FEA ConstitutionManual of Professional Practice, Part IManual of Professional Practice, Part IIResolving Ethical DilemmasExample ExaminationMini Case StudiesBiblical ReferencesCommon Sense and Everyday Ethics, Part IICommon Sense and Everyday Ethics "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right." So said Thomas Paine, writing over 200 years ago in 1776, about the apathetic acceptance by many of his countrymen of the numerous abridgments of freedoms inflicted on the Americans by King George. Today the insidious tyrant that threatens to destroy our freedoms is called corruption.
Corruption is in the headlines daily - stories and scenes of sleazy ethics, bribery, kickbacks, arson, vandalism, burglaries, shoplifting, and countless forms of dishonesty and violence. News editors have learned to anticipate the space or time needed to reveal the latest in corruption. If it isn't one charge, then it's another; under every stone, there is not just one worm, but an infestation.
What is worse, as Thomas Paine recognized, is that we tolerate it! We have come to accept the fact that, if given a chance, all too many Americans will cheat, whether they are high school students, film executives, or often tempted purchasing managers. We accept the necessity of triple-locked doors and the risk of being hit on the head if we walk the city streets. We accept lies from the repairman and the chairman of the board, all as a matter of course, as an institutionalized habit of the times. We accept lies from the government. And the corruption of politicians is so pervasive it has ceased to be a comedian's joke. Thus, we condone it all. "That's politics," we cavalierly say.
Why do we tolerate all these destructive acts? First, many of us are personally involved and are profiting by dishonesty and corruption. Second, many of us are weak or apathetic. We're afraid to take courageous, positive steps to stop these raging rip-offs. Third, too many of us have no values other than money. It is understandable that a person will fight for food and shoes, but there are those worth many millions of dollars who will decry and belittle efforts being made to stem this tide of corruption, while they relax on their Florida yachts or play golf in Palm Springs. There's nothing unethical about yachting or golfing, but it does seem amoral to enjoy the benefits of an incentive system if you have done nothing to protect and maintain it.
Fourth, a large number of us seem content in the belief that as long as we observe reasonable ethical standards, we do not need to feel responsible for the conduct of others. We do not see that reducing dishonesty and corruption has anything to do with the preservation of economic and political freedom. Perhaps we do not place much value on freedom anymore. As Vermont Royster observed, "It is not so much that people are consciously immoral; rather they are unconsciously amoral."
Finally, there are those of us who simply do not believe corruption is all that bad. We have lived with it so long, it's beginning to look all right. How sad. How dangerous for the future of our nation.
We have come to accept the fact that, if given a chance, all too many Americans will cheat, whether they are high school students, film executives, or purchasing managers.
Yet in our gut many of us sense that these comparatively mild symptoms of corruption are but the first blush of a deeper, more dangerous fever. This fever is spreading. We sense that we can't wish it away. If allowed to progress unattended, corruption will leave America wracked with violent crime, senseless demonstrations against the system, and a lust for wealth and power such as we have never seen. Such a disruptive epidemic will leave our once-cherished principles and finer instincts as its first casualties. Without a strong foundation of ethics, laws cannot be effective. So much major crime happens as a result of our condoning and implicitly accepting most minor dishonesty.
Here we are amidst the greatest material abundance ever known to man, yet we are tense, "alienated" as the human relations counselors might say. We're plagued by widespread dishonesty. One study recently reported that when prospective employees for some 700 corporations were tested, 42 percent proved dishonest - more than two out of five! We are aggravated by an incomprehensible inflation that is inherently dishonest and unequal in its burden. We are disillusioned by government, distrustful of business, sick of hypocrisy. Without honesty, freedom is unsafe. Without freedom, it is unsafe to be honest. Ask Solzhenitsyn! Ask Sakharov! Are we sure we know the consequences of this time in America? Do enough of us really care? Are too many waiting for the other fellow to do something? Let's not be lazy, selfish, thoughtless of the future. We have enjoyed freedom. Why not save some freedom for our children? Why not save some for women, blacks, Hispanics and other groups who are just beginning to get their fair chance at the opportunities nurtured by economic freedom? No amount of logic and cynical rationalization can justify the irrationality of our not trying.
I am not a terminal pessimist. I am not trying to provoke, but to awaken. Most of us have never known the lack of freedom. We do not seem to understand that the freedom of the strong is usually lost from within, not from without. Ethics is the lifeblood of a free society and it can tolerate only so much adulteration.
What is ethics?
