Recently in What Would You Do? Category

Imagine hearing that someone you love... someone for whom you feel responsible... someone who has been entrusted to your care... is very ill.  You are told that it is not completely clear how quickly, or how completely, she will recover even if aggressive treatment begins immediately.  Some doctors suggest that there is no time to waste in responding; it is a situation that should have been addressed long ago.  Other doctors say they cannot even be certain that she is sick and suggest it is probably best to proceed as if nothing were wrong while waiting for the results of further tests.  What would you do?

Many people think this situation is analogous to the one we are in with respect to the Earth.  We have a responsibility (to ourselves, to the millions of impoverished people around the globe, and, according to some at least, to God) to preserve and protect the environments on which our lives and the lives of future generations depend.  This responsibility has been neglected to such an extent that we cannot be sure how many threatened ecosystems, species, and cultures could still be saved even if everyone began to act responsibly right now.  Still, many people seem unwilling to take action...

So, what would you do if you were in this position with a loved one? Would you sit by calmly and hope that everything works itself out? Or would you begin doing everything you could immediately?  If you did nothing and she died, would you find comfort in being able to say that you couldn't have been certain she was actually sick? If you began treatment immediately, and it turned out she was not as sick as some had thought, would you feel your efforts had been wasted? 

Now, does what you would do in the case of a loved one have any bearing on what you think you should do, or even on what you will do, in response to the claims you are hearing about global climate change?

(Thanks are due to the Rev. Canon Sally Bingham for suggesting this analogy during her recent talk at the conference Stewardship or Sacrifice? Religion and the Ethics of Climate Change)  

Imagine that you are a chicken farmer with a family to feed. You are struggling to keep up with the mortgage on your farm and to make payments on your equipment. You barely have any money to buy clothes and food. A representative from Big Chicken, Inc. offers to buy as many chickens from you as you can produce. 

There is one condition, though. You have to produce them in exactly the way Big Chicken, Inc. tells you to. This requires that you borrow even more money for new chicken houses, raise the chickens in conditions that you find objectionable, and not allow your operation to be seen or filmed by outsiders. What would you do? 

Would you take their offer and try to ignore your worries about more debt, the health of your animals, and the quality of your product? Would you decline their offer and hope to make ends meet in some other way?

According to the makers of the recent movie Food, Inc., this is the kind of decision that many American farmers are forced to make. It is one of the many ethical challenges that face us when we consider the complex, and often messy, business of feeding millions of people every day. The following trailer should whet your appetite to participate in an informed discussion of the ethics of food production and consumption:

Imagine that your sister is starving to death. You have plenty of food for yourself. You could spare enough food to keep her alive until you find a long-term solution. What would you do?

You probably answered something along the lines of 'Help her, of course!' You might even be shocked or appalled by anyone who would give the matter a second thought before acting. It's not only what you would do, but it's what anyone should do. If that's right, then I wonder how you might respond to a question, that I have long wondered about, and that a recent New York Times article on the drought in Kenya reminded me of:

How important is it, really, that she's your sister?              

Imagine the same scenario as above, except that the woman in need is someone living on the other side of the globe who you have never met. Would helping her then become something that would be nice of you to do, as an act of charity, but not something that you should do? If so, why is this?      

Imagine learning that the burger you picked up from Joe's last week may have been contaminated with E coli. Five other people who ate at Joe's last week got sick. Now there is a report that hundreds more cases have been linked to beef from the same supplier that Joe uses. There is talk of a massive recall. No one is sure what the toll will be, in dollars or in human lives. What would you do?

Would you stop eating at Joe's? Would you stop eating hamburgers altogether?  Would you find yourself wondering about the workings of an industry whose products you have always taken for granted? What do you think you would find, if you took a look behind the curtain of food production in the United States? Do you think you have a right, or maybe even a responsibility, to find out where your food comes from? 

The makers of the recent movie Food, Inc. think you have both a right and a responsibility to know... although they don't think you will be pleased with what you find. The movie points to a whole range of ethical challenges that confront us when we consider the complex, and often messy, business of feeding millions of people every day. The following trailer should whet your appetite to participate in an informed discussion of the ethics of food production and consumption: