Ryan Millsap, Chairman & CEO of Atlanta-based Blackhall Studios, is one of today’s top entertainment executives! With a vision for Blackhall that’s ambitious, energizing and boundless, Millsap is blazing a trail through the heart of the South – and setting his sights on the future of entertainment. Listen and learn as Ryan Millsap journeys through the myriad industries, people and landscapes that traverse the complex and dynamic world of film production.
***
Ryan: I'm Ryan Millsap, host of the Blackhall Studios Podcast from Atlanta, Georgia. I'm an entrepreneur mostly by necessity, because I have massive authority issues, and also by constitution – as the entrepreneurial life is filled with things I love: freedom, adventure, creativity and imagination. When I began this leg of my journey into the entertainment industry, you may find it interesting to know that my background before this was all commercial real estate.
And then I built Blackhall Studios as a specialty real estate project for production giants like Disney, Sony, Warner Bros, and Universal to have a place to ply their skilled craft of production. I'm from Los Angeles, but I moved to Atlanta six years ago. I've done business all over the world, and I know few places with the dynamism of Atlanta. It's a world-class city with a huge economic future as a center of commerce for a global economy. On this podcast, we get local and global and talk to people who are inspirational, sensational, sometimes motivational, but at all times somehow tied to the ecosystem that is the culture and business of entertainment as it relates to Blackhall Studios.
Today on the podcast, I get to speak on one of my favorite topics: ethics. Yes, I'm into it -- and you might be too, especially after listening to this guest. Dr. Edward Queen is my special guest today. Hailing from the Center for Ethics at Emory University, Dr. Queen runs the D. Abbott Turner Program in Ethics and Servant Leadership and also serves as the university's coordinator for the Organizational and Corporate Ethics Program. Thank God for Dr. Queen!
Holding a law degree, alongside both a master's and a PhD in divinity, Edward Queen is a well-spoken expert on the human condition and the myriad existential threats we pose to ourselves. But what makes him even more interesting is his background in international peace building. Dr. Queen has some impressive credentials, and I had an excellent time picking his brain in this podcast. He did a little picking of mine too, which was unexpected, but really challenging and very enjoyable. Don't tune out, tune in. Your brain needs this conversation. Sit back, relax and think.
***
Ryan: Alright. Welcome to the Blackhall Podcast. This is Ryan Millsap -- glad to welcome our guest, Dr. Edward Queen, who directs the leadership programs at the Center for Ethics at Emory University. Dr. Queen, welcome.
Edward: Oh, my pleasure to be here. And please, call me Edward.
Ryan: Well, Edward, thank you. You know, a lot of our listeners are intellectually minded, but they all might not know what a center for ethics even does. Give us kind of a brief on why Emory would have a Center for Ethics, and the kind of things you might study there.
Edward: Interestingly, the Emory University Center for Ethics is one of the broadest-based, in terms of what we do of ethics centers in the US. Most ethics centers in the US, overwhelmingly, are biomedical or bio ethics centers, for a lot of reasons, because that's where the money is. Others are more focused on a particular area -- whether it's public policy, engineering, et cetera. The Center for Ethics at Emory is really broad. We have one of the world's preeminent neuroethics programs; as far as we know, the only formal arts and ethics program in the world -- as far as we can tell.
Again, given that it's Emory University, we have market strength in biomedical ethics and bioethics in general. And then, the programs I run are really focused on ethics and servant leadership; on really shaping and forming the next generation of community leaders. Those people who can be involved, no matter where their professional role may take them, but also to recognize that they have an obligation to build up their community. Whether it's a local community like Atlanta, or a region, country -- wherever their passions and skills take them. We're currently building out a major program in food ethics, and then also kind of ongoing work in organizational and corporate, with a developing program in ethics and artificial intelligence.
