Department Of Props For Keeping The Mystery A Mystery
I am writing this portion of the blog on June 3 – the day, according to singer/songwriter Bobbie Gentry, that Billie Joey McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie bridge.
Gentry’s Ode To Billie Joe is arguably the greatest song mystery never revealed. [1] Class act that Gentry is, I hope she takes that lyrical secret – what Billie Joe and the song’s narrator threw off the Tallahassee bridge – to her grave.
* * *
Department Of Conditional Considerations
“Ideal for pre-existing foot conditions.”
The above teaser, for an ad promoting some orthopedic-looking sandals, caught my attention as moiself scrolled online, looking for a friend’s social media post. Distraction ensued, in the form of a wee bit o’ existential crisis. Translation: I spent way too much time trying to figure out the ad’s wording.
Pre-existing foot conditions. Pre-existing; well, yes, I have a foot – two, lucky moiself! – and they existed prior to seeing or thinking about sandals or any other footwear…. So, ’tis likely not the foot which is preexisting, but the *conditions*. Specifically, foot conditions; as in, conditions of the foot? And conditions, as in the classic definition….
Here’s what Webster’s online offers, for condition:
1a: a premise upon which the fulfillment of an agreement depends; a stipulation
b: obsolete : covenant
c: a provision making the effect of a legal instrument contingent upon an uncertain event
must meet the terms and conditions of the contract
2 : something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else: PREREQUISITE: such as
a: an environmental requirement (Available oxygen is an essential condition for animal life).
b: the clause of a conditional sentence
3 a: a restricting or modifying factor : QUALIFICATION
b: an unsatisfactory academic grade that may be raised by doing additional work
4a: a state of being (ITALthe human condition)
b: social status : RANK
c: a usually defective state of health a serious heart condition)
d: a state of physical fitness or readiness for use (The car was in good condition).
We have to go all the way to 4c to get into the definition which mosty likely applies to the sandals ad: foot “conditions,” I suspect, is meant to reference or imply conditions as in foot problems (no arches; high arches; fallen arches; bunions; hammer toes; mallet toes; claw toes; twinkle toes; 18 toes….)
It’s possible moiself is overanalyzing this.
* * *
Department Of Moiself’s Many Mottoes
Episode 363, Regarding Ethics
Context. Is. Everything.
Without the test of context, your ethics – your sense of or proclamations about morality – are theoretical, at best. I was reminded of that while listening to a recent Hidden Brain podcast, Innovation 2.0: the influence you have. HB host Shankar Vedantam was talking about the work of Stanley Milgram, the Yale social psychologist known for his controversial research on human obedience to authority. [2]
Vedantam:
Stanley Milgram grew up in a world that seemed bent on destroying itself. World War II was raging in Europe and Asia, and by the time he was 8, the U.S. was swept up in the conflict….
The fields of battle were far from Stanley’s home. But as he grew older, he couldn’t stop thinking about the war and its implications. Stanley was consumed by some big questions. Why did so many people willingly kill Jews in the Holocaust? Was everyone who followed Nazi orders inherently evil?
Stanley Milgram (video soundbite):
How is it possible, I ask myself, that ordinary people, who are courteous and decent in everyday life, can act callously, inhumanely, without any limitations of conscience?….
Vedantam:
As a high school student, (Milgram) was worried that the Holocaust could happen again in America. And everybody said, Stanley, that was Nazi Germany. That was then. We’re not that kind of people. And he would say,
I’ll bet they thought the same thing. And the bottom line, he says, is how do you know how you would act unless you’re in the situation?
How do you know how you would act unless you’re in the situation? Stanley’s theory was that the context that people found themselves in shaped their behavior. This went for Nazis, but it went for ordinary people, too.
Most of us never get to find out if we will behave like Nazis because most of us never find ourselves in situations where we’re asked to behave like Nazis.( excerpts from Hidden Brain podcast, Innovation 2.0: the influence you have, my emphases )
Most of us never get to find out if we will behave like Nazis because
most of us never find ourselves in situations
where we’re asked to behave like Nazis.
Remember the debates about Situational Ethics [3] ( SE, which I’ve heard referred to as ethical contextualism)? I don’t hear much about it now. However, I have memories from my high school and college years, when it seemed to be quite fashionable – a “requirement” of sorts – in Christian circles to dismiss the legitimacy of SE.
Dateline: A late afternoon, when moiself was in college, at a bible study/social group which I occasionally attended. One group member brought up situational ethics, and a lively debate ensued. But it was a debate only because moiself was involved; the others in the group were all in agreement that SE was a bad thing (even though – surprise! – a couple of the most vociferous anti-SE -ers couldn’t even define it when asked them to do so).
How could anyone justify SE? I was told. Viewing ethics through the lens of situation is “subjective” and “individualistic,” and contradicts our god’s will as revealed in scripture.
There I was, in yet another situation wherein I almost outed moiself as a humanist and freethinker, that time by disagreeing with the group’s disappointingly naïve, reductionist arguments. Looking back, I don’t know why the group’s opinions surprised and disappointed me. Their religion’s theology was so wrong about the natural world, why would it be a shocker that they would also be wrong about the basics of behavioral psychology?
Ethics do not exist in a void – they are only, and always, situational. It’s uncomplicated to be ethical in theory; your ethics become credible, and are manifest, only when they are applied to a situation. People who think that ethics or principles are black-and-white issues are morally colorblind.
I rolled up moiself’s metaphorical sleeves and got to work.
“Lying is wrong; you shouldn’t lie.” I used this classic “fact” that most people would agree with, then brought up examples of the telling of Little White Lies ® to spare someone’s feelings. Let’s say your toddler nephew presents you with the picture he drew of your cat and asks you what you think of his artwork, after which his mother proudly models for you the new designer jeans she just purchased and says, “I’m so excited – my first pair of Calvin Kleins! But really, do these pants make my ass look fat?”
Who, under the umbrella of ruthless truthfulness, would
(1) tell your nephew the truth – you think that the alleged “cat” he rendered (in a series of hideous colors which look like something the cat barfed up) disturbingly resembles a monster from the Alien movies;
(2) answer your sister with the truth – that it’s not the pants that make her ass look fat, it’s her fat ass that makes her ass look fat.
Most of the group agreed with the concept that some “truths” might be less essential than others, and that erring on the side of kindness to spare someone’s feelings is usually an allowable (and sometimes even preferable) course of action. But a couple of arguers disagreed: they were adamant that even those kind of white lies lead to the slippery slope® of justifiable dishonesty.
Alrighty, the naysayers asked for it. How about this scenario? I asked: [4]
Dateline: 6 pm on a weekday. Responding to the insistent knocking, you open your front door and behold Ray, your friend Janelle’s husband. Ray is disheveled and wild-eyed, and you know that on the previous day Janelle filed for a restraining on Ray, after he’d pistol-whipped her with his recently purchased handgun. Ray asks you if you’ve seen Janelle – “She’s not at home; she won’t answer my calls; I’m worried about her…Have you seen her today? Do you know where she is?”
Not only have you seen Janelle, you know exactly where she is…because you are the one who helped Janelle pack her suitcase and drove her to the women’s shelter.
How can your ethics tell you, in that situation, anything other than to LIE YOUR ASS OFF to Ray? [5]
Don’t ever lecture me about the evils of situational ethics if your consistent, non-contextual ethics would require you to truthfully answer Ray’s question.
* * *
Department of Employee Of The Month
It’s that time, to bestow that prestigious award upon moiself. Again. The need for which I wrote about here. [6]
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [7]
* * *
Parting Shot: I love it when/I hate it when…
I love it when I feel gratitude for never having been in situations where I was asked to behave like a Nazi.
* * *
May social media ad content keep you on your (non-condition-stricken) toes;
May you consistently practice situational ethics;
May you always wonder why Billie Joe jumped off that bridge;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] Along with what man is the subject of Carly Simon’s You’re So Vain.
[2] The Milgrim Experiment was his most famous, and controversial research. The Milgram experiment examined people’s willingness to obey authority. Participants in the study were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, even when that obedience caused harm to the learner. The results of the study showed that the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level when they were told to do so by the experiment’s authority figure, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
[3] “Situation ethics (contextualism). In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights – each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics rejects ‘prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules’. It teaches that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and be taken on a case by case basis.” (Ethics guide; situation ethics, BBC )
[4] One example which, sadly, I did not have to invent, as several like it were relayed to me by a woman who worked at a domestic violence hotline.
[5] And say whatever else to get him off your porch, after which you telephone (a) the police and (b) the women’s shelter.
[6] Several years ago, MH received a particularly glowing performance review from his workplace. As happy as I was for him when he shared the news, it left me with a certain melancholy I couldn’t quite peg. Until I did. One of the many “things” about being a writer (or any occupation working freelance at/from home) is that although you avoid the petty bureaucratic policies, bungling bosses, mean girls’ and boys’ cliques, office politics and other irritations inherent in going to a workplace, you also lack the camaraderie and other social perks that come with being surrounded by your fellow homo sapiens. No one praises me for fixing the paper jam in the copy machine, or thanks me for staying late and helping the new guy with a special project, or otherwise says, Good on you, sister. Once I realized the source of the left-out feelings, I came up with a small way to lighten them.
[7] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org
