A COOKED CHICKEN

May I recommend a column? The New York Times Magazine runs a column entitled “The Ethicist” which brings up ethical situations in which the writer, Chuck Klosterman, gives his ethical analyses. The situations are submitted by readers. I love to read a particular situation first, give my “expert” opinion under my breath and then read what Klosterman has to say. I don't always agree with his position, but usually he makes me think of some aspect of the issue that I didn't think of on my own.

In the February 24^th edition, he printed an offering in which a woman, getting ready to check out at a supermarket, was behind another woman with food stamps. Let's call the waiting woman Mary and the “food stamp” woman Joan. Joan wanted to purchase a cooked chicken – I visualized what my supermarket calls a rotisserie chicken. The girl running the cash register submitted the item into her machine and the fact that Joan was paying with food stamps. The machine disallowed the transaction – food stamps, by law, cannot be used to purchase prepared foods. Probably a raw chicken would cost half the amount this prepared chicken costs. Joan said she knew she wasn't supposed to purchase a prepared chicken, but she was ill and really not up to doing any cooking. Mary, who was watching this incident, offered the woman to exchange some of her items – items that could be purchasable with food stamps – and she, Mary, would buy the cooked chicken. They would then exchange the items and Joan could get her cooked chicken. This transaction is illegal.

Mary, in submitting this event to “The Ethicist,” wanted to know if what she did was moral. She added that she believed in the governmental policy, but she felt that this situation was exceptional – I suppose that Joan must have looked quite ill. Klosterman begins by making the distinction that this wasn't an ethics problem, but a moral one. For the life of me – I just looked up the meaning of the two words – I can't distinguish between the two. But he generally supports what Mary did.

I think this situation would be an excellent case study for civics students to analyze and discuss what Mary should have done. I would initially present the situation up to the point, but not including, when Mary suggests the exchange. I would then ask students what they would do if they were Mary. A teacher should not be surprised to hear, “she should do what she feels is right.” So somehow a teacher needs to put the student in the situation; that is, take on the role of Mary.

Assuming the teacher is successful in having the students take on the role, there are good Socratic questions that can be used to follow up whatever the student opines. If the student supports the woman, a teacher can ask about the value of obeying the law. If the student turns on the woman, then a teacher can ask if the welfare of the woman is more important: Can't we feel empathy for Joan's plight? Isn't this law a bit arbitrary? Of course, the more libertarian student might not see the justice or wisdom of having food stamps in the first place. This could be just another example of the nanny state doing for people what they should do for themselves and at our expense. All of this discussion could lead to the whole nature of laws, public policy, the reasons for government, the nature of rights, the nature of public obligations. This case might be part of an initial lesson in a civics or American government course.

I have expressed in this blog the opinion that, all things being equal, we should obey the law. The “federalist” position would back that opinion. Laws, after all, are the expressed wishes of the collective. But a review of liberated federalist values would rank such values as equality and having empathy higher than obeying the law. My point is not to indicate what liberated federalism dictates the moral choice should be – the perspective would encourage a good discussion of the question – but that these types of situations are what a civics instructional strategy should include and emphasize. The aim is not to indoctrinate students to accept this particular perspective of civics, but to use the construct to guide civics teachers in their selection of topics and content.