If you don't mind, Ryan, let me get back to your other question about the why. One of the things I really invite people to think about all the time is, really, when you say you want a good professional -- you want somebody to be a good doctor -- you're not solely interested in technical proficiency. I mean, if this physician's going to operate on you -- yes, you want the physician to be technically proficient, but you don't care how technically proficient she or he is going to be. If the surgeon decides at the last minute, “Hey, this guy's got five perfectly good organs. I can take them out and give them to five other people.”
Ryan: I definitely wouldn't like that in a surgeon.
Edward: Right? So when we talk about a good profession; when we talk about good anything; there's always this ethical component embedded in it. And what centers for ethics do is really help to infuse -- to incorporate -- that ethical component into our thinking; or into our acting, ideally, which is really the goal. It's not just knowing what the good is; it's doing the good. Really, to kind of embed that; infuse that into people's personal, professional and communal lives.
Ryan: You said it's not just about knowing the good, it's about doing the good. That made me think of Aristotle.
Edward: Right.
Ryan: Aristotle had a huge impact on my life, beginning when I was about 19 years old. And one of the things that I always loved about Aristotle is that he believed that the good of society fundamentally began with good human beings. When you think about what it means to be a good human being, how do you start to direct young people who come to you and say, “I want to be a good human being”? Where do I begin?
Edward: Well, I think you hit on the first component there. Somebody has to be willing to ask that question. And you're going to get students at different places. You're going to get some who aren't in a position yet where they've really asked the question in any real and meaningful way. You're going to get students who are kind of a step further -- and recognize that there is such a thing as a good human being and a good life -- and they're struggling to figure that out. And then you have those that that may be further on the way.
So, my first simple answer to your question is, a teacher has to be willing and able to make the time to find out where a student is on her or his trajectory. That's why teaching, I would argue, is really not just about imparting information -- though that's essential, and it's key. But teaching is also about formation. It's really about developing a person. So, the first step is, the student has to want to move towards becoming a good person; developing a life worth living, shall we say. And then you help them think about how they engage with others -- with the wider world -- in a way that gives them the tools to think about, “What is an appropriate action? What is an appropriate behavior in this situation?”
Part of it is developing certain practices. A practice of being able not to necessarily leap in, a practice of being willing to figure out what's going on -- and to think carefully about the fact that, “What I ought to do here is not always going to be, and quite often isn't, necessarily what's seemingly good for me.” That’s a challenge. It's a challenge for all of us. But it's particularly a challenge, I think, today, Ryan -- where we have an overwhelming cultural reality that can't see the value in a human being that hasn't been monetized. I think helping students to see that you can be valuable -- in fact, that you can be more valuable, maybe even most valuable, in ways that aren't monetizable.
Ryan: That makes me think of... Do you know much about Henri Nouwen?
Edward: Yeah. The theologian.
Ryan: The theologian, and all the writings that he did surrounding the work that he was involved with, with the mentally disabled. Obviously, there are few places as profound to explore about inherent worth than with those in our society that seemingly have no economic value.
Edward: Right.
Ryan: What I was actually thinking about was -- as you started to go down this road, thinking about ethics -- it made me think of kind of a fundamental question, which I think is at the core of all ethics. I'd be really fascinated to hear your take on this, especially since you have such a background in the study of theology. As Jean-Paul Sartre very famously said in ‘Being and Nothingness’: “If there is no God, then anything is permissible.”
How do you process that from a foundation of ethics? When you’re dealing cross-culturally, do you feel like, fundamentally, if you're dealing with people that don't believe in ultimate realities and personality, the center of the universe, that it makes it difficult to find ethical common ground?
Edward: It's a great question. And we could spend the next 35 hours on this. Let me kind of break my thinking about this down into several components, if you don't mind. Part of it gets back to what I said earlier -- about how a teacher really has to grasp where a student is.
I try and deal with this in several ways. First, I don't believe that anybody -- almost anybody -- doesn't think that there isn't some good. They may have grown up in a culture where of what I call ‘Mickey Mouse relativism.’ But no; even robbers get aggravated if you steal from them. So, whether you have a ‘big-T’ or ‘small-T’ conception of truth, or a ‘big-’ or ‘small-G’ conception of the good, you've got a conception of it.
