Oh The Ethicist – how I used to love you

I can’t tell you how much I once enjoyed reading the weekly The Ethicist column by Randy Cohen in the New York Times.  Sadly, the column took a turn for the worse when Cohen retired from writing it last year.  For a year, Ariel Kaminer from the Metro section filled in, but she was never as great. Kaminer recently headed back to the Metro section, and a woman named Betsey Stevenson, a visiting professor of economics at Princeton, wrote the May 10^th The Ethicist column. 

            One woman wrote in that she and her family had planned and paid for a trip to Disney World in Florida, but then she didn’t want to go spend money in Florida because of her disgust with the Trayvon Martin case and Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.  Writing as the ethicist, Stevenson told the mother that although voting with your pocketbook is important, the money was already spent.  Therefore, she should go to Florida, pack a vacation’s worth of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches so as to not spend any more money in Florida, and not show anybody the vacation pictures so that nobody else will be encouraged to vacation in Florida.

            I hate to say it, Stevenson, but that response is idiotic.  First, the logistical practical problems with this advice.  Whether that family is traveling by car, train, bus, or airplane – I guarantee you that bringing a vacation’s worth of food is insane.  With all the sun screen, hats, clothes, medicine, etc. that mom has to pack, you think adding a vacation’s worth of food is a good idea?  You think eating nothing but peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for days is a good idea?  They won’t be able to poop after the first day!  How about eating healthy?  Isn’t that a good thing to teach children?  Because eating nothing but non-perishable, suitcase-packable food isn’t going to be too healthy for too long.   

            Secondly, the economic practical problems with this advice.  I agree that voting with your pocketbook is important and something that should be taught to children.  But the affective version of voting with your pocketbook goes like this: 

Dear Corporation X,

I will now be purchasing your competitor’s product/service because I object to your labor practices/offensive advertisements/political actions.  If and when you cease to engage in these problematic labor practices/offensive advertisements/political actions, I will consider resuming purchasing your product/service.

Signed, Consumer

Voting with your pocketbook has to be targeted and specific to be effective and meaningful.  The person/people/corporation you object to also has TO KNOW that you are doing it.  In this case, the mother had a problem with the laws in Florida.  I understand and agree with those objections.  But, well – she’s not a voter in Florida – so she really doesn’t have a say in how Florida writes its laws.  Even if this mother could get her money back from Disney World, Disney is a multinational corporation, and boycotting it to punish a local government in a place where it has one theme park is not exactly going to be effective.  Now, if that mother wants to found or join a group of people who say they won’t be spending tourist dollars in Florida because they are upset about Trayvon Martin, then that would be specific, targeted, and might get noticed.  But I doubt it.  Local municipalities don’t tend to like tourists from outside telling them how to run things inside.  What we, as American voters, can do about another state’s laws that we don’t like is to push for stronger laws and regulations at the federal level.  That’s something this woman could do that would teach her family about taking part in democracy in a way that could be actually effective. 

            Thirdly, I have ethical problems with your advice, Betsey Stevenson.  You are suggesting that this mother actively practice – and teach her son – to believe in guilt by association on a grand, grand scale.  Don’t misunderstand me, what happened to unarmed Trayvon Martin in Florida was absolutely appalling, tragic, and should never have ever happened.  But, our objections should be with George Zimmerman, the law itself, and perhaps also the slow moving local law enforcement – although Zimmerman has indeed subsequently been charged with second degree murder.  It’s not quite right to punish the 19 million people who live in Florida and all corporations working there.  That’s painting with too wide a brush.  Because the next person to come along may paint with an even wider brush.  What if the next person blames anybody who has ever even visited Florida?  What if the next person blames the entire United States?  Children have a very strong sense of fairness, and this woman shouldn’t teach her child that 19 million people are to be shunned just because they live in the same state as a bad man and a bad Stand Your Ground law.  What would her son say to the classmate who goes to visit her grandparents in Florida?  Should he tell her that her grandparents are bad?  What about the teacher at his school who went to college in Florida?  Should he think that teacher is bad, too?  And for how long?  When do the people of Florida stop being bad?  When all 19 million of them write a giant apology note?  After 10 years?  After George Zimmerman is convicted?  When?  What exactly does this woman want the corporations in Florida to do to win back her business?

            As disgusting as George Zimmerman’s actions were and as problematic as the law is, it’s not ethical to teach a child that it’s right to punish all businesses or individuals that are in any way connected to Florida.  You never know.  Maybe some asshole who lives in your state will do something horrible, or your local laws will be revealed to be hugely problematic.  Will you really want someone in another state to blame you personally?
          Post Script - I do have one thing I agree with that mother and Stevenson about.  It is more than reasonable to avoid a vacation destination because you disagree with its political climate.  There is a beautiful country with absolutely fantastic beaches and wonderful food that I simply, will not visit at present, because I strongly disagree with the amount of underage sex tourism that happens there.  I do not judge people who visit that country, I do not judge citizens of that country I meet, but I will choose to spend my family's vacation budget elsewhere.  But, the mother who wrote to The Ethicist didn't choose to spend her vacation dollars elsewhere because she wanted to spend them in a place that was more in tune with her political values - although would have been a decision I would have agreed with.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your money in a place you believe has better values.  That's a good thing.  But Florida had the Stand Your Ground laws on the books long before the tragic Trayvon killing.  The law was in place before the mother made her trip reservations.  She was, in fact, reacting to a specific incident and the bad deeds of one man by attempting to punish a multinational company that also does business within a certain geopolitical boundary that also contained that bad man.    And that, well, confuses me.