Is it Ethical ???

[denis_p]

Is it Ethical [that may not be the word] to read books or watch a film from the books of a author that you find objectionalble in real life... i.e., for example Orson Scott Card 

 

Should one patronize his products when one finds that as a real life person [even if he IS a good storyteller] you find the authors real life person to be objectionable...

 

What are your thoughts on this subject???

[A.B]

what does ethics have to do with it? You love a book then you love a book, if the things you find objectionable are not in the books then you read them if they are then you don't...at least what I think with a few exceptions...if an author advocates ethnic cleansing (extreme example to make a point) then I won't buy anything of his/hers so that someone with a belief such as this does not become rich on my dime....

[Zach Caldwell]

Interesting question. I think in this case, the word you might of been looking for was morally.

 

When I was in high school, I stumbled onto Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and fell in love with the story. Never gave it much thought after that. Then just a year or so ago Ender's Game the movie was due to be released and Orson Scott Card's personal views on homosexuality came out. His views, I suspect have been around for some time but it was not until the movie, that his views garnered a lot of attention.

 

It saddened me that he holds such views as he does. To me it does taint him as an author. For me it is a bit difficult to separate the author's personal views from that of his professional work, in so far as the author/artist/actor etc make a point to keep it separate.

 

It is a personal question that each person has to ask themselves and act on what feels the most appropriate to them given the situation. I personally did not go and watch the movie, I would have, had it not been for Card's views on homosexuality. It would seem that I was not alone as, if memory serves, Ender's Game was a blockbuster bomb, it grossed less money than it cost to make the movie. Total worldwide sales, they might of broken even or made a small profit. Now, was that due to people turning their backs on Card and not wanting to give him any money or was the movie really just that bad or uninteresting to the population? Do not know, but I am sure his views coming to light had some impact.

 

I can say, his views aside, Ender books are a great read and I am glad I found and read them in high school. Today, I would not look for nor buy them or any other works by Card.

[Kyle Aarons]

I guess the only way to answer this question is this: do you care what others think of you?

 

If you don't really care, then there is no moral argument to be made for reading something or buying something from someone you disagree with.

 

On the other hand, if you want to stand on moral high ground and be seen as a "good person" by those in your peer group then you probably shouldn't patronize a person you find morally objectionable.

 

(Do you have any idea how much hate mail I get over Kandric, only to get another hate mail from the same person when the next chapter comes out?- It is absurd to think after a decade and a half, some of the same people read Kandric then get pissed off at me about it each and every time. those are the real moral idiots.)

[roger0002]

Is it ethical?  Probably not.  However, that does not make it wrong or right.  A person's opinion is just that: an opinion.  Opinions are feelings that may or may not be based on factual information.  It is why there is an unwritten rule about not discussing religion or politics when in polite company.  it is very difficult to tell someone that what they believe is wrong.  It is even more difficult to prove it.  

 

When I read a book, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the personal beliefs of the author.  I read a book because the subject matter has captured my attention.  I don't "follow" authors.  There have been authors that have written books that I love and yet when I read another one by the same author, I put it down before I finish the first chapter.  

 

If an author is good, they will keep their personal beliefs distinctly separate from their works.  Some do that really well; others don't and in most cases, I don't read stuff by them.  For the most part, I don't make a habit of researching the authors of books that I read.  I just read what I enjoy and if people don't like that, then too bad.  What I do for entertainment is my business, and the world won't end if others don't like my choice of reading material.

[A.B]

I guess the only way to answer this question is this: do you care what others think of you?

 

If you don't really care, then there is no moral argument to be made for reading something or buying something from someone you disagree with.

 

On the other hand, if you want to stand on moral high ground and be seen as a "good person" by those in your peer group then you probably shouldn't patronize a person you find morally objectionable.

 

(Do you have any idea how much hate mail I get over Kandric, only to get another hate mail from the same person when the next chapter comes out?- It is absurd to think after a decade and a half, some of the same people read Kandric then get pissed off at me about it each and every time. those are the real moral idiots.)

 

 

i don't think it has anything to do with what others think of you. you can get a book, read it and not tell anyone they'll never know so they'll never form an opinion about you from that so you don't have to worry..it is more on what roger said. 