Philosophers have been approaching this question for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Many arcane and elaborate linguistic arguments have been made. Philosophers seem to enjoy these involutionary intellectual exercises, but their seminars on ethics do not have much direct relationship to what we hear about ethics on TV news programs, or see in the newspaper headlines.
The news editors obviously feel that the public already knows what ethics means. To see if they were right, the Ethics Resource Center conducted a survey. In a series of shopping centers in different types of neighborhoods, we individually interviewed young and old, rich and poor, the more-or-less educated and the more-or-less uneducated, from a variety of ethnic and minority groups. The results showed that the news editors were either intuitively right in the first place, or, by reason of the publicity that they themselves created about ethics, they became right. The public understands very well what ethics means. More than 86 percent of all people interviewed associated ethics with standards and rules of conduct morals, right and wrong, values, and honesty. People immediately understand that although ethics may appear in the headlines, the story told is about the lack of ethics - the doing of wrong as opposed to right.
Perhaps Dr. Albert Schweitzer's definition of ethics will satisfy both the philosopher and the practitioner. "In a general sense," Dr. Schweitzer said, "ethics is the name we give to our concern for good behavior. We feel an obligation to consider not only our own personal well-being, but also that of others and of human society as a whole."
Ethics is our way of being human. If early man had not
identified his own welfare with that of others, he
could not have survived and developed.
Ethical behavior recognizes and rests within a shared interest. On a practical level this shared interest effects an ordering of society's economic means by which the individual can pursue his own ends. It is the recognition and personal acceptance of this basic order that we call ethical behavior. Behavior becomes unethical when it favors a special interest out of proportion to and without consideration for the interests of society as a whole.
The foregoing statements on ethics are rather simple. We think of them as being elemental and basic. Thousands of books have been published on the subject of ethics. Scholars have spent long lifetimes studying ethics or just certain aspects of ethics. Our interest is not in the theories of ethics, which are endless, but in the everyday applications of ethics, which are urgent. With these brief definitions laid down, we can now ask, why be ethical?
Why be ethical?
Asking why we should be ethical is somewhat like asking why we are human beings and whether or not there is really any purpose in being human. In fact, you might say ethics is our way of being human. Had it not always been so, we would not now be here on earth. If early man had not identified his own welfare with that of others, he could not have survived and developed. Anthropologists have pointed out that in the evolution of a gathering-and-hunting economy, cooperation was essential. One of the basic tenets of ethics is the principle of cooperation and sharing.
The Golden Rule is a fundamental moral imperative and is common to most religions. It derives from the principle of balanced reciprocity. It is the practice of the Golden Rule that gives it ethical content. As stated by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, in their book People of the Lake, "The description of creatures in which reciprocal altruism is likely to evolve through natural selection fits very closely the picture we have of our early ancestors." Considering our current culture, it's possible that one could associate the term "altruism" with "welfarism." Our quoted reference, however, is to "reciprocal altruism" and our emphasis is on "balanced reciprocity." Altruism is a highly commendable trait, but reciprocal altruism is more productive, more developmental. Reciprocity, therefore, should be an integral part of any welfare program.
Ethical behavior is a beneficial and natural mode of behavior for the individual as well as for society. Ethics has its roots in sociology, perhaps in biology, and is related to ecology in the sense of using what you have the best way - to get the most out of your life as a human. When everyone accepts the ethical forms of a society, it serves to stabilize society. Here we see that interdependence is the soul of independence. Then the individual becomes free to pursue his own goals and develop to his full human potential. Isolationism, bearing away from the general, shared interest into the special "me-for-me" interest, is destructive of the human potential. It has been said that the only thing one can do best by oneself is to fail. This is the prime reason why individuals and social systems should be ethical. Mankind is a community based on ethical assumptions.
Paul H. Nitze, in his 1960 essay "The Recovery of Ethics," wrote: "I find that it is hard for many of my students to grasp the interrelations between the various elements of the political system.... They do not easily understand that the individual person and the political order in which he lives are interconnected as are space and time; that it is hardly possible to speak of one without implying the other." Robert Cooley Angell, regarded as one of the great social scientists, observed in his book Free Society and Moral Crisis: "Every group that is to any degree self-governing has something in the nature of a moral order. People cannot work together without overt or tacit standards of conduct corresponding to their common values." Further along, Professor Angell said: "Perhaps the only generalization that can be made with certainty about all sets of societal common values is that they cannot be inconsistent with loyalty to the society itself. This is true almost by definition: a society is something that must have coherence."
If we wish to maintain and defend the freedom of this country, we must not neglect our heritage of ethical principles, the sense