« The Little Kidnapper (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) Is A Jew | Main | Oh, That's Why They Call It Dope! »

Fun With Ethics

One of the most fascinating classes I took in college was Introduction To Ethics. The focus was on not what was moral and ethical, but how to define the terms and apply them. It was a completely nonjudgmental class, in the sense that you were not judged on what you believed, but how well you could defend it.

There were two lessons in that class have stuck with me to this day.

The first was the definition of "moral." It merely means "consistent with one's own personal code of conduct and beliefs." If one had a truly heinous set of beliefs, such as a sexist white supremacist thug, but acted in accordance with them, then that person was "moral." They might be monstrous within the context of society, but by their own definition they were all right.

The other principle I recall is that for an ethical principle to be valid, it had to be universal. In other words, the rules had to apply equally to everyone. And that's the one that's gotten me into trouble over the years.

For example, the people who call "racism" at critics of Obama who use simian imagery. To them, this is especially bad because of the decades of history of racists likening black people to monkeys. There's a part of me that sees their argument, but my inner troublemaker (who spends a lot of time on the outside) wants to point out we just wrapped up eight years of Obama's president being derided as a chimp. As well as a Nazi, a ghoul, and a bunch of other unsavory things. So that troublemaker of mine starts saying "hey, sauce for the goose, dipshits. You loved eight years of President Monkey -- you don't get to call it unfair now that it's your guy that's getting the ape treatment."

That troublemaker took over my keyboard yesterday, when he brought up the Roman Polanski case and speculated about sexually assaulting a friend of mine.

Let me set the record straight: I have no interest in doing that to my friend, or any other woman. Or any man, child, or animal, for that matter. I am an advocate of the most draconian punishments for those that do such things, and would turn a blind eye if the defenders of such people were set on fire.

Further, although she's a lot smaller than me, she's a lot, lot healthier and fitter. She'd most likely kick my ass.

The point I was attempting to make was that those who are defending Polanski need to have their noses rubbed in the double standard they are practicing -- that they are standing up for the right of this man to escape justice for his obscene acts.

It needs to be spelled out, as often as possible: Polanski took a 13-year-old girl, plied her with drugs and alcohol, and then sexually violated her both vaginally and anally. When caught, he negotiated the charges to lesser offenses, paid off the victim, and fled to avoid even the reduced sanction he had agreed to. As part of his plea agreement, he acknowledged that he had done all those things to the girl. That is indisputable.

By any valid moral or ethical standard, Polanski needs to go to prison. He accepted responsibility for his actions and agreed to serve the sentence imposed, then reneged on his word, fled the country, and has been living high on the hog for decades.

And he continued to indulge his predilections. He engaged in a threesome as part of his affair with a 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski, and I would not be surprised if he had relations with a string of other underage girls.

There's a truism that "justice delayed is justice denied." Well, Lady Justice should be denied no longer.

Polanski did the crime. Let him do his time. Then, after, perhaps he can resume his artistic ventures.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36927.

Comments (20)

The words you published yes... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

The words you published yesterday speak for themselves.

To me, that sounds an awful like there is an exchange rate for horrific deeds -- commit enough good ones, and they will balance out (or, at least, partially mitigate) the bad ones.

That sounds like an idea I can get behind. Let's play this out:

I mentioned a while ago that I have a friend who is exceptionally attractive. I would very much enjoy having my way with her, but I know I wouldn't have a chance -- I'm too old, she has a boyfriend, and so on. So we're friends.

But if I could have my way with her anyway, with some help from some suitable pharmacological assistance, that could be pretty fun. Except, of course, for the inevitable consequences -- arrest, trial, and sentencing.

Simple question. Is any part of that statement no longer true?

The point I was attempting to make was that those who are defending Polanski need to have their noses rubbed in the double standard they are practicing -- that they are standing up for the right of this man to escape justice for his obscene acts.

Pretty lame excuse, and it doesn't ring true with your previous statement.

I didn't comment on your article yesterday, as offensive as your statement was, to see if any of the regular readers -- the readers who rail about Democrats and their morals, etc -- would call you out on your outrageous statement yesterday.

They didn't. Business as usual.

That speaks volumes, but on this blog nobody is listening.

"The point I was attempting to make was that those who are defending Polanski need to have their noses rubbed in the double standard they are practicing -- that they are standing up for the right of this man to escape justice for his obscene acts."

You and your hypcoritical readers shouldn't be let off the hook either. What you did was nothing short of obscene. What they did was condone it.

Vic

Sounds like Vic is PO'd bec... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Sounds like Vic is PO'd because his was one of the noses getting rubbed in his own BS.

To anyone with sense it was clear that JT was being provocative and not serious in his suggestion. In fact the title of the article made a clear implication that what followed was a hypothetical moral dilemma for the purposes of starting discussion.

VIC, nearly everything you post is related to this same double standard that the original article was meant to point out. Your posts are replete with double standards and false accusations.

You're simply being an ass to suggest anything otherwise. What has become very apparent is that you have no defense for your fellow libs, to which we can only assume that you agree with those who think that Polanski should get off due to his fame. Nothing of what you said above suggests otherwise. You rail against JT for being provocative but you say nothing against Polanski.

You see his hypothetical as being more worthy of your outrage than Polanski's crimes. THAT speaks volumes of what kind of low life you are.

Kiss off VIC..... (Below threshold)
914:

Kiss off VIC..

