January 2004 Ethics Dunces
Steve Irwin ("The Crocodile Hunter")
Based on his recent interviews, Mr. Irwin doesn’t think there’s anything
wrong with involving his one month old son in the feeding (and taunting!)
of a 12 foot crocodile. We’ll explain it to him. Even if, as he absurdly
claims, the danger to the child was minimal, the risk to the child of
being harmed by a crocodile was greater than it needed to be, the necessary
risk being zero. Mr. Irwin placed his infant son in this danger, not for
any educational or vocational or character-building benefit to the child,
but as a stunt for his own benefit. Using human beings as props without
their consent and placing them in any jeopardy as a result is unethical,
Steve, as well as just stupid. If you had dropped your son, or if you
had tripped and he had slipped out, you would probably already agree by
now. But trust us on this: It’s unethical.
Pete Rose
Pete Rose now admits he bet on baseball (after ten years of lying about
it) but says that his bets (always in favor of his team, never against
it, he says) as manager of the Cincinnati Reds never effected his management
decisions, and thus he did not harm the integrity of the game. He feels
he should be let back into the game as a manager.
A couple of things, Pete:
1) Even if this were true, fans of the game cannot put their faith in
the outcome of games when they know that those who help determine the
outcome might be motivated by their wagers. This is the reason that we
call "the appearance of impropriety" an ethical problem.
2) Presumably you did not bet on the Reds when a key player was sitting
out, or when your starting pitcher wasn’t feeling good. Right? Or are
we supposed to believe that you bet large amounts of money while already
in debt to bookies in circumstances when you thought you would lose? So
every time you didn’t bet on the Reds, you were sending information to
the bookies, and it affected their odds on the game. Got it?
3) You say you never bet against the Reds. You used to say you never
bet on baseball. You’re a liar. Why should anyone believe you now?
The Fox Network
The Fox Network is now paying people to inflict emotional trauma on
their loved ones. Nice. In its current "reality" series, "My
Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé", a woman receives $1,000,000 for
convincing her family that she is about to wed a disgusting boor, thus
causing those who sincerely care about her happiness and welfare to be
exposed to worry, fear and embarrassment on her behalf. Thus the network
is using its resources to induce others to engage in gratuitous cruelty
for a price. Having proven that people will ingest all manner of disgusting
objects and creatures for financial gain, Fox has now moved on to this,
both in pursuit of ratings and to demonstrate, we suppose, that people
will do awful things to themselves and others if you offer them enough
money. This is called corruption, of course. What despicable acts will
Fox foster with its checkbook next, one wonders? Pay people to cheat on
their spouses? Abandon their children? Engage in self-mutilation, or eat
their pets?