more inconvenience for those who choose to drive and park (a limited privilege bestowed by city legislatures, not a right), I incrementally cause those drivers to consider abandoning their cars and using the bus or train instead. As a severe but realistic example, say I (as a developer) bought up a private parking lot, kicked out all the cars, and converted the space into a neighborhood garden. Wouldn't I be ethical-to-the-max for (1) incrementally discouraging driving and parking in the neighborhood and (2) turning ugly asphalt into a fecund natural space? Certainly nobody would call me unethical for inconveniencing all those entitled parkers, right?
5
The new format is awful. You've turned a thoughtful and researched column into glorified internet comments. If I want to read comments I'll read the comments.
130
Is it "ethical" to offer a column about ethics and either not have questions concerning ethics or to offer late night dorm room social discussions without ever dealing with the moral question asked? Perhaps this column is improving or will since its makeover but so far it is a total failure compared to its predecessors. Publish questions that have a moral dilemma and answer them that way. For example: Is it ethical to lie to get on a jury? No. It doesn't matter what your intentions or motivations are. Period. Is it ethical to keep an unsolicited gift? Yes. No matter how you are "supposed" to feel. Come on. I expect much more from The New York Times.
98
I think we have discovered the new "Ethicist"! Though his concise answers might make for a somwhat brief column, better that than what we have now.
16
When I was voir dired as a possible juror on a death penalty case, I testified that the death penalty was barbaric and I would never support it or vote for it. So, I was struck. I weighed the attractive notion of going undercover as a subversive, but I'm not cut out for that, plus I couldn't bring myself to even appear to approve of the death penalty. After I testified, I had a couple of phone calls from people who felt heartened to publicly disapprove of the death penalty. You can arrive at oppoisition to the death penalty by any number of ways. Now my State has declared a moratorium on the death penalty. The young fellow who was being tried and was in fact sentenced to death has not been executed. The weight on my mind has lightened.
14
I must be morally bankrupt. I would gladly take any coin sent to me by any charity, only hoping that it would be a quarter and not a penny. Of course, I greatly admire a friend who has reduced his share of junk mail by returning any solicitation that includes prepaid postage envelopes which he fills with metal washers, hence obliging them to pay heftier postage. I doubt that anyone has ever guilted me into doing anything I did not wish to do.
7
Miss the sixties, Your friend reminds me of a friend of mine in Tucson who loaded up Republican pre-paid campaign contribution envelops with all sorts of junk after he decided he'd been had by Nixon and company.
8
I can't say I admire that. Your friend is creating more pain in the world than he suffered in the transaction, so it's not "fair". Instead, like a marriage, we should all do more than half, and be willing to meet more than halfway, rather than less. That's what makes this world work.
On the other hand, your friend has to live with the person he is creating, and he's with him where ever he goes.
On the other hand, your friend has to live with the person he is creating, and he's with him where ever he goes.
8
If everyone would routinely pop in the mailbox every postage paid envelope they get (weighted down or or even empty), the Postal Service would probably be well on its way to wiping out all its financial woes.
9
I don't know a good answer to the jury-selection question, but I don't think saying the prospective behavior "would just be lying" settles the question.
Sure, it would be lying, but couldn't lying to attain a very important goal potentially be ethical? In an extreme case, suppose I knew for sure that the accused is not guilty. But for some reason, I can't bring myself to explain how I know that. (For example, maybe I saw my father do the crime, and I can't bring myself to incriminate him.)
Lying is in most circumstances gravely unethical. But it's not hard to think of cases where it is the lesser of two evils. (Hence the term "white lie.")
Sure, it would be lying, but couldn't lying to attain a very important goal potentially be ethical? In an extreme case, suppose I knew for sure that the accused is not guilty. But for some reason, I can't bring myself to explain how I know that. (For example, maybe I saw my father do the crime, and I can't bring myself to incriminate him.)
Lying is in most circumstances gravely unethical. But it's not hard to think of cases where it is the lesser of two evils. (Hence the term "white lie.")
8
Please, let the Ethicist fade away gracefully, and convert this into a regular advice column with a different name. It's not about ethics anymore; it's about what is legal or socially appropriate. And that's fine -- but it's not the Ethicist.
91
I'm not particularly fond of the new format either, but I just don't get people continually harping that the questions covered are not ethics questions. I just can't see how a question about whether a juror should lie about his/her beliefs in order to save someone from the death penalty could possibly NOT be an ethical question. What the heck do people want for ethics questions, if questions about the death penalty, civil disobedience, and the requirement for jurors to be honest are not ethics questions? The question posed was the most basic type of ethics question there is: a conflict between two opposing principles, and what one should do when faced with such a conflict (in this case, the conflict between on the one hand the duty as a juror not to lie, and on the other hand the moral imperative to save another human being's life if one sees a possible chance to do so.
DW: The *question* was about ethics, but the *response* was about legality. That is what I am objecting to.
3
Finally, an ethics question (juror) and a thoughtful answer. The others are filler.
8
This week is an improvement in that the ethical issues seem to at least start out being delineated but I think the name needs to be changed to the Conversationists. Sometimes eavesdropping is interesting...sometimes.
