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.

A CHALLENGE TO REPUBLICAN GOVERNANCE

In this blog I have made the argument that by American historical standards, we are going through a period of uncivil behavior. I have blamed, in part, our adoption of the natural rights construct as the prevalent perspective for our governance and politics for this sociological condition. Incivility reflects an unhealthy level of selfishness among the populace. Of course, this is not to say that everyone is selfish or uncivil in his/her demeanor or behavior. As a matter of fact, I have noted the civility and charity that has been observed on the part of many Americans in response to the natural disasters we have experienced such as hurricane Sandy. But overall, higher uncooperative behavior levels have been noted and documented.

I find this whole business important and not just because of the inconveniences experienced as a result of people acting nasty. The attitudes and values such behavior represents lend themselves to promoting corruption. If all are just pursuing their self- interests to the exclusion of having any concern for the common good, the stage is set for people to cut legal corners and fall into dishonest and fraudulent courses of action. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote of such conditions.

Citing the end of the Roman Republic as his prime example, Machiavelli describes how, in the animosities between the noble and plebeian classes, the population fell into corrupt ways. Once Rome formed its imperial government, Rome could no longer revive its republic because the population never righted itself.¹ Whether or not the great political philosopher is correct, his diagnosis of the Roman example does give one pause and concern. This is not to say the American republic is in any immediate danger, but one should be concerned with the overall level of corruption characterizing the American populous.

But there were two news items lately that perhaps either make me more at ease over this issue or give me more of an understanding of how difficult it is to gauge how relatively corrupt we or any people are. The two items were the meteor hitting Russia story and the unfortunate killing of Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend. I will not directly comment on the specific facts of each case, but on what the stories tell us about Russia and South Africa.

What follows are more thoughts, as opposed to conclusions, regarding these two countries. Let me take Russia first. The amazing thing about the meteor story was how many people videoed the spectacular sight and sound of the meteor approaching its destination. The reason there were so many videos is the fact that so many Russians have video recorders attached to their windshields. Why? Russians feel the need to have these recorders so that if, on the likely enough chance, some other Russian causes a car accident so that the victim gets charged with the accident or if he or she is attacked as a result of road rage or is mistreated by a police officer, the video is there to record any such incident so that it can be used in a court of law. The news report I saw had a slew of video clips of bizarre incidences in which such accidents were shown, out and out fistfights commenced, or officers of the law abused some motorist. Wow. We surely have not lowered ourselves to that level of incivility and illegality.

As for the killing of the Olympian's girlfriend, a noted model, integral to the case was the fact that Pistorius felt the need to have guns in his house due to the number of robberies and other violent crimes in South Africa. My quick research reveals that though the crime rate has been reduced in recent years, that nation ranks second in murders per capita and first in rapes per capita according to the UN. The news account I heard said that storing guns in homes is very likely and that is so because of the crime rate. So I did some further checking and compared the US to South Africa. South Africa's gun ownership is 12.7 per 100. In the US its 88.8 per hundred. South Africa is ranked 17 in terms of actual numbers of weapons and 50 in terms of rate of ownership. US is number one.² I know we in America love our guns, but the love affair is more traditional in certain regions of the country and felt less as a need for protection. I can't prove that and you might disagree, but in the region where I live, most people own weapons, and most do so primarily to hunt. Sure, if the need would arise, those weapons could be used for protection, but I believe most of those people would not own guns or rifles or shotguns if they did not hunt. Some would. It is hard to determine the ultimate motivation for ownership since many factors and perceptions are involved. As for ownership being a reflection of general corruption, that is even more difficult to determine.

Along with the above mentioned difficulty is the attempt to generalize about a country given limited information. Thin ice, indeed. But such descriptions as those above are useful and a compilation of such accounts and statistics not only helps us understand a nation, but allows us some comparative information by which to measure how our own country is doing. If the account above about Russia is reflective of the civil state that nation enjoys – or suffers under – does it give us a clue about the difficulties it is having in establishing democratic institutions? Surely, its history would provide significant challenges in this regard. Maybe the lack of civility is how the influences of such a history manifest themselves. Does Machiavelli have a point?

1Machiavelli, N. (1996/1531 – published posthumously). Discourses on Livy. (Translators: Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

 

2Russian facts: Gun policy. Org: www.gunpolicy.org . US facts: Fact Check. Org: www.factcheck.org .