One of the examples I use -- and I've been teaching since 1984, so 36 years -- when students start asking me this question, “Is there really such a thing?” I just stop and ask the question: “Was slavery bad before people agreed it was bad?” And, in 36 years, I've only had one student say no. I said, “Well, the minute you're willing to make this claim -- that some things are bad, regardless of what anybody thinks about it -- you've accepted the idea that there's some sort of absolute morality.
Now, what it means; how you apply it; all that may be a secondary set of questions. But the first question is: is there such a thing as the good? Whether it's a big-G or little-G in your mind is a different question than what it is. And part of the challenge of dealing with students is that, when you first start talking about this, they want to conflate the two. They think the mere fact that you say there's such a thing as ‘right and wrong’ automatically means that you know what it is. And I say, “No, they're different questions, right?” So, you've got that kind of ‘meta’ type of conversation. And I think you can draw from their experience. I mean, when I talk to them -- and people start talking about cultural relativism. Again, similar to the slavery question -- I say, “Well, then, basically, the civil rights movement was wrong, then, in your mind -- because, you know, segregation and white supremacy was the culture in the South. So, they changed it.”
Well, when you confront them with something hard like that, it brings their thinking up short. They have to recognize that. “Well, no, I can't be -- and forgive the phrase -- an ‘absolute cultural relativist,’ because I don't believe in it.” So, now, we've got a start of a conversation. And then there's kind of a third level.
Again, they can be different. You apply them differently to different people. But, look -- we all accept the fact that there have to be rules for us to live well together in society, right? So, even at the most basic level, if you believe there are no absolutes -- if you believe there's no foundation for absolutes -- you still have to recognize the fact that we need rules to live together. You don't want to have to step out of your door every morning and pick up the newspaper -- assuming that anybody other than me does that -- and worry about getting bashed in the head every minute of every day. So, again, you can take a combination of arguments and get people to start thinking into these things in different ways.
Ryan: So, then, you might separate the practical from the theoretical -- the people that are moved by the idea of the good, and the people that are moved by the idea of a practical social contract; the way Rousseau wants to explore.
Edward: Yeah.
Ryan: Right?
Edward: I mean, the goal for me is to move them to at least at a bare minimum, though most of them are beyond that: entertaining the idea that there is such a thing as the good. But I can take it if people are just going to act correctly, no matter why they do it -- you know?
Ryan: I agree with that. And I think Aristotle would, too. I mean, he certainly would rather have a society of people who know how to act well -- orthopraxy -- than people that know how to think well, or have beliefs, but don't know how to apply them. And so, we have the Orthodox that then fail in their action, and the Orthoprax -- if there’s such a word, right?
Edward: Right. There is.
Ryan: And, all day long, you'd trade a society of people who act well over a society of people who only think well, I think that just... I'm a very practical philosopher. So, for me, anything that doesn't actually apply to my ability to choose and live well as a human being, I have very little time for.
Edward: Right. I mean, it's maybe fascinating and maybe interesting, but on some levels, it's not productive. But I think -- kind of an add on to that; a friendly amendment, if you will -- the goal is to bring them together. You want people to know the good in certain ways and practice it. But you always have to ask yourself the question. And I think this has an Aristotelian component to it as well. What happens when a good person is placed in a bad environment?
So, it's one thing to have internalized the practices. And you may be able and willing to continue those in a bad environment. But it's going to be harder to do that if you haven't also internalized the philosophical, theological, intellectual underpinnings of why you ought to do the good. I'll give you kind of a weird example. And it's a very recent one: hoarding of toilet paper.
Ryan: Haha! I love ethics professors. This is fantastic.
Edward: I mean, the shortage of toilet paper wasn't created because there wasn't enough toilet paper. It was created by the fact that people were afraid they wouldn't have toilet paper. Right? Now, if I recognize, intellectually and mentally, that this is a false shortage -- and I know that by me going into Costco and buying two cases of toilet paper, I'm going to exacerbate the shortage -- my inclination may be to not do that. I may feel I have a duty, an obligation, not to enhance or exacerbate the problem. On the other hand, I'm going to damage myself by not buying toilet paper, because everybody else is going out and buying toilet paper.
