How far must we go to anticipate unintended consequences?

That's the question that drives the conversation when Stewart Wiggins, Peter Winick, and K Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

Have you ever watched a movie “based on a true story”? How about “inspired by true events”?

Two Miami police officers were deeply uninspired by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck’s recent movie, The Rip. In fact, they are suing the actors' production company, Artists Equity.

The film does not mention officers Jason Smith and Jonathan Santana by name. Nevertheless, they claim that colleagues and family members have recognized them from the film’s portrayal, and that they have suffered "substantial harm to their personal and professional reputations [from implied] misconduct, poor judgment, and unethical behavior in connection with a real law enforcement operation."

The lawsuit claims that the "the film's use of unique, non-generic details” points clearly to the plaintiffs. By opening with text, “inspired by true events,” the producers become culpable for defamation by including a non-factual narrative of corruption, graft, and murder. The plaintiff’s claim intentional infliction of emotional distress as well.

Whether the case has merit from a legal standpoint is not our discussion here. But to what extent are filmmakers responsible for implications and innuendo that might lead to reputational damage?

If, as the plaintiffs claim, they have been identified from the film by colleagues and family members, is that not “defamation by implication” as the claim suggests? Or are they drawing more attention to themselves through the lawsuit, which many commenters see as frivolous and opportunistic?

Meet this week’s panel:

Stewart Wiggins joins us from Paris. He is Chief Advisor at Induna Advisors, working to significantly increase company revenue by developing positive client reports and establishing solid business relationships.

Peter Winick works with individuals and organizations to build and grow revenue streams through their thought leadership platforms and is host of the Leveraging Thought Leadership podcast.

Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski is Founder of KSP Partnership, providing project management and project leadership courses and workshops to improve team dynamics and communications.

Can social justice warriors turn their campaign against their own cause?

That's the question that drives the conversation when JC Glick, Sarah Kalmeta, and S. Scott Mason join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

By now you’ve probably heard about the notorious NY Times podcast in which progressive elites endorsed the practice of “microlooting” - a prettified euphemism for stealing. Their reasoning begins by positing that not all acts of theft are equal - which is absolutely true, and builds upon the presumption that some acts of theft can be justified - which is also true.

What’s chilling is how those justifications are defined, and where they might take us as individuals and as a society.

Using a friend’s Netflix account? No problem. Steal a library book? Never. Leave a restaurant without paying your bill? Unthinkable. Swipe a painting from the Louvre. Absolutely.

Stealing from Whole Foods is okay because it’s an upscale store - especially if you’re going to give the stolen food to a homeless person. Stealing from a Walmart or Costco is not “very significant as a moral wrong.” Stealing from corporations is a virtue.

This Robin Hood mentality extends beyond theft. A disgruntled employee sets fire to a Kimberly Clark warehouse? Tactically unwise, but morally defensible. And we can at least sympathize with the murder of Brian Thompson since, as United Healthcare C.E.O., he was guilty of social murder himself.

But getting iced coffee in a plastic cup? “That is a profoundly selfish, immoral, collectively destructive action.” So is flying for pleasure. And “private schools should be mostly illegal.”

Has our collective moral compass become utterly unwound? Or are these positions ethically defensible?

Meet this week’s panel:

JC Glick is a retired Army Ranger Lieutenant Colonel. He is a leadership, strategy, and culture advisor, as well as CEO of the Commit Foundation, an organization that helps high-performance veterans find their next adventure.

Sarah Kalmeta is a speaker and executive facilitator who helps leaders make better decisions under pressure. She’s the founder of Pivot Point International, with nearly two decades in global aviation and operations.

Scott Mason, aka the Myth Slayer, is a speaker, podcast host, and coach working with executives and entrepreneurs to Magnetize & Monetize Professional Freedom by Dislodging Toxic Myths to Ignite the Charisma Within.

When does too much sugar stop being sweet?

That's the question that drives the conversation when David Fink, Monica Kreuger, and ☘️Mark O'Brien join the ethics panel to Grapple with the Gray.

Here is our topic:

After a recent visit to Urgent Care, I vented to my wife how annoyed I was by the doctor. It wasn’t that she was ill-mannered or curt. Just the opposite.

“If it isn’t too much trouble, may I ask you to please remove your glasses?”

That’s 15 words for what could have been said in four. And if it were too much trouble, what wouldn’t be?

“Please lean back for these eye drops. I don’t want to stain your lovely shirt.” I was wearing the same shirt I’m wearing now. Plain white. Professional, but hardly lovely. She even repeated the comment.

Within minutes I was grimacing the way you do when someone puts too much sugar in your coffee.

“It’s better than being rude,” my wife replied. She’s right, of course. But is there a middle ground between being too polite and not polite enough?

When politeness feels contrived or insincere, doesn’t it end up having an effect opposite to what’s intended? Or is it enough that someone is making the effort to be polite even if they may be doing it imperfectly?

One of the principles of ethics is to presume positive intent. But is intent alone ever not enough?

Meet this week’s panel:

David Fink is a litigation attorney, rabbinic scholar, author, lecturer, educator, and moral philosopher.

Monica Kreuger is founder and CEO of both Global Infobrokers Inc. and Praxis School of Entrepreneurship. She also chairs the board of Luthercare Community and is TEC Canada Chair in Saskatoon.

Mark O’Brien is founder and principal of O’Brien Communications Group, a B2B brand-management and marketing-communications firm — and host of The Anxious Voyage, a syndicated radio show about life’s trials and triumphs.