[Mary]

Reading for entertainment is a personal thing.  My choices over my life have stretched over many genres.  What captures my attention, and what keeps it, I can't say.  But a storyteller, is at the heart of it.  Same as a performance by a singer, actor or musician will capture my attention.  At some point, I may become aware of his/her political or social point of views.  I have found that occasionally that interferes with my ability to appreciate their work.  (If the person held common views for the time period of his/her life, I try to take that into account.  I cannot expect everyone to have the same enlightenment, as a person of the 21st Century.)

 

When I critically read for education, knowing the background and point of view the author is grounded in, is very important.  If you are trying to gain information from a presumed impartial source and the writer has a hidden agenda, then you have the possibility of obtaining slanted information.  But then, to turn your back on what someone, with different opinions than you is supporting, is to be ignorant of what they may be espousing. 

 

Context is everything.  

[tigrillon]

If I may slightly change the question: Is it ethical to buy breadrolls from a baker who's private behaviour/opinion is not to your liking? Or, asked from the other side: Is it ethcal to boycott a baker because you don't like his private behaviour/opinion.

 

Now to me it seems there is a clear NO to the second question. Why? Because it's not about the private behaviour, or the opinions of a beker, but about breadrolls. But, if the second answer is "no", the first can't be.

 

Now you might say we ae not talking bakery, but where exactly is the difference? If you buy a book, it's about the book. Now you may say it's a difference, because a book is tainted by the authors work. But that's not exactly true. Of course, it can be true, if the book actually carries these views you dislike. But that's not really differet with the baker: If it's about his profesional behaviour, e.g., if he doesn't failrly pay his employees, the that, too, taint's the product, and you shouldn't buy his breadrolls. And in fact, the baker is actually the bigger concern, because you cannot taste his business behaviour, while the views carried in a book are plainly visible (if not, they are not carried, even if the author wanted to), and you won't like the book anyway. Again, the latter one is not exactly true, because books can carry views in a quite underhanded manner. They cannot do so, however, if you know about the author's agenda. So there should not be a problem to buy a book that pleases you, eben if teh author is objectionable.

 

There is, of course, a difference if you would present the book to someone who might not realize the agenda and wolud be seducable to it. But that's not what we are talking about.

[Rilbur]

Now to me it seems there is a clear NO to the second question. Why? Because it's not about the private behaviour, or the opinions of a beker, but about breadrolls. But, if the second answer is "no", the first can't be.

 

And I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  If I disagree with someone, there is no reason why ethically I cannot take my business elsewhere.  Now, if it's something trivial I won't bother, but that's not about ethics.  It's about being able to accept that others opinions differ from you.  It's part of the grease that makes society works, which means it's an aspect of politeness.

[ken barber]

Its completely ethical to not avail yourself of a service or product if you disagree with the provider. Its also ethical to boycott a provider of they use their business to publicly make their religious or political beliefs a part of their business.  

[tigrillon]

Sorry, lost track of that:

 

And I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  If I disagree with someone, there is no reason why ethically I cannot take my business elsewhere.  Now, if it's something trivial I won't bother, but that's not about ethics.  It's about being able to accept that others opinions differ from you.  It's part of the grease that makes society works, which means it's an aspect of politeness.

 

For one, you are basically right: Yes, it is not unethical to take your business elsewhere, for whatever reason you want. There was a reason I used the word "boycott". But then again: Is it really not? Is it not unethical to not buy from the black, the gay, the jewish partner? There was a time here when people were actively called upon so to not buy from Jews. Was that ethical? We are in a pretty gray area here, I think. So, because it's your freedom to choose whom you do business with, and your choice is neccessarily arbitrary, you cannot, generally, held accountable for your choice. But that impossibility to hold you accountable (which, strictly speaking, is more the impossibility to prove what your reasons were. If, for some reason, usually your own stupidy, it can be proven ...) doesn't make the wrong reason right.

 

So, all in all: Yes you are free to take your business elsewhere. It's still unethical to do so for unethical reasons. So, I'm going to have to reject your objection. Not the least because, yes, you are right: it is about being able to accept that other's opinions differ from yours, namely, the baker's/writer's opinions ...