So, if I haven't deeply internalized the kind of understanding that I'm going to have to fight against, it’s a purely rational decision. I mean, if I'm a rational maximizer, in traditional economic theory, it's in my interest to buy toilet paper -- even though doing so damages the greater good. Right? So, what happens if people are accustomed to a practice when the practice fundamentally harms you? (In a kind of minimal way.) I think that's it. I mean, you've got to have that kind of ability to make the articulations in these complicated situations.
Ryan: So, I have this working theory about the human soul and the body and how they integrate. And the theory goes like this. I believe that the compass of the human soul -- and I use soul in a very Aristotelian, integrated with the body, kind of way -- that the human ‘soul-body’ does its best ‘compass-thinking’ from the neck down. That the chest and the gut and the loins are actually the best ethical compass, and that the mind is really just a tool to get you to the destinations that are determined by the compass. How do you respond to that? What do you think about that working theory?
Edward: I have to reflect, and I'm going to respond acknowledging that... Well, actually, I'm going to ask you to unpack that a little bit. You say that the body is more the response mechanism, or at least maybe even -- if I understood you correctly -- the driving mechanism. What are you trying to convey? What’s your fundamental point with that position?
Ryan: Well, fundamentally, I believe that the mind is an incredible tool; a powerful tool; a logic machine, in many ways. But that, fundamentally, the mind -- apart from the emotions, and apart from the information that is gathered from the feelings that we have in our body -- the mind fundamentally doesn't have enough information to make good decisions.
Now, I believe that, in our modern society, we've gotten so far away from a deep connectedness to feelings -- the feelings that arise in our chest or our gut or our loins that are real, and how to interpret those -- that we make hugely misguided decisions, such as maximization of personal economic impact, and believe that we are, quote, “acting rationally.” If we believed, fundamentally, that the rational good could only be found if we had the information that was trying to be funneled to us by the neck-down portion of our bodies, then we might fundamentally act in different ways, right? We might be much more connected to the Earth, and take that into account, economically, in ways more profoundly than we do today.
So, it's not a theory that is easy to prove. It's a working theory that I have in trying to figure out how to live best as a human being; how to find fullness of life; how to find Aristotle's true happiness, and what that path entails. So a lot of my, let's say, spiritual exercise, is really fundamentally focused on getting in tune with the messages that my soul-body -- this fundamental me -- is trying to tell me. Because I believe that my self is connected deeply into the fabric of the universe; such that, if I pay attention, the answers are there. Does that give you some unpacking?
Edward: That's perfect. It's interesting, because I'm going to make a statement, and then I'm going to complicate it a little bit -- because my thinking on that, on the points you just made, would have actually gone in just the opposite direction. Again, this, this may be somewhat more platonic or Socratic, but I think it's also Aristotle. Because I tend to think, or be convinced, that it's really our passions and our ego that drive us to making decisions that are incompatible -- often, or at least many times, incompatible with the greater good.
For me, it’s the mind that can -- to use Plato's and Socrates’ metaphor -- restrain the horses of passion and ego. But, that said -- if I hear you and understand you correctly -- what you're articulating is that there's a much more complex and integrative vision, or reality, to human existence than just the rational economic maximizer.
I mean, this kind of rational economic being is made-up. It's like the famous joke about the philosopher and the economist who get stranded on a deserted island, and they discover that a huge crate of canned goods has landed there. “At least we have food... how are we going to open the cans?” The philosopher says, “Well, why don't we take a rock and sharpen it, and we can bust the cans open with that?” And the economist says, “Why? Why don't we just assume we have a can opener?”
