A moral issue

[Streetcar]

(This really has nothing to do with Kilts. I’m posting it her in Off-Topic as I respect the opinions of many on this board.)

I came across a bit of a moral issue the other day. Surprisingly, it didn’t stem from my law-enforcement career, as one might expect. It came from my “hobby job” of theater.
Here’s the situation: The show I’m directing has been hired to give two performances at a local festival. As the show is improvised, we only need a few rehearsals to refresh ourselves with the format. The show works best with 6 or 7 performers, but requires a minimum of 5.
When we were hired, I sent notices out to the potential cast members. I received email assurances from seven people that they were available for all rehearsals and performances, and eager to do the show. I turned away several people who wanted to perform, but couldn’t make one or more of the rehearsals. One of the people I turned away (let’s call her “Kate”) had actually done the show before.

Hours before the first rehearsal, I had three cast members call to say they couldn’t make it. Each had “prior commitments” that they had forgotten about until that day.

Over the next week, additional cast members canceled on more of the remaining rehearsals, and in some cases – one of the performances.

Suddenly I was in a situation where I no longer had 5 performers for the first show, and only 5 for the second show.

My inclination was to cancel our appearance. My reasoning was that I felt canceling our appearance would do less damage to our groups’ reputation than showing up with too few performers and giving a poor performance.

My cast objected, and I was immediately implored to ask “Kate” to perform. I told the group it was inappropriate, as she hadn’t been to ANY rehearsal. How could I justify casting her without any rehearsals, when I had turned away others who couldn’t make rehearsals?

The general consensus was that if anyone asked, I should tell them that she had been at a rehearsal, and know one would need to know the truth.

I was surprised at how shocked I was at the suggestion. Yes, I would love to have Kate back in the cast. But what good are a person’s morals and principals if you are willing to break them because you don’t like the outcome?
I found the more I tried to explain this, the more the group thought I was crazy.

Am I?

The question I’m posting isn’t whether or not to let Kate do the show*; it’s about how readily people are willing to lie to friends and co-workers about such things.

Do I stand too firm on my moral high ground? Beyond what my parents taught me about honor and morals, it was drilled into me from day one at the academy that an officer’s integrity is everything. If you lose your integrity, you lose your value as an officer.

Are there so many people willing to compromise (or “re-interpret,” as one cast member said) their morals and integrity because standing by them would be difficult?

*(In the end, I decided to cast Kate so we could keep our commitment to the festival. If someone asks me about why I cast Kate instead of them, I’ll explain the situation as best I can. But I will not “pretend” she was at rehearsals.)

[mbhandy]

Streetcar,
You did say she had been in the production before so as far as rehearsals goes there is no need other than timing to mention anything about the replacement or fill in?

MrBill

[cessna152towser]

I'd say let Kate do the show. If anybody asks be frank and honest with them and just tell them she didn't need to attend the rehearsals because of her previous experience. You have to wonder though, if anybody does ask, what business is it of theirs to need to know whether one of the players has or has not attended rehearsals.

[demobud]

I think there are a lot of people to whom integrity is a malleable entity. Of all the things that turn me off, lying is one of the tops. I am in sales and the stories I hear about people being lied to just to make a sale makes me ill. I will not jeopardize my personal integrity for anything. It may not make me the "salesman of the year" but I can sleep at night. My $.02.

[Ozman1944]

As Kate was a 'veteran' from previous shows, I see no reason not to use her. "Neccesity knows no law".
No reason to lie about it. She HAD been in the show before, so rehearsal not as desperate in her case. Simply say-if anyone asks, the others dumped on you at the last minute and you had no other immediate options. (Plus I wouldn't cast the other three again, they're obviously unreliable!).

[BEEDEE]

I would suggest that the integrity of the people who dropped out is equally at question. My reponse to any questions would be that you had unexpected drop outs and faced with an option of canceling decided that having someone who had done the show before was a better decision, both for the cast and audience. The real problem here is the 'drop outs' not you.

Brian

[Panache]

Streetcar,

In theater there is one and only one abiding rule,


SHOW MUST GO ON!


To that end you do the best you can to provide the best show you can.


Cheers

Jamie

[Colin]

yeah, what Jamie said....

[mbhandy]

Streetcar,

In theater there is one and only one abiding rule,


SHOW MUST GO ON!


To that end you do the best you can to provide the best show you can.


Cheers

Jamie

Oh and by all means BREAK A LEG.

MrBill

[cavscout]

This is the problem with moral relativism. Morality and values are today determined based on any individuals point of view at that moment. While many decry the "Ends don't justify the means" in other people lives, it's perfectly OK in there's.

You did just fine and as the Director, it was your responsibility to make the call on how to best ensure the performance went on in the best way possible. It should not take a lie to justify that to anyone.