24
Much of the issue here resides in the wish to be Civil Disobedient, such that the "requirement of civil disobedience is that it be open and notorious." Personally, I am CD in that manner with war tax resistance (open refusal to fully pay IRS and to redirect to charity instead) and arrest. However I sometimes support something different, which is where the act is disobedient and illegal, but also must be covert in order to right an ethical wrong. Perhaps this is what the questioner was considering. I live three blocks from the old Media FBI office that in 1971 was famously burglarized of its files describing illegal and dangerous activities of the FBI. We have the publication of the Pentagon Papers and more recently the work of Assange and Snowden. I was recently called for jury duty in the case of a defendant charged with Murder 1, but they were not asking for the death penalty. Here in Pennsylvania, no one has been executed for decades. They charge you with “lifetime imprisonment without parole.” To me, that is not significantly different from exercising the death penalty. You lock them up and throw away the key. When the Judge asked if anyone had a problem with this particular case, I chose to stand up and was not selected for the panel.
5
There is the well-recognized principle of the justification of the lesser crime. You break into the burning house to save the baby. Of course, what is the greater and what is the lesser crime is not always that clear or agreed upon. It can depend upon the jury. Judges often refuse to hear this argument, which can be grounds for appeal to a higher court. This is also a case for jury nullification – the judge can control the process, but not the outcome other than by controlling the process.
7
The first two columns of the Ethicist in its new format were barely readable. This one seems better: No shaming of the letter writer, less insubstantial/unfunny banter, and some focus on the ethical dimensions of the issue at hand.
That said, this format is still worse than the old format. A column like this just isn't long enough to explore an issue effectively from multiple view points. It just feels breezy and superficial. I also think the desire to have several people exploring the issues rather than one 'authority' giving a definitive, well argued response is mealy and evokes the sallow journalistic tendency of our day to cover 'both sides' of the issue.
That said, this format is still worse than the old format. A column like this just isn't long enough to explore an issue effectively from multiple view points. It just feels breezy and superficial. I also think the desire to have several people exploring the issues rather than one 'authority' giving a definitive, well argued response is mealy and evokes the sallow journalistic tendency of our day to cover 'both sides' of the issue.
122
" I was also struck by how the letter writer is an atheist but still believes in these Quaker values, and there didn't seem to be any contradiction between atheism and those values".
How is atheism incompatible with "non-violence, a belief in goodness of each person, peace and simplicity"? I hope I misunderstood you, because asserting that there is a contradiction implies that I, as an atheist and secular humanist, can't hold any of those values. Or is there another definition of atheism that I am not aware of? Maybe the one used during the cold war (evil USSR atheists!), and apparently now by a New York times ethicist?
How is atheism incompatible with "non-violence, a belief in goodness of each person, peace and simplicity"? I hope I misunderstood you, because asserting that there is a contradiction implies that I, as an atheist and secular humanist, can't hold any of those values. Or is there another definition of atheism that I am not aware of? Maybe the one used during the cold war (evil USSR atheists!), and apparently now by a New York times ethicist?
49
It's not the most well-constructed sentence, but yes, you misunderstood, I believe. I think the commenter meant, "I'm not sure why you need to claim that those good values are specifically quaker ones, as they're not inconsistent with atheism, either... but if you want to go all quaker on us, here's another quaker value you could embrace."
2
Quakers' commitment to non-violence stems from their interpretation of a mandate from their god. It is a "solemnly" held belief in specific manner. It's certainly the case that atheists may (or may not) hold very firm, similar convictions for very different reasons with very different foundations. But why mention being a former Quaker at all?
It's tantamount to fasting during Ramadan because you were raised that way, and now you've just taken a shine to juice cleanses. It suggests, "Those Quakers seem have it all figured out, except for their belief in a god," which fair or unfair is what people react to in these circumstances.
It's tantamount to fasting during Ramadan because you were raised that way, and now you've just taken a shine to juice cleanses. It suggests, "Those Quakers seem have it all figured out, except for their belief in a god," which fair or unfair is what people react to in these circumstances.
1
I'm sure you misunderstood. To me, the letter writer was clearly saying that although he no longer believed in God, as is pretty much required if you want to call yourself Quaker, he still believes in the values of Quakerism as an atheist. He did not rule out any other method of coming to those ethical values, but only mentioned his own path.
7
I get tons of requests from charities. It is a sad state of affairs that one's name gets sold to similar charities or that the collecting is done by a corporation that sends out additional appeals to "suckers".( Hey! We got a live one!) 90% of my mail goes into the recycle bin every day. Some of it contains small change, I keep it and spend it like a gift. Guilt doesn't motivate me. Instead I give according to the dictates of my heart. Just because I gave to one charity with a specific cause doesn't mean I can afford to give to 10 charities with the same or similar cause. I think a lot of this is preying upon people and in particular the elderly.
16
It's possible to get off of those shared mailing lists. I don't give to charities or organizations that won't honor my request not to sell or trade my name and address. Legit charities will also stop sending you mailings if you request that they do so. I take the time to contact them, when necessary, and I get very few unwanted solicitations.
The writer says that though he is an Atheist he still believes in Quaker values. Is one of those values the belief that it is OK to lie? I think not! He should tell the truth and take his chances on whether he is selected or not. This is a prime example of situational ethics which is not a Quaker ethic. He is not there to make a political statement but to judge the evidence presented and offer a fair and just judgement.
8
Of course it is not a Quaker value to lie. But what is more important - another's life or your own sense that you are honest? The ethicist may be right, it's not Letter from a Birmingham Jail - but it is more like the huntsman who was supposed to kill Snow White, but let her go free, and lied to the Queen about having killed her. Was he wrong? Did anyone think he was wrong when they read the story?
12