This kind of assumption -- that we’re rational human beings -- is bogus. I mean, we have passions, we have emotions, we have feelings. And it's not only about what's good for me. I think it’s that kind of integrative understanding -- that there's something more out there. How do we grasp, or grapple, or incorporate that more into our thinking? That’s really what you're articulating. Now, whatever metaphors any of us choose to articulate that; that’s secondary. But, regardless of how either one of us would articulate that understanding, I definitely agree with, with the place. We both would be going with it.
Ryan: I mean, fundamentally, we're trying to get to, “What does it mean for me, as a human being, to be the most human?” And then, “What does it mean for us, as a society, to be the most human?” On that idea -- we're in this really bizarre time, right? The age of Corona. Let's imagine that we had a president who might consult the Center for Ethics. And let's say that that president came to the Center of Ethics at Emory University. Emory University said, “Well, we think you should talk to Dr. Queen about this.” I say to you, “Alright, Edward. You’ve got to prepare a message for the American people about how to ethically deal with the age of Corona.” What do you tell them?
Edward: Well, the first thing I would tell them is, “Really, you ought to talk to my colleagues.” The people who have actually been working on this with Emory Healthcare, and hospitals across the country and in other places.
Ryan: I'm going to ask my producers to write those names down, because I want to talk to them, too. It'd be a fun forum conversation. A roundtable.
Edward: Well, they would be incredible. You know, my first response is going to be what I tell people in positions of authority across the board. And the first thing is, “Get your ego out of the way.” This isn't about you. It's about, “What are your duties and obligations as someone who's responsible -- at least, as the president -- for the well-being and good of the country?”
Two: in that position -- again, I hate to pull things from the news -- but you have a duty to convince the people that, by acting together in constructive and productive ways, we can meet the challenges presented by this virus. To do that, we're going to take the best knowledge and information and science there is -- recognizing that what we know is constantly in flux right now; that it's a novel situation -- and we're going to have to make adjustments based on new information as it comes in.
That said, we know that there's certain things that need to be done. We need to produce test kits. We need to produce test kits that work. We need to get the test kits to places that need it. And again, this gets back to something I think I said earlier: that when you make ethical decisions, facts matter. Right? You have to address the facts of the situation. Where are the places where the goods, respirators, whatever are needed? You have to get them there. You have to call forth -- as someone who's kind of a symbolic communicator -- this kind of recognition that that we all have a duty to serve other people; to serve the good of the country. Whether it means wearing masks; whether it means sheltering in place; whatever it means.
Again, if you want to use symbols -- in this situation, at this time, this is what it means to be a good American. Because you have a duty to your sister and fellow citizens. We're all one. Now, that's much less theoretical than, perhaps, you were asking.
Ryan: Exactly. That's exactly what I was going for -- which is, what are the theories? The ideas. And, I mean, obviously, I think there's a whole bunch of praxis that can be explored. Right? But, fundamentally, what you're expressing are the beautiful messages that I think are not being well disseminated in America right now, at a time when the social good requires coordination of individual will.
Edward: You're absolutely right.
Ryan: It's not an American strength, right? I mean, it's an American strength in war. But maybe this has been the first test of the American ability to pull together for their own good, in a way that's not just economic or about their freedom. Because Americans obviously will pull together and fight tooth and nail and die with guns in their cold, dead hands over freedom.
But this is our first -- maybe. I've been trying to figure out when else we’ve faced this, other than, maybe, the Great Depression. But even that was economically driven, so people could pull together and say, “We need to help each other.” This is, maybe, our first true test of a non-economic nature. It feels like, right now, the American collective consciousness isn't prepared or well-wired or well-trained for a crisis such as this. Do you think that's a good read?
Edward: To some extent. I mean, Robert Bellah and several colleagues I had, probably about 30 years ago or so, wrote a book called ‘Habits of the Heart.’ And, in the book, one of the things they say is, “Look. Historically, Americans have had, basically, four more languages.
One is a kind of biblical language. And it’s been a while, so I hope I can reconstruct all four of them here. One is what they call a kind of ‘civic republicanism.’ The third is a kind of... it's not their language, but a kind of ‘economic individualism.’ And the fourth is kind of an ‘expressive individualism.’ You know: “I've got to be me.”
These languages have always interpenetrated. And I think they're there -- they still exist. But, even 30 years ago, they were saying that they were concerned, because really, the language of expressive individualism had become the overwhelming moral language. “I do things, and it's fed by consumerism.” I mean, “My identity is based upon what I buy, what kind of car I drive, what clothes I wear.”
Ryan: It's the church of Kanye West.
Edward: I don't do popular culture, so I'll have to take your word for it.
Ryan: I mean, Kanye is a really interesting ethical, moral evolution. I think that's a study in and of himself. And I think that’s probably what he wants to be. He might be one of the key examples of American ethos. But that's for a different discussion, and we would have to loop in somebody who’s a pop culture professor.
Edward: Yeah. But I do think the language -- the biblical language, but also a more shared language of civic republicanism -- is there. And I think you see it very actively in practice -- in people's communities, and in people who reach out. I don't think it's gone. The challenge, for me, is that we currently lack individuals who are visible, who are capable, and willing to call on that language. To pluck the kind of patriotic heartstrings that I think are there. I mean, the guitar is there; someone just has to play that guitar.
Ryan: I like that; that's a wonderful analogy. However, if the guitar is there, then any song can be played. It's just a question of whether or not we have anyone with the skill. And that's good stuff. Tell me; we're running out of time, unfortunately. I'd love to do this again, if you're ever up for it, because I think we could talk about 100 different things for hours and hours and hours. But if I were to give you the ability to change one habit for everybody in American society -- I mean, this is on the spot. But what habit would you give Americans -- every American -- that they don't have today?
Edward: Probably one that I'm not as strong at as I wish that I were -- but fortunately, I've had a situation, a reality, where I've had to learn it. I think I'd give everybody patience.
Ryan: And what do you mean by patience? What does patience look like to an ethicist?
Edward: I think patience involves a willingness to recognize first that we don't know everything. That not every problem is amenable to an immediate solution. Not every desire ought to be immediately gratified. Not every perceived slight ought to be responded to with a vicious tweet, or whatever people do. That, perhaps, sometimes we need to just step back -- and recognize that it's not about the immediacy. It's not about quarterly reporting. It's not about getting it now. It's about what ought to be done, and what ought to be accomplished in the mid-term. Because, as Keynes said, “In the long term, we're all dead.”
Ryan: That's right.
Edward: The near term, we don't know yet. But this issue of time -- and, I think, temporality; and the absence of a kind of mid-term temporal thinking -- has helped create the problems we're experiencing here during this time. People aren’t willing to stockpile, at least, medical equipment. People aren't willing to recognize that the supply chain may be interrupted. And so we're not going to have just-in-time delivery. Recognizing that the immediate doesn't address a lot of contingencies that we don't have, or we aren't thinking about. And that planning and patience and waiting may serve us well.
Ryan: Edward, you have a powerful mind and a reflective soul. And I appreciate you sharing both with us today.
Edward: Oh, it's my pleasure. And thank you so much for giving me the opportunity. You're an incredible interlocutor. And it's been an incredibly gratifying experience.
Ryan: If someone wanted to find you, could they hunt you down on the interwebs? Do you have any social media, or is it all just ‘Find the Emory Center for Ethics?’
Edward: Emory Center for Ethics -- and feel free to email me.
Ryan: What's your email?
Edward: equeen@emory.edu.
Ryan: Edward, thank you for joining us today on the Blackhall Podcast. What a pleasure.
Edward: My pleasure. Ryan. Take care.
Ryan: Thank you. Bye-bye.
***
Ryan: I'll leave you guys with thoughts that I write on Instagram. Seek goodness and live in truth. Write your wrongs. Surround yourself with people doing the same. Now you are rich indeed.
***
Thanks for listening to the Blackhall Studios Podcast with Ryan Millsap. We want to hear from you! Find us on SoundCloud, iTunes or Spotify, and follow us on Instagram at @Ryan.Millsap.
