Skip to main content

A Moral and Ethical Question

I'm in Dallas for the next few days. I'm staying with a person who is my superior, and we have a witness in town. We ate dinner last night, and their conversation was full of rampant wickedness.

What's my responsibility? If I'm at dinner hearing ribald humor, what do I do?

Frankly, it's a perplexing situation for me. I didn't participate, but I didn't denounce either. Well, I did at one point in a passive-agressive way

What am I supposed to do? Am I to just disengage, or am I to actively denounce, or something else?

Comments

Hippie Fringe said…
I am not sure there is a "right" answer to your question. I have been in that situation and reacted both ways. In reflection, I have felt that I was condescending and hypocritical in one reaction and spineless and malleable in another; both counterproductive and tell tell signs of a greater internal problem. I am sure that if you simply shine and love them, your actions will be appropriate.
Hal Brunson said…
That's quite delicate, as you are with your superior who, I suppose, has power to fire you.

If your relationship with him is such that you can speak to him in a private setting about your feelings, that's one option, but do it with humility. He won't stop, of course, but you could tell him that you'd like to be excused from non-requisite social settings if that is going to be their tenor.

If you can just say "no thanks" to the dinners, etc., that's another option.

You could also address the issue in terms of professionalism, "I think that your conversation was unprofessional, as well as distasteful, unethical, and offensive."

If you just grin and bear it, you'll be miserable.

What a pity that our culture is so vulgarized and that evidence of reprobation so abundantly flourishes.
Shane said…
Thank you both. I'm encouraged that you agree that it's not a simple situation.

At the end of the night I was regretting not being a Luther. But looking back, I did manage to be a quiet witness. When I became an attorney, I made a decision early on that regardless of who I was eating with I would take thirty seconds or so and pray over my meal. That silent, little prayer is a great governor for me. It informs the table I'm a Christian. If I engage in blatantly sinful conversation after that then I've confirmed the majority's belief of evangelical fakery.

I also try to work my wife into conversations when possible.

So, within a standard business dinner my companion has seen me pray and heard me talk favorably about my wife.

That's the extent of my pushback against wicked dinner conversation. If it's just me and one other person, my methodology is great because prurient type comments wither on the vine. But when I'm one among three I lose the control.

Bah, I'm rambling now.

Thanks again, both for the encouragement and the suggestions.
Jacob Gücker said…
Men of the world will often make a game of your moral excellence, and I have fallen for it many times, not realizing what they were doing.

There's a young man at my job who is a brawler. He cherishes the opportunity to fight, and he is constantly talking about how he will punch someone who "disrespects him." Moreover, he keeps asking me if I will fight someone who does the same with me, and I tell him, of course, that I don't ever want to hit anyone. He said to me, "you have to have some morality" and I told him very plainly that we did not share the same ideas about morality. He has gone as far as to say that if he ever sees anyone "disrespect" me and I do not hit him, he will come hit me himself. Incidentally, he informed me that the name of his church is "Golden Rule," and I did my best to point out the irony, and make a lesson of it, but he didn't follow.

Popular posts from this blog

To Atlas: Shrug

Is anyone else who regularly reads this blog troubled by the flippant use of the term “bailout” by our government and media? Perhaps your hackles are raised because of the proposal itself, and the language is of no concern. But politicians and auto-executives carefully chose “bailout” to describe what is being asked of the taxpayer. I don’t mean to pick nits here, but let’s examine this word and see whether it’s applicable. According to the good people at dictionary.com, bailout has the following meanings: – noun 1. the act of parachuting from an aircraft, esp. to escape a crash, fire, etc. 2. an instance of coming to the rescue, esp. financially 3. an alternative, additional choice, or the like, such as, “If the highway is jammed, you have two side roads as bailouts.” – adjective 4. of, pertaining to, or consisting of means for relieving an emergency situation. What strikes me is that the above-listed definitions imply an act of finality. The guy who escapes a plane crash en

God Doesn't Need You

The least understood aspect in the redemptive work of God is also the most important. It is this—the first cause and highest motivation of God’s redemptive work is for His own sake, or more specifically, for the sake of His own holiness. Contrary to the most popular “Christian” mantra of the day— Jesus Loves You and has a wonderful plan for your life , God’s chief concern is not the manifestation of His love towards men; rather, it is His own holiness. But what is holiness? “Holiness is self-affirming purity. In virtue of this attribute of his nature, God eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence. In this definition are contained three elements: first, purity; secondly, purity willing; thirdly, purity willing itself “ (A.H. Strong). Wholly other is often how holy is described. Dorner writes, “that is holy which, undisturbed from without, is wholly like itself.” Most often we associate “self-affirming purity” to holiness and less often its equally important counterpart

The Modern Way

Rhetoric is a powerful tool. Yea, possibly the strongest, most influential weapon man has in his arsenal. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “The faculty of using all the available means of persuasion in a given message.” Others have offered their definitions as well, ranging from, “The art of communicating effectively,”…”The art of enchanting the soul,”…”Communicative deception,”…and so on. For purposes of this essay, we shall regard rhetoric as being the habitual dilemma of man(sic), in which verbal communication strives for the one goal of persuasion. Let us apply our objective epistemologies and critical wit to the field of rhetoric, more specifically, the rhetoric used by the modern evangelical churches, which I will collectively refer to as “The Modern Way,” out of sheer respect for Martin Luther, and his battles against this sense of “New Thinking,” in Erfurt. The Modern Way uses rhetoric to establish a new look on the Gospel that is neither biblical, nor historical. The s