My grandchildren love playing Monopoly. The board game has become a great way for me to interact with them, and also a great way for them to see capitalism in all its imperfect glory. The problem: One of the cards a player may draw when landing on Community Chest is “Bank Error in Your Favor. Collect $200.” Right when we first started playing the game together, I removed that card from the set. I did so because it taught the wrong lesson. The proper thing to do when there is a bank error in your favor is to report it and return the money.
My grandchildren have discovered the deletion and believe I am silly and old-fashioned. After all, it’s just a game, they say. I stand by my belief that the card should not be in the game; we learn all kinds of lessons from gameplay, and ethical decision-making should not be dismissed so easily. How tightly should play reinforce ethical behavior? Is a game a place where you can and should live in a different ethical world? — Victor Poleshuck
From the Ethicist:
I wonder whether your moral focus here is a tad narrow. We’re talking about a board game called Monopoly. Players succeed by dominating market segments and extracting ruinous rents — after they build on Boardwalk without so much as a wetland permit, let alone an environmental-impact review. It’s a world where incarceration is utterly normalized and rapacity is rewarded. And what troubles your conscience is the prospect that the bank gets shortchanged?
That’s not to single out this particular board game. In chess, white enjoys the inherent advantage of moving first, while knights refuse to go straight — so much to unpack. Battleship encourages the sinking of ships without the slightest effort at diplomacy. Risk is basically a primer on imperialism, urging players to conquer continents and subjugate foes. Clue trivializes violent homicide. Sorry sanitizes revenge, and — well, you could go on.
But what’s the point? All this board-game barbarity leaves our souls unscorched. Games indeed exist within their own imaginative space, where competitors engage in chilly strategy and conflict without carrying its lessons into real-life morality. Removing this random cash-injection card will only make it a bit harder for trailing players to catch up. So put it back. You can even use it as a moment for conversation, and ask your young reprobates what they’d actually do in that situation. Just don’t lose sight of the bigger picture here. If your grandkids are still willing to play with a sermonizing card snatcher, they must really love you. Roll the dice, but I’d say you’ve already won.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader whose girlfriend has repeatedly looked through his phone and computer. He wrote: “Now I use my devices in another room for private communication, which she sees as secretive. I view it as private, not deceptive. I respect her privacy and don’t snoop on her devices. And though I’m open to couples counseling, I believe my girlfriend’s mistrust issues need individual attention first for therapy to be effective. Is there an ethically accepted standard for accessing a partner’s devices, with or without permission? If a partner demands to see a device, is the other partner ethically required to comply? Am I misguided to consider continuing this relationship?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “There isn’t any settled convention about whether people should be able to see what’s on the devices of a romantic partner. Nor could there be. … Whatever a couple’s policy, though, it’s clear that gaining access to a password-protected device by stealth or guile is a violation of trust. … A couples therapist could help the two of you figure out whether (and if so, how) this relationship can be rescued. I’m certainly in no position to weigh in on its prospects. … Either way, continuing the relationship without sorting out these issues strikes me as unwise. Trust isn’t something you can fake, or force. It’s a foundation you build together — until it’s strong enough to hold the weight of both of you. For some couples, it comes naturally. For others, it never comes at all.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
Excellent response by the Ethicist. At first I thought, why carry on a relationship with someone who is not trusting? But at 60 years old, we all have baggage. If the girlfriend can recognize her mistrust and address it, maybe it is worth journeying on together. — Mary
⬥
While I agree that this privacy issue is really an issue of trust, in addition to setting a boundary with his girlfriend, I would encourage the letter writer to change his password and not share the new one with her. — Adrian
⬥
My daughter always respected her husband’s privacy and didn’t insist on knowing his phone password or computer login. He was killed in a car accident a few months ago, and she now needs a court order to gain access to crucial information that was stored on these devices. But the real clincher is that upon his death she discovered he’d been leading a double life. Only a partner with something to hide keeps device access private. — Beth
⬥
I am a therapist, and can offer that sending the girlfriend for individual work puts the blame squarely on her. If a couples therapist determines that her jealousy is an individual issue, then the girlfriend can be referred to another provider for individual therapy. — Katharine
⬥
When I was married, I discovered that my (now former) husband snooped into my daily journals. It’s one of many reasons he is now my ex. I think we all have a right to personal freedom. Building trust is hard, but it can’t happen through control of the other. — Christina
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post Is It Wrong to Remove a Card From Monopoly? appeared first on New York Times.
