Ethical Issues
Focusing the direction of response seeks to get a specific kind of action, the "right" kind. However, the degree of action must also be appropriate, neither "too much" nor "too little." The response sought must, in the context of the situation, be reasonable and appropriate.

The appropriateness of the response is an important ethical issue.

The threats may be real, but the responses suggested may be inappropriate.

The problems may be real, but the solutions offered may be the wrong kind ("misguided") or the wrong degree (too weak, or too strong).

For example, the severity of a response may be totally out of proportion to the threat. Generally, people have common standards of appropriateness so that there is not a major penalty for a minor transgression, nor a severe sharp response for a mild or vague threat.

Ethical decisions about appropriate responses are usually made after considering the whole context: of causes and effects, of the relation of part to whole, of the various options available, of the priorities of the person and the group.

For example, a "save-the-animals" cause letter may be true and accurate in its re-telling of the "horror stories," but, if the response sought is "Kill the Hunters," this is blatantly unethical, unreasonable and inappropriate.

So also, a Jewish "holocaust" atrocity picture may be a true and accurate record of horrible Nazi crimes, useful and effective to bond a Jewish group together ("Never Again!"); but if their ultimate response sought is to bomb a town or kill civilians, then this creates a serious ethical problem. (In 2003, this was argued in the case of the many "refusenik" Israeli Air Force pilots protesting against their orders to bomb Palestinian civilian targets.)

Or consider a more mundane example: football coaches often incite their teams with "pep talks," bonding the group together for concerted team effort. In most circumstances, such a "pep talk" with a closing exhortation of "giving one's all" is reasonable and appropriate. But what about the coach who urges a disabled star to keep playing with a knee injury, or to use steroids? This might result in a short-term benefit to the group, but a long-term harm to the individual. Should an individual athlete be encouraged to take this kind of risk, or make this kind of sacrifice for game, for a temporary elation, for friends' sake, or perhaps even for a coach's career?

What about dying for a "good cause"? Which one?

People have the right to join a cause, to support a group, and to take action. But, they also have the right to refrain, to be skeptical, and to withhold action. There are times when a group must bond and, perhaps, must fight or take other action. But, there are also times when a group need not.

The "pep talk" leads to action. But, action often leads to others' reaction. One action can start a sequence, a chain reaction, a wildfire, often producing unanticipated and unwanted results.

The "pep talk" is not always appropriate, prudent, or wise. Instead of stimulating response, action, or aggression, it might be more appropriate to have a "peace talk": words used to calm, to negotiate settlements, to reduce tensions, to reach compromises and mutual understandings.

Back to The Pep Talk | Cause | God-on-Our-Side | Top | Home