I still believe the questio... (Below threshold)
epador:

I still believe the question at the end was a valid one, as provocative and hysterically absurd (sorry JT, but I know for a fact Mr. Ducky would never have allowed you to get near to performing such an act) as his hypothetical was, and it remains unanswered by VIO and the rest. Because there is no answer they can give that they are wiling to defend that is congruent with the realities of the arguments being presented by the reprehensible Toys R Us catalog cover models and other media hooligans and scalawags trying to excuse the child predator and rapist.

Instead Mr. or Ms VIO has chosen to wait for what is perceived as a weakness in their opponent, and pounce with all the seriousness and intent of a fluffy kitten shaking its tail with the ardor of the hunt.

Even WIle E Coyote could make a quick meal of such an immature feline too caught up in their "hunt" to see the big picture.

VIO - head up ass, as usual... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

VIO - head up ass, as usual.

I'd say that Vic isn't very... (Below threshold)

I'd say that Vic isn't very Swift at picking up the tone of the first piece, but that would be redundant...

J.

Technically, JT it was your... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Technically, JT it was your second piece since you had already posted a previous article that was not only similarly titles but also intended to provoke thoughtful answers.

I'll note that neither piece brought in much if any liberal comment.

I'd say your words speak fo... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

I'd say your words speak for themselves:

But if I could have my way with her anyway, with some help from some suitable pharmacological assistance, that could be pretty fun. Except, of course, for the inevitable consequences -- arrest, trial, and sentencing.

And the actions of your readers in sitting by silently and ignoring your statement underscores the double-standard of the right quite nicely.

The point I was attempting to make was that those who are defending Polanski need to have their noses rubbed in the double standard they are practicing -- that they are standing up for the right of this man to escape justice for his obscene acts.

The whole point of today's article is try to explain away what you wrote yesterday - and that shows that you had a major failure to communicate yesterday - hence today's 'explanation'.

You wouldn't need today's (lame) explaining mea culpa unless you recognize that you failed in yesterday's piece.

And even now, rather than acknowledge that, you pretend it was all just a joke - and anyone who didn't 'get it' is not "swift".

In other words, at the same time you apologize for your outrageous remarks you insult your readers for not getting your twisted, perverted humor.

Clearly today's article is an attempt to clarify your outrageous remarks from yesterday, but the fact that your readership stood by silently yesterday as you described the enjoyment you would have by violently raping an attractive friend by drugging her is what is most telling.

It's precisely the double-standard you rail about.

Vic

Oh, Vic... I wrote this pie... (Below threshold)

Oh, Vic... I wrote this piece because I knew that clueless idiots would not pick up on the intended tone of that first piece. And your every comment here just shows how prescient I was.

And I didn't say you weren't "swift," but "Swift" -- another reference that flew right over your tiny little pinhead. The tone was that of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," where he proposed the people of Ireland sell their children off to be eaten.

Sigh...

J.

The whole point of today's ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

The whole point of today's article was to explain to dimwits like yourself that the first one was a thought exercise and hypothetical in nature.

The fact hat you try to jump on this and claim that it is an example of double standards is beyond stupid.

Yesterday's remarks were meant to be provocative. Apparently you did not find them so until today's posting. If it truly were offensive you should have had the balls to say something, but true to form, as a liberal you couldn't call out anything that touches on sexual immorality because in your world anything goes. You can't say a word against Polanski, but you will rail against anything that illustrates the sharp lack of moral understanding on the left.

So VIC,Should No'm... (Below threshold)
914:

So VIC,

Should No'man Polaski go to jail? Go dirctly to jail and not pass go? Not get a retrial.

Not have Mikey Moore and the hollywood degenerates rush to get Him an Academy Award pardon?

A simple yes or no shall suffice.

Vic, That's pretty g... (Below threshold)

Vic,
That's pretty good, you standing in a glass
house, throwing boulders. May you always
walk on broken glass for your own hypocrisy.

And if you find this place, Wizbang, such a
terrible place please don't let the door
hit you on your way out.

914 - Nothing like a simple... (Below threshold)
jim m:

914 - Nothing like a simple question to get Vic to leave the room.

Vic and his ilk have only o... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Vic and his ilk have only one mode, hate. They do not have an understanding at all about any other type of writing. Vic has demonstrated it twice in one post. Funny really but expected. ww

mmmmmm.mmmmmm.mmmmm<p... (Below threshold)
Wile E Coyote:

mmmmmm.mmmmmm.mmmmm


Good, except for the damn fur.

Because he is a dumbass, Vi... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Because he is a dumbass, Vic does not understand the use of hyperbole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

Vic, put the lighter down a... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Vic, put the lighter down and step away from the pipe.

Un-believable.

Jay Tea: RoadrunnerV... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea: Roadrunner
Vic: Wile E. Coyote

meep! meep!

Haha.. It was an interestin... (Below threshold)

Haha.. It was an interesting post you got there.. We have never learn that in our ethics class.. I guess my lecturer only point on some giant company scandals and so forth..

Victamy is Ours:<i... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Victamy is Ours:

What you did was nothing short of obscene.

What you DID? Jay didn't DO anything. He merely expressed some impure thoughts. (You know, kind of like Carter committing adultery only in his heart. Can you grasp it now that you have a liberal prism?)

Polanski actually DID something despicable for which he owes society a debt. Yet you express no similar ire for Polanski's actual evil deeds or for the lefts' ACTIONS in working to defeat justice. These are the true acts of evil. Meanwhile you hypocritically seize on an opening to beat up a political opponent for satirical writing. Straining at gnats, you swallow camels.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy