NYSundayTimes Ethicist Column on LA

[fuzzalow]

The Ethicist column in The Sunday NYTimes magazine section addressed a reader question Re: Lance Armstrong with respect to his contrived or collateral good, depending on your POV, on his cancer foundation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/magazine/the-lance-armstrong-conundrum.html?ref=theethicist

I express no opinion to this matter, this is merely a reference to this article.

Out.

[AgilisMerlin]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-resigns-from-livestrong-board-of-directors

[67-59]

There is no right or wrong way to feel about Armstrong, but however you feel should be based on the totality of his career. Everything has to matter.

Perhaps the most appropriate thing I've read about this whole scenario. The haters aren't "wrong"...but neither are the supporters...

[djg]

There is no right or wrong way to feel about Armstrong, but however you feel should be based on the totality of his career. Everything has to matter.

Perhaps the most appropriate thing I've read about this whole scenario. The haters aren't "wrong"...but neither are the supporters...

Maybe . . . if how one "feels" about the man himself somehow is an important ethical question. Unless we're sitting in judgment of a life, I'm not sure that the all-in versus all-out or thumbs-up versus thumbs-down choice models a puzzle any of us is likely to face much less a solution to it.

Ignoring this particular column, I find "the ethicist" column in the NY Times interesting as much for what it says about editorial policy as anything else. I've read not a few of these -- sort of a parody of an "applied ethics" class taught by somebody who seems to be more quirky in his intuitions than penetrating (and if he's theory-driven, it's hard to tell how). Then there's always some sort of story posing as a rationale, or an argument, for the intuition.

[Louis]

I've read not a few of these --

Did you happen to see the recent letter sent in by the husband of a woman who was having an affair with a high-level government official? Over the weekend the NYT issued a clarification saying that they had investigated, and it was not related to the Broadwell / Petraeus affair...

[67-59]

Maybe . . . if how one "feels" about the man himself somehow is an important ethical question.

I wasn't the author of the original quote about "feelings," and agree that wasn't the best wording.

The important point is that one's judgment about the broad question of whether LA has acted "ethically" (or is an "ethical person") requires that one take into account the totality of his life, and not just certain actions....

[slidey]

Given that I feel like throwing my best right hooks whenever I see LA's face, I think there's money to be made yet for his royal fraudness.

Think punching bags.

[67-59]

Given that I feel like throwing my best right hooks whenever I see LA's face, I think there's money to be made yet for his royal fraudness.

Think punching bags.

Funny - one of the things LA is most criticized for is intimidating and making threats against others. Perhaps you'd be battering your soulmate....

[slidey]

Q: I don't think there's much point in adding mileage to this thread, but I'm confused...how did you interpret my statement above as a threat?

Funny - one of the things LA is most criticized for is intimidating and making threats against others. Perhaps you'd be battering your soulmate....

(Hint: You are wrong on this, so good luck!) :cool:

[54ny77]

would you rather be a former tour winner now in disgrace with a variety of cycling titles stripped, yet with tens/hundreds of millions in the bank, or just a regular employed joe earning a living riding amateur races, or even an entry/midlevel domestic or euro pro just gettin' by but riding clean?

[PQJ]

would you rather be a former tour winner now in disgrace with a variety of cycling titles stripped, yet with tens/hundreds of millions in the bank, or just a regular employed joe earning a living riding amateur races, or even an entry/midlevel domestic or euro pro just gettin' by but riding clean?

Carl Fox to Bud Fox: "I don't go to bed with no whore, and I don't wake up with no whore. That's how I live with myself. I don't know how you do it."

[fuzzalow]

Maybe . . . if how one "feels" about the man himself somehow is an important ethical question. Unless we're sitting in judgment of a life, I'm not sure that the all-in versus all-out or thumbs-up versus thumbs-down choice models a puzzle any of us is likely to face much less a solution to it.

Interesting. To parse the writing from the named article in outwardly focusing on the wording “feel” is IMO a punt and an obfuscation. I understood the wording to mean arrive at an individual judgmental conclusion and not a play to world peace pop psychology. Criticize the argument and not the syntax. The article was neither pointless nor incoherent.

Ignoring this particular column, I find "the ethicist" column in the NY Times interesting as much for what it says about editorial policy as anything else. I've read not a few of these -- sort of a parody of an "applied ethics" class taught by somebody who seems to be more quirky in his intuitions than penetrating (and if he's theory-driven, it's hard to tell how). Then there's always some sort of story posing as a rationale, or an argument, for the intuition.

It is an article in a newspaper and not a discourse on ethics in academia. It is a prepared piece from a professional writer rather than the usual polemical rant from nameless internet hoi polloi. It was used to initiate a somewhat more nuanced thread topic on a subject already well pulverized.

And it still falls off the tracks. This topic is truly radioactive.

On a lighter note: Anyone with issues towards NYT editorial policy should be forced to listen to recordings of Jill Abramson's sing-song speech patter and self satisfyingly shallow pedantry. After a few sessions of being soundboarded like that, any person would submit to any editorial policy the NYT could enact to avoid that torture ever again.

[67-59]

Q: I don't think there's much point in adding mileage to this thread, but I'm confused...how did you interpret my statement above as a threat?



(Hint: You are wrong on this, so good luck!) :cool:

Threatening to throw a right hook isn't a threat? Excellent - then I'd love to throw a right hook at you if we ever meet...and obviously you're too confused to interpret that as a threat!

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . I would definitely interpret as a threat.

KNOCK IT OFF, both of you . . . or the thread gets locked and possibly other actions. That's not a threat. It's a statement of fact from the mods.

BBD

[67-59]

See, I kinda figured talking about throwing a left hook sounded like a threat. Thanks for the confirmation BBD!

[norcalbiker]

there is no right or wrong way to feel about armstrong, but however you feel should be based on the totality of his career. Everything has to matter.

Perhaps the most appropriate thing i've read about this whole scenario. The haters aren't "wrong"...but neither are the supporters...

bingo!!!!!!!!!

[norcalbiker]

Threatening to throw a right hook isn't a threat? Excellent - then I'd love to throw a right hook at you if we ever meet...and obviously you're too confused to interpret that as a threat!

Uh oh! :fight:

[fuzzalow]

Fisticuffs, threats, vitriol. Unbelievable. Both sides of this topic are on hair trigger alert and are just begging for any excuse to go jihad. My goodness me, when folks get as wound up as they outwardly do about LA, then the motivation in reacting in the way they do stopped being LA long ago and now it is all about something personal. Because no one is lame enough to start a fight defending the honor of a sports celebrity who doesn't know you from Adam, right?

George Harrison might have said it best about the behavior on LA exhibited by ostensibly grown adults - "You're giving me a wahwah...I don't need no wah-wah".

[67-59]

Maybe my motive was too subtle, but for those who didn't pick up on it, my comment about throwing a right hook was made for one simple reason: to respond to the first poster who made that comment and claimed it wasn't a threat. Obviously, many here do consider it a threat...the same type of behavior for which LA has been most (and justifiably) criticized.

I've never thrown a right hook in my life, and have no intent to start at age 50 unless someone makes a move against me or my family. And even then, before I could even set up the punch, my 16-year old daughter (3rd degree black belt in tae kwon do) would take 'em out with some sort of spinning kick.:eek:

[PQJ]

slidey's so-called threat was generalized and non-specific. I saw it more as an attempt at humor than anything else. 67-59's threat was directed specifically at slidey. Perhaps there's a backstory I'm unaware of but on its face it was unwarranted.

Peace to all.

[67-59]

slidey's so-called threat was generalized and non-specific. I saw it more as an attempt at humor than anything else. 67-59's threat was directed specifically at slidey. Perhaps there's a backstory I'm unaware of but on its face it was unwarranted.

Peace to all.

LA - generalized and non-specific? LA is pretty specific, and I'd be willing to bet that slidey would recognize him if they ever crossed paths.

In contrast, I have no clue who slidey is, or what he/she looks like. We could pass in the hallway 2 minutes from now, and I'd have no idea.

Now you tell me which is more of a threat, and which was made more to make a point....

Peace to you too.

[merlinmurph]

I've noticed a number of articles about this subject lately.

Our local paper (Boston Globe) had an opinion piece two weeks ago written by a doctor who has had first-hand positive experiences from Livestrong. His conclusion was positive on Lance.

Today there was a piece that interviewed a number of riders who wear or used to wear the yellow bracelet, with the expected answers. Some had been thru the cancer experience either directly or indirectly, and benefited personally from Livestrong. Others have removed their bracelets.

It's a hot topic, and everybody has an opinion. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong.

[djg]

Interesting. To parse the writing from the named article in outwardly focusing on the wording “feel” is IMO a punt and an obfuscation. I understood the wording to mean arrive at an individual judgmental conclusion and not a play to world peace pop psychology. Criticize the argument and not the syntax. The article was neither pointless nor incoherent.

It is an article in a newspaper and not a discourse on ethics in academia. It is a prepared piece from a professional writer rather than the usual polemical rant from nameless internet hoi polloi. It was used to initiate a somewhat more nuanced thread topic on a subject already well pulverized.

And it still falls off the tracks. This topic is truly radioactive.

On a lighter note: Anyone with issues towards NYT editorial policy should be forced to listen to recordings of Jill Abramson's sing-song speech patter and self satisfyingly shallow pedantry. After a few sessions of being soundboarded like that, any person would submit to any editorial policy the NYT could enact to avoid that torture ever again.

Well, thanks for that, but I've read through it a couple of times and don't much know what the argument is, whether isolated from the writing or not. This is a regular column under the header "the ethicist," and I don't think it's terribly unfair of me to wonder what it has to say about ethical issues or on what basis the author approaches them. In this instance, the columnist reads a letter as asking the question how to weigh certain bad things against certain good ones. He suggests that it's hard to do in this case because the bad things (acts, conduct, effects, use your own word or indicate your own concept) are not separable from the good ones. Hence, he suggests, we need to look at the whole -- presumably in a way different from summing the individual good things and bad things, however one might do that. He then jumps to an assertion that LA's motive is the key to the thing. That doesn't solve anything, according to the column, because we cannot know LA's motive or motives. Then there's an assertion that there is no right or wrong conclusion. Still, we're reminded to revisit the "everything counts" message -- whatever conclusion each of us comes to, it needs to account for everything.

If there's a clearer argument in there, I've just missed it. If I've derailed a "more nuanced thread on a topic already well pulverized," well, gee, I'm sorry about that, but I don't think I was attacking people on the board or relentlessly undermining a novel and nuanced thread on the LA topic -- even if my own comment on the column was orthogonal to your initial intent in posting, or maybe even just plain impertinent. In fact, you did not offer your own analysis of, extrapolation on, or judgment about the column when you posted initially. You're still free to jump in there if you think it worthwhile. I promise not to respond.

[fuzzalow]

If there's a clearer argument in there, I've just missed it. If I've derailed a "more nuanced thread on a topic already well pulverized," well, gee, I'm sorry about that, but I don't think I was attacking people on the board or relentlessly undermining a novel and nuanced thread on the LA topic -- even if my own comment on the column was orthogonal to your initial intent in posting, or maybe even just plain impertinent. In fact, you did not offer your own analysis of, extrapolation on, or judgment about the column when you posted initially. You're still free to jump in there if you think it worthwhile. I promise not to respond.

I did not read your post as an attempt at derailment or as attacking people on this board or relentlessly undermining a novel and nuanced thread on the LA topic. Your point of view, as was all forumites, was solicited and is welcomed whether it be in agreement or diametric to my own. And my only intent in starting this thread was to that purpose alone.

I might guess that you view LA favorably to some extent. This is based solely, and possibly incorrectly inferenced on my part, on your mocking of the writer's use of the word “feel” and disparaging the inconsistencies in how the writer conveyed ethical reasoning to his readership. I read this as a circular way of your voicing displeasure and disagreement with the writer. And because of this, I interpreted your original response as tepid and equivocating.

As for my own opinion on what was written in the Ethicist column, I am in agreement with the writer.

I view all of LA's activities, both good and bad, as a causal chain of events emanating from an original cheat and fraud. Which makes null and void any subsequent goodwill and benevolence because all these activities, however well intentioned and charitable they were allowed to become, are simply an outgrowth of perpetuating a fraud.

This forum, these threads, are discussions with points of view. And the contrary opinions, well voiced, make it the most interesting. For me, nothing said is personal, no barbs cast as offense. I find no need to hold you to your promise not to respond.

I will pour you the next wee dram.

[djg]

I did not read your post as an attempt at derailment or as attacking people on this board or relentlessly undermining a novel and nuanced thread on the LA topic. Your point of view, as was all forumites, was solicited and is welcomed whether it be in agreement or diametric to my own. And my only intent in starting this thread was to that purpose alone.

I might guess that you view LA favorably to some extent. This is based solely, and possibly incorrectly inferenced on my part, on your mocking of the writer's use of the word “feel” and disparaging the inconsistencies in how the writer conveyed ethical reasoning to his readership. I read this as a circular way of your voicing displeasure and disagreement with the writer. And because of this, I interpreted your original response as tepid and equivocating.

As for my own opinion on what was written in the Ethicist column, I am in agreement with the writer.

I view all of LA's activities, both good and bad, as a causal chain of events emanating from an original cheat and fraud. Which makes null and void any subsequent goodwill and benevolence because all these activities, however well intentioned and charitable they were allowed to become, are simply an outgrowth of perpetuating a fraud.

This forum, these threads, are discussions with points of view. And the contrary opinions, well voiced, make it the most interesting. For me, nothing said is personal, no barbs cast as offense. I find no need to hold you to your promise not to respond.

I will pour you the next wee dram.

Not meaning to go back on my promise to let you have your say, without counter, I'll take you up on the drink offer. Any Scotch will do.

Didn't actually mean to defend Mr. Lance in criticizing the column -- really just meant to criticize the column and avoid (intentions unrealized) jumping back into the Armstrong morass. But on 2 drinks I'll talk about nearly anything. Maybe I can find the last of my Macallan "Excellence" for the second round. Peace mon.

[fuzzalow]

Any Scotch will do.

LOL indeed but more so at the end than at the beginning. Pitch some Laphroaig and some will grimace so you start them off with Cardhu. By the end of the night, they're knocking down 'phroaigs like they've got wooden legs.

[djg]

LOL indeed but more so at the end than at the beginning. Pitch some Laphroaig and some will grimace so you start them off with Cardhu. By the end of the night, they're knocking down 'phroaigs like they've got wooden legs.

I like Laphroaig -- definitely at or pretty darn near the smokey, peatey end of the spectrum, and maybe pretty chewy for some tastes, but I'm with ya.

And how's that for thread drift?