 

Its completely ethical to not avail yourself of a service or product if you disagree with the provider. Its also ethical to boycott a provider of they use their business to publicly make their religious or political beliefs a part of their business.  

 

Well if they make ther beliefs part of their business, we're at the part of the product being tainted. And yes, to refuse helping them pushing their agenda is not unethical. It might actually be unethical to not boycott those. But what exacrly do you mean by "to avail yourself of a service or a product". If you mean to gain profit, I'd agree. But again, that's a case of the product tainted, and one I explicitey mentioned. But there is no profit gained in buying what could be bought elsewhere to the same conditions. And that "could" is to b taken as very theoretical. If the other bakers are all less good ore more expensive, even if there is no other baker, still another baker could sell equally good breadrolls to the same price, so you don't gain profit - except, of course, the baker uses a dubiuos ingredient or pays dumping wages, and can have breadrolls that good and cheap only because of that. But again, that would be a case of the product being tainted. 

 

Now, to come back to the case of writers, there usually isn't another one around who would have written that same story. But even then, any story could always have been written by lots of people, at least in theory. The question is, could it have been written by someone not holding those objectionable beliefs.If the answer is "yes", the book is innocent. If the answer is "no", it's, again, a tainted product.

[ken barber]

I would agree with most of what is said here except when does consumerism/entertainment out weigh our personal belief structure. If an author is outspokenly anti-gay I will not read his works. He doesnt deserve to have me purchase or read his art based on the conflicts of my personal beliefs with his personal beliefs. Is what he writes good? maybe? is what he writes unique? maybe but will my life be vacant without doubtful unless its a non-fiction book and he is the only authority on the subject in the world. At some point in time we all have to make a stand for our personal beliefs the authors stand was to use his status to make the announcement my stand to never purchase or read his materiel.  Is it unethical for him to make that stand some may argue it is but I am still a strong believer in everyone is entitled to their beliefs no matter how asinine they are but the minute they start taking those beliefs into the streets and denouncing other groups of human beings they have cross the line.

[Rilbur]

Is it not unethical to not buy from the black, the gay, the jewish partner? There was a time here when people were actively called upon so to not buy from Jews. Was that ethical?

 

At this point, we're getting into the differences between ethics and morality, which are two totally different things despite being used interchangeably.

[Emperor Roland]

time to pour gas onto a smoldering fire...

 

Is it immoral or unethical for me, a non christian to like gospel music.  i do not agree with what they believe in... i think some of the worst wars in history were based on religion.  But.. what does the persons points of view have to do with how good of a singer, songwriter, or author they are?

 

I mean if I, as a gay man, should not like people who are homophobic, and not patronize their works, then 90% of my music collection from the 70s, 80s, and even 90s, would be stuff i should not listen to.

 

I guess what it comes down to is this.  what does it matter what someone else's views are.  if they are a good author, a good singer, a good anything, then they are good at what they do, and that should be it.  didn't the men and women that have served our military sacrifice for our rights to hold just about any belief we want?  isn't that what being free means? 

 

there are way to many people out there right now going.  "If you do not believe the way i do, we are going to stop you from doing.... (what ever it is they do.)  in my opinion, there is nothing more anti-freedom then that.

 

Of course, this is just my opinion... you are more then welcome to disagree with me.  and if you do, GREAT!  don't worry, you're disagreeing with me will not stop me from reading what you write.   

[Jeikor]

I think this boils down to a personal set of ethics. For Ken it is unethical because he does not wish to support a person who is anti-gay. For others like Roland it is not unethical because he is concerned more about the product than who created it.

 

I am a Christian and would like to remind that Christians do not necessarily equal religions. He is correct that religions have caused quite a few wars. One of the reasons I like the denomination my church is in is because there is no ruling body. We are connected by a mostly common theology without having to all be exactly the same.

 

Also interested in what artists he enjoys.

[tigrillon]

At this point, we're getting into the differences between ethics and morality, which are two totally different things despite being used interchangeably.

