Q: I am the president of the anti-drug group at my high school. All members pledged not to use drugs or they would be kicked out, but I know that some of the most passionate and respected members have done so and have laughed off their commitment to the group. Is it ethical to “tattle” on these people and basically destroy the existence of the group, or should we continue to preach a message that even some of us don’t believe in? — Name Withheld, New York
A: You should kick them out of the group, but you should not report them to the cops or even to school officials. Your duty as president is to uphold your group’s rules. Members agreed that drug use would get them booted out, so you must lace up the boot.
As a less draconian alternative, you could permit transgressors to resign quietly. Public shaming is not obligatory — no pillory, no stocks, no scarlet P for pot. But go they must, even if their departure hastens the group’s demise. Your failing to act would betray the trust of rule-abiding members, undermine your group’s mission and invite the mockery of the school community.
Your attitude suggests that you might also rethink your own involvement in the group. Update: After consulting with the group’s faculty adviser, this student decided that next school year everyone will have to apply anew to join the group and submit to an interview.
Q: I was “cheated” out of my prize in a sports betting pool at work. Because two people tied for second place, the person with the third-highest score — me — was eliminated. Some people agree with the organizer, saying that three people had better scores than I did. Some people agree with me, saying I had the third-best score and should win the third-place money. What do you say? — Brad Ackerman, New York
A: I’m with the organizer. The three players with the highest scores were rightly awarded the three prizes. Because Players Two and Three had the same score, they share the combined second- and third-place money. If three players do better than you, the proper term for your finish is “fourth” or “loser,” accompanied by derisive sneers from the swaggering three.
Under your payout plan, two players (or three or five or 10) who tie for second place could end up pocketing less money than you, even though they score higher. That doesn’t seem right. Those who perform better should reap a larger reward.
Your plan, while inferior, is not utterly unreasonable.
Send questions and comments for Randy Cohen to Universal Press Syndicate, 4520 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111, or ethicist@nytimes.com.
