An Ethical Response to the Rutgers Suicide

What is an appropriate response to the tragedy of the suicide at Rutgers University? Using the framework of intentional ethics as a guide, to aim for the highest ethical response it is recommended we seek to understand (intention) for others (motivation) a constructive action (result).

One item that needs to be understood is that planting a camera for the purpose of spying on other people is a perverse action. It doesn't matter if you're boring holes in a change room, rest room, shower, or bedroom, it is perverse. This action on the part of the two Rutgers students needs to be understood as an invasion of privacy issue.

Another item that needs to be understood is that an 18-year old's awareness that their actions can have negative consequences for others is not well developed. It is not surprising that all three adults involved were eighteen. It is a dangerous age, as the freedom they experience is not matched by awareness and consideration of others.

This is a development issue. It's not a hate crime. The actions by the two students demonstrate obliviousness to what effect the invasion of privacy would have on a vulnerable person living in a homophobic society. It is doubtful the two Rutgers students were homophobic. But they were clueless.

The motivation of an appropriate ethical response should be what can be done for others? What can we as a society do for other 18 year olds?

As a pragmatist, it matters not to me where ideas come from if they work. The Mormon church has an outstanding program for young adults. They go on a mission for two years. They develop a sense of awareness for people outside of their own culture. After two years of mission, they go to college or pursue their careers with new-found maturity.

A program of national service for two years (no exemptions) would serve a similar purpose. Young people could work in nursing homes, homeless shelters, or drug clinics. There should be military options as well.

How will we pay for it?

A country that throws away billions of dollars that are never accounted for does not need to ask that question. The money is there, the priorities are not. It is a matter of wanting to do what is best for others, and not just the top two per cent.