Question of the Week
A reader has written in with an ethical dilemma. Since he has requested to remain anonymous, we will refer to him as “Busy in the Big Apple.”
Dear Shakespeare Teacher,
My wife and I enjoy attending summer performances of Shakespeare in the Park. As you know, while the tickets are distributed free of charge, patrons must wait in line – usually for several hours – for two seats each. Since I work near Central Park and have the flexibility to take an extended lunch hour, the waiting typically falls to me.
Last summer, though, I came up with a different idea, something I like to think of as a new paradigm. I hired the vagrant who panhandles in front of my office building, and whom I occasionally patronize, to go to the park, wait in line for about three hours, and pick up two tickets. I offered him $20 and carfare. He agreed and brought back the tickets. I paid him and threw in a five dollar bonus. I thought the scheme was a win-win. The panhandler earned some honest money, my work productivity was enhanced, and my wife and I enjoyed an outstanding performance of Macbeth.
Not until after the play, though, did I reveal to my wife how I had obtained the tickets. She was horrified. She says that I cheated two other theatergoers and took advantage of a needy person, most likely enabling any substance abuse habit he may have. I understand her arguments, but I must demur. Friends tell me that wealthy donors get free tickets to Shakespeare in the Park without the wait. I’d rather subsidize a down-and-outer, whom I see as master of his own destiny.
Summer is fast approaching, as my co-conspirator reminds me almost every day. My wife and I have agreed to turn the issue over to you and your readers, lovers of the Bard as they must be. If you validate my approach, I will go the same route this summer as last. If not, I’ll grab a folio and head for the hawthorn-brake.
What should they do?
April 30th, 2007 at 6:21 am
i don’t think there’s a problem here…there are folks who do this all the time on craig’s list for a fee. and to assume that just because he is poor he must have a drug habit i think is presumptuous on the part of the wife. by allowing this man to earn some money may perhaps contribute to someone who otherwise can’t hold onto a job to feel that he is self-reliant and gain a sense of more self-respect than he does panhandling. although i think the amount that he charged last summer was too modest – i’d raise the price to $50 at least (that translates to about $25 per ticket, which isn’t bad considering the hours someone has to wait in line and the price of non-broadway tickets in the city nowadays).
April 30th, 2007 at 7:27 am
While it’s admirable to want to help someone who is down and out, I believe that you should “fight” for what you want. Part of the joy of seeing Shakespeare in the Park is to wait in line for those tickets. He works near the park? Let him wait in line like everybody else. Wants to do a good deed for his local “vagrant”? Take time off, find out why this person is down and out and try to truly help him. How easy it is to just “pay for it.”
May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 am
I don’t think it’s exploitive. I think it’s win-win. This is how capitalism works
And I’ll do it for twenty bucks and a pack of Camel Lights, thank you. Throw in a lighter and I’ll add some tutoring on Joyce and/or Yeats. I freelance edit as well . . .
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:18 am
This is a good one for the NY Times ethicist. Similar questions have
been addressed in his column. One particular one that comes to mind
is someone who wanted to pay people standing in front of him to move
ahead in line. Cohen said that undermines the cornerstone of
democracy, which is shared experiences among all social classes.
I think this is different. The man- seemingly not a
person of privelege- used a little ingenuity. Time- which is precious
to him as a working man- was saved. A man with too much unproductive
time got to earn some cash, and the wage offered was reasonable
enough. I say it was win-win.
May 2nd, 2007 at 6:49 am
Are the ethics of the situation affected by the social class of the players? Would the situation be more or less palatable if the guy asked his friend to do it and bought him dinner?
Or what if the guy doing the paying is wealthy, and would just prefer not to stand in line? Does this make us more or less sympathetic to his situation?
For me, the answer needs to be independent of social class. It’s either okay to pay someone to stand in line for you, or it isn’t.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
While I think it is appropriate to give someone a day’s employment – especially someone down on their luck, I disagree that the act does not have differing ramifications depending on the class or circumstance of the payee. You cannot take class or circumstance out of the equation. Class station equals power level. If you have class/power your every act requires greater responsibility because your impact on the well-being and livelihood of another is greater. A slave isn’t a slave if the slave is rich and consequently has the freedom of situation to decline a slavish circumstance, no? Exploitation can only occur if a disadvantaged class or race or circumstance is being exploited. If there’s not a disadvantaged element in the equation, there is no exploitation of that disadvantage.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I agree that social class is an extremely important factor in our society, and for all the reasons you list.
But ethics should be the same ethics for everyone. There is no special set of ethics for the rich or for the poor.
The reason it often seems otherwise is that the rich are usually the ones in the position to sidestep established safeguards that protect us against unethical behavior. But the same standards of behavior should apply to everyone.
Person A pays $25 to Person B to wait 3 hours in line for tickets. Is that okay or not? I don’t need to see a salary history.
There are unspoken stereotypes that go along with class. Many have resentful attitudes toward the rich and condescending attitudes toward the poor. This has the potential to color how we view their actions. Ethics should be purer than that, I think.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
I think it is a win win situation too. For you to have to wait in line for 3 hours means that you are not able to do your work. There is nothing wrong with someone earning an honest buck. It is good for his ego too, he is doing something worthwhile. Perhaps more people will follow your lead. Enjoy the plays.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
I agree with Bill that ethics transcend class. I think that class is a rather blunt instrument to be used in examining something so dynamic as American society. In a country in which struggling immigrant shopkeepers send their children to Yale, and in which a well-born Yale graduate can be found to have no class whatsoever, what’s a social observor to do?
In addition, I propose that giving free tickets to those willing to stand in line for them may be fair, but so is charging what the market will bear. While the Shakespeare Festival can give out tickets on any basis it sees fit, rewarding those with free time does not strike me as more or less moral than rewarding those who earn money by working.
Thus I am possibly the only New York theatergoer you’ll ever meet who is laissez faire on scalping. (OK, OK, yes, I’m against rent control too.) Rationing by price is as fair as any other scheme for distributing scarce goods. When you charge a high price for something rather than giving it away, you force people to ask “How much do I really want this?” Want a real-world example? How do you feel about water conservation? Ever notice that homeowners are much more likely to fix leaky faucets promptly than are their apartment-renting cousins? Why is that?