In my experience, in any discussion about that difference there are about double as many diferent veiws on what that difference is as there are participants. So if you plese would care to explain?

[tigrillon]

...

 

Well roared, lion!

[Rilbur]

In my experience, in any discussion about that difference there are about double as many diferent veiws on what that difference is as there are participants. So if you plese would care to explain?

 

You could Google it pretty quickly, the definition is pretty clear-cut.  Ethics are about the framework of right and wrong given to you, by a profession or by society or whatever.  Morals are what comes from within you.  A doctor performing an abortion is most certainly ethical, but depending on your perspective may or may not be moral.  A prosecutor witholding evidence that might provide reasonable doubt to the defense is most assuredly unethical, but some may feel it a moral decision (E. G. maybe the police screwed up and if the defense hears about it, key evidence gets tossed that puts the knife in the child-raping murder's hand).

[Jack Schaeffer]

I'll wade very carefully into this one...just a toe or two, in case I need to quickly hop back out...

 

One can choose to boycott/ignore/refuse to participate in an activity or service or product produced by someone who he or she differs with on a significant issue. So far, it's a personal conflict. Encouraging others of a similar mindset to join in the boycott/refusal to participate makes it a group conflict. But what about the trend arising of what I will call the "anti-boycott", for lack of a better term (please feel free to suggest one...)?

 

It is ethical/moral to try to force a person or organization - through public shaming/anti-boycott - to provide their services and talents to people with whom they disagree? For example: a catering firm refusing to cater a gay wedding reception. Or a restaurant chain's owners privately supporting a piece of legislation, whose private views are later made public. In other words - to Ken's point - they did not choose on their own to make their views public - someone else did. And then they are publicly harangued for their point of view. Some are going so far now as to insist that businesses and individuals be made (under threat of legal action) to provided those services. I have heard of several businesses who have simply shut down rather than be forced to do something they don't want to do. Who wins in such a situation?

[ken barber]

Jack,

You're into it, now there is now turning back lol.

 

I agree with you to an extent. If a Business or "persona" uses their business or status to make a stand that discriminates against any one then they made a business choice. Can we blame any community for making sure everyone knows that XYZ company openly and willingly discriminates against a group of people. Is that the type of business anyone would want to conduct business with? What other closed minded value do they apply to their business? 

 

The minute they made the Business choice to open discriminate against Gays, Blacks, Asian, Jews, Whites, Native Americans, Muslims, Christians (I can go on for hours) they have made the choice to openly and publicly make known their position and should expect a public reaction.

 

Or should we return to a society of segregation where we have certain seats in restaurants for each group mentioned above? or Blacks only business or Gays only businesses? If my company openly announced they would not hire straight men the public out cry would be insane and probably shut them down, even though historically the issues we have had with straight men vs Gay men or Straight women has been... Ridiculous. Here is a sample; we have 10 Account VPs.  Two years ago 5 were gay men, 2 straight women and 3 straight men. 1 straight man was caught embezzling  and terminated, 1 was involved in a scandal with a clients wife and terminated, and the third was terminated for poor performance.  The Same 5 gay men and 2 straight Women are still with us and performing amazing. Between the 7 of them they have over 110 years combined with the company. So using that data we should discriminant against straight men. (We don't and just hired another.) But we would have sufficient data to create a case for why we would. My point is it would be an absolute horrible business decision based on Public Perception to do so. That's part of running a business if you want to be successful.

 

The second a business brings in their religion or social beliefs,  morals, ethics, etc their have made a decision to deal with any backlash from the communities they piss off. Those Community have not only a right but a MORAL obligation to stand up for themselves and protect their right to be treated as equals. 

[Jack Schaeffer]

Ken,

 

I certainly don't disagree with the idea that people should have the right and maybe even the responsibility to stand up against bigotry and ridiculous exclusions. And perhaps the sway of public opinion will influence those discriminating organizations to change their ways and be more inclusive. Kudos to those who fight - respectfully - for that end goal.

 

But does it go too far to try to legally force an organization to provide services that, in their personal opinion, would end up supporting something they strongly oppose. I gave the example of a bakery. To refuse to sell baked goods to a customer because they are Asian or Hispanic or Caucasian would be unacceptable to most, and so I think that is very rare these days. To refuse to sell baked goods to a man or woman who is gay would also not be right, in my opinion. But should that same bakery be required by law to provide a specific service to cater a gay couple's wedding reception if that is something (gay marriage) they do not want to support in anyway, regardless of their reasons? Or is that just the same as a landlord not wanting to rent to an African American tenant, which I believe has now been made illegal in most states? Should a business owner have no choices at all in whom they serve?

 

In the Chic Fil 'A case last year, a business owner with a national presence privately supported legislation to block gay marriage. Their involvement was made public by others, not themselves. Their support of the legislation was a private matter, not a corporate one. In fact, if I understand it correctly, the corporate stance on homosexuality was inclusive, in that no one was to be refused service or employment or advancement based on sexual preference. At least that's what I remember of it. But in Chicago, there were two alderman who proposed ordinances blocking Chic Fil 'A from opening businesses in their wards because of a private person's opinion. Is that moral or ethical? Just asking. ( I think the proposed ordinances were shot down - people like their chicken sandwiches...grin)

[ken barber]

Well Jack,

 

You mention that its rare these days for businesses to discriminate against Asians, Hispanics or even blacks for the most part. It wasn't always that way and it took legal protection, protection granted by the courts through ruling  of "Higher Scrutiny" And From Congress through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No I don't necessarily agree with legal action but keep in mind what has happened through out history when business where allowed and sometimes encouraged to discriminate. We have to look beyond our own National History and go back as far as ancient history, in many many cases it took a Legal action to stop persecution and discrimination and in some cases Military action. 

 

here are some examples

1.Early Christians were persecuted for their faith at the hands of both Jews and the Roman Empire which controlled much of the land. Early in the fourth century, the religion was legalized by the Edict of Milan, and it eventually became the State church of the Roman Empire.

2. Hilter's Persecution of the Jews only ended through the Military overthrow of his regime. 

3. Gypises or Romani  have been persecuted for thousands of years by Christians and still are and will continue to be unless someone of official statis tries to protect them. They can legal be refuses the very basics of human life. At one time groups organized Gypsy Hunts, forced gypsies into slavery and more. They are still refused water and housing and even food by government agencies in some companies that provide care to the needy.

This is or was all legal. 

 

So while I dont like the idea of legal action History tells us its really the only way to stop discrimination. 

 

 

 

Just a couple of examples.

[Jack Schaeffer]

Ken,

 

Excellent examples of the need for legal action, although in each of these actual harm is being done to others. Not agreeing with the person making a chicken sandwich or denying someone a wedding cake from a particular bakery is hardly a true hardship or life endangerment. I waded into this discussion to spark my own thinking on the subject, and your thoughts as well as the others in this forum have certainly done that. Taking a stand against discrimination sometimes has to be done in order for the necessary change to manifest. I'm just concerned that at times what is one man's perception of discrimination is another man's attempt at self-determination. I hope that we never lose the "right" to be different at times, and to make our own choices. If we force everyone to be the same and to want the same and think the same, then...what are we in the end? 

[ken barber]

Valid point Jack,

 

Its a fine line but the counter argument is what one considers their religious right another considers an a front to their personal Liberties. I would love to find a way to make these social progressions without legal action but unfortunatly both sides are dug in to deep and wont come together

[Jack Schaeffer]

Ken,

 

I agree that the conflict between one's religious beliefs and another's attempt at self-determination (personal liberty) is almost an eternal struggle. To resolve these issues without legal action - often the lowest pathway to "agreement" - would require that both parties at the very least respect one another's right to their point of view. Sadly, that is a diminishing capability in our culture these days. It makes me sad. Not enough love for fellow man going around these days. Everyone wants it their way, on all sides of an issue. The scary thing is, in many of these social conflicts, truth and facts take a back seat to emotions and political agendas. Maybe that's the real question - where is the morality or ethics in that? I suspect underneath several of the examples you listed - Hitler being the most obvious - truth and facts were systematically altered to promote a political agenda - with horrific results. May it never happen again. To anyone, for any reason.