Morality: Thought Experiment

[Hunt]

Some interesting discussion on another thread--I thought I'd spin this off to avoid diverting the flow. In thinking about morality, BSA, morally straight, etc., I propose the following "thought experiment" to analyze:

 

Fact scenario: You go to Mr. Z's house for a meeting of a subcommittee of the Troop Committee. No youth are present. Mr. Z is an ASM in the troop. During the meeting, you excuse yourself to go to the bathroom, and lying on the counter in the bathroom is a Playboy magazine! It has a subscription label on it with Mr. Z's name! You don't know much about Mr. Z's religion, but you think he's some kind of churchgoer. His son has aged out of the troop and is away at college. There is nothing else to make you suspect Mr. Z of immorality or unfitness in any way.

 

Questions:

1. Is Mr. Z morally straight?

2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight?

3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God?

4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material?

5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader?

 

This example may seem somewhat facetious--the purpose is to get us thinking about how we decide what is moral and what isn't, as well as how important it is.

[evmori]

1. Is Mr. Z morally straight?

Can't answer. Not enough information.

2. Do you have enough information to determine if Mr. Z is morally straight?

No

3. Is Mr. Z performing his duty to God?

Can't answer. Not enough information.

4. Should you say anything to Mr. Z about this? Should you report this to the Committee or the COR? Does it matter if you know that the CO, a church, strongly condemns such material?

No to all.

5. If you were the head of BSA, how would you go about determining whether a person with a subscription to Playboy is morally straight or not? How would you determine whether such a person should be allowed to be a Scout leader?

You can't base a persons morality on a magazine subscription!

 

I'm gonna refrain from any further comments till later.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Me, I just pick them up for the insightful articles. Never peek at the centerfold

Man, would you look at the time, I'm getting hungry, time for lunch!

[Trevorum]

A. Mr. Z reads Playboy.

B. All people who read Playboy are immoral.

C. Therefore, Mr. Z is immoral.

 

Anyone see the fallacy in B?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Packsaddle,

There's a centerfold? Gosh, I never noticed, the articles are all so interesting.

 

I don't think that there's enough information to make any kind of judgement from one tidbit like that.

 

I'd be kind of hesitant about informing any Scout authority; not sure I'm qualifed to be the "morality police" for anyone. If he was ignoring Safe Scouting rules, that'd be a different story and something that can be judged more objectively.

 

What if the magazine had been something like Gamblers Monthly? Or Dancing Weekly? Aren't those activities considered to be immoral in some circles?

 

How does the head of BSA decide whether a person with a Playboy subscription is moral? The bigger question might be, how does BSA decide how ANYONE is moral enough to be considered eligible for BSA membership?

 

Packsaddle, not only lunchtime, I gotta run home and finish my "duty to country", ie, taxes :-)

[SemperParatus]

The story continues...

 

After coming out of the bathroom, you trip and fall headfirst into the kitchen counter, splitting your head wide open. Thrashing about, you fall into the fireplace breaking your arm. Mr. Z immediately responds. Not finding a towel, he runs to the bathroom and returns with the offensive magazine and proceeds to rip the pages out using them to stop the life-threatening loss of blood spewing from your skull. He then proceeds to use the remaining portion of the magazine to form a splint to immobilize the arm. He sits by your side and prays over you until the paramedics arrive. Has his morality been redeemed? Should we consider him any more moral as a result of his actions? Isn't he just the same guy with the same degree of 'morality'? Do you ever have enough information about someone? Who are we to judge anyone anyway?

 

 

[packsaddle]

OK, I'll be nice now. Hunt is trying to pose a good question, one worth considering. The Playboy is the slippery slope. The gradient proceeds through, well, can't think of the names, to Hustler, and on 'til it becomes Rooster7's hated NAMBLA literature or, worse, actual child pornography. The question is really a 'where do you draw the line?' kind of question and we probably won't agree in this forum.

 

There may be a state or national law that is relevant and that would establish 'the line' as far as I am concerned. As someone (I can't remember who) said in another thread, if he passed the background check, that was sufficient. But that doesn't really address the question of how we make judgements of morality.

 

And so far, I haven't read anything by BSA that is definitive enough to establish a line anywhere else.

[busylady]

Hi, folks:

 

Yup, I followed ya here. The "campfire" is too thought-provoking to leave.

 

Good scenario. As a lady (obviously from my screen name), I have some thoughts, but I'm going to "chew" a little more before I comment (and, I have a paper route to do--hubby has the tax appt tonight while I teach Pers. Mgt.).

 

SemperParatus (BTW, my Latin is rusty--your screen name means "always (what?)"):

 

Check out Pages 4 and 5 of the "Discrimination against me" thread to pick up where this is coming from. Eamonn started a really great thread, and it began running on this tangent, which is a really useful exercise. If you have the time, the whole thread is very interesting and thought-provoking.

 

Back later -

 

Busylady

[DugNevius]

haha Well, he could just have it because of the articles.

 

I dont find having a magazine like playboy to be immorral. First of all it is legal and no law is broken. Second of all it does not cause harm to anyone.

 

That is the line between a Playboy, Penthouse or even a Hustler- and Nambla or Child porn. Child porn is against the law, the children photographed are not of the age of consent and are being violated, and Nambla is an orginization that promotes gay pedophilia which is also against the law.(This message has been edited by DugNevius)

[Lynda J]

Don't assume that simply because the address lable has Mr. Z's name on it that he subscribed to the magazine. I have been getting FHM at my business for the past 6 months. It comes with a lable addressed to me at the shop. I have never subscribed to FHM and don't want it in my shop. I have called the publisher three times and have written every month. The last one that came I sent a certified letter telling them that I was filing a formal complaint with the Attorney Generals office. So far I haven't gotten another one.

 

[evmori]

I don't find having a magazine like playboy to be immoral. First of all it is legal and no law is broken. Second of all it does not cause harm to anyone.

 

I don't think Playboy is immoral either. But just because it's legal & no laws were broken doesn't make it moral. That just makes it legal. And as far as not causing harm to anyone, that is not necessarily true. What about the guy who reads Playboy & gets all riled up from the pictures & letters & then goes out & rapes a female because he got all lathered up looking at the pictures & reading the letters?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[DugNevius]

Is a rapist immoral? yes. But there is no evidence that nude photographs cause people to rape, but in fact that man in your example had pre-existing issues and immoralities that would cause him to rape and there is nothing to say that going to the beach wouldnt cause the same reaction, or walking in the park.

[Trevorum]

Lynda, good point.

 

My wife still recieves the US Gospel News from back when she was in the music biz. She doesn't read it and can't get them to cancel it. A certified letter might work I guess, but it's harmless enough, if bewildering.

[CA_Scouter]

While I would never condone having such material in my home, I think the BSA needs to stay the heck out of Mr Z's personal business. As Prarie says, unless Safe Scouting rules are being violated, its none of yours or anyone elses business.

 

You could take this down so many paths... what if Mr Z had a Matisse nude hanging in his home? One of those garden fountains? Or, dread the thought, if he had removed all those 'do not remove under penalty of law' tags from the throw pillows on his couch?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

"Is a rapist immoral? yes. But there is no evidence that nude photographs cause people to rape, but in fact that man in your example had pre-existing issues and immoralities that would cause him to rape and there is nothing to say that going to the beach wouldn't cause the same reaction, or walking in the park."

 

Is a rapist immoral? More than likely. Why is he a rapist? Could it be from viewing Playboy? Yes it could.

 

Don't make assumptions about my post to justify your answer. Justify your answers on your own, please.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10