Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Questioning morality

My last blog and the public response lead me to an overarching question about our interpersonal relationships: should we judge and/or question the actions of our friends and family on moral grounds?

Part of me says no, that I should care about them regardless of their opinions/actions, that it is not my responsibility nor role to lecture them on morality. I mean, discussing ethics is in general a touchy subject, and to argue someone's individual choices on moral grounds even more so. Ethics aren't always clear cut, and it's a sticky situation when one tries to decide absolutely ethical and unethical behavior for others. Besides, the last thing I want to do is define moral standards for someone else, or threaten to revoke my friendship if they have a differing opinion.

Yet the other part of me knows that we often regret our decisions after we've thought about them more, that living up to our moral ideals is difficult and not always clearly defined, and that sometimes one needs that outside voice to see the big picture. I have mixed feelings toward religious Christian circles and the roles they play in defining appropriate behavior for others. Yet there's something admirable about a group that legitimately cares about whether an individual's actions are moral and just. It's my understanding that by committing to such a group, you gain a network that will actively make sure your actions reflect the ethical and religious code you believe in. Granted this may be abused to preach religious ethics to those who don't seek that kind of feedback, or to quash differing biblical interpretations, but outside of that abuse, it's an interesting idea. An external conscience to help you strive to be a better person is, at least in theory, a nice thing to have.

I guess my question is actually two-fold: should we internally judge our friends/family based on the morality of their actions, and if we do, should we share these judgements with those being judged?

Monday, December 15, 2008

Moral equivocation

The more I listen to people talk about politics and philosophy, the more I realize everyone has inconsistencies in their reasoning from time to time. Conservatives usually argue against big government, but some have backed the huge bailouts in recent news. Liberals often are staunch proponents of free speech, yet will try to prevent a racist speaker from coming to campus.

However, some inconsistencies are particularly disturbing to me. For example, in response to my concerns about the bodies exhibit (see Bodies... and capitalism ), those who still wanted to go regardless gave their justification when they said they were in. One response was something along the lines of, "while the possibility that they use chinese prisoners disturbs me, when I weigh the probability of that against the potential benefit to my patients, the patients win."

This is moral equivocation at its worst. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that going to the equivalent of a death freak-show is going to teach you more about medicine than you learned in medical school? Particularly for someone who is concerned about human rights, are you really that willing to turn a blind eye to "injustice" for a chance to see something you already covered in school? Or are you just using that as justification to do what you wanted to do, so you could be morally beyond reproach (from both yourself and others)?

Now, there are obviously too many injustices in the world to do something about them all, but if one of your goals is to live a socially conscious life, then shouldn't you do so even when it's inconvenient for you? Maybe I'm a little radical, but I think people should try to practice what they preach. If you are against government handouts, then don't submit receipts to get reimbursed by FEMA for an emergency generator. If you stand against illegal immigration, don't go pay one of the workers standing outside of home depot to help you move. And in the above mentioned case, don't lean on the potential to save lives as justification for everything. That sounds a little too Nazi-esque for my comfort level.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Tenure

The longer I spend in grad school, the more frustrated I get with all the political maneuvering and bureaucratic red tape. For example, last week one of the older male faculty members in our department made an inappropriate comment to one of my labmates about her not wanting to eat too much because she's looking a bit "husky". Now, mind you, this girl is anything but, probably in the best shape of anyone in lab, so this comment couldn't be more misplaced, but regardless, it's bound to hurt. Not to mention the fact that comments like those are what often lead to eating disorders and a decreased self-confidence, but that's a rant for another time. Yet this professor felt it necessary and appropriate to say something.

So the question is what do we do. Turns out this same faculty member has made comments to multiple labmates (past and present) before about the way they look, has hit on multiple females before (even slapping one's rear end at one point), and has been approached by superiors about it repeatedly. In fact, he was canned from the dean's office and no longer allowed to have female employees because of a sexual harassment complaint of an ex grad student. So why is he still employed by Emory?

Unfortunately, there's something in the academic world called tenure. For faculty, it's job security earned by hard work early in your career. In laymen's terms, it means the University can't fire you for much of anything. While I understand the faculty concerns, it seems to me that there needs to be more lenient definitions of what is actually grounds for termination. It's likely that Charles Nemeroff, the ex chair of Psychiatry who is currently under investigation for not disclosing money he got from pharmaceutical companies that directly conflicted with his research, will have a similar fate. Unless he's actually prosecuted and imprisoned, it's unlikely that Emory will do anything other than shuffle him around.

Tenure is why it is ridiculously hard to get rid of bad teachers at every grade level. While designed to protect/reward teachers for good work, it seems to be abused at every step along the way. Most schools would rather avoid the hassle, leaving those who are directly influenced by certain faculty's behavior to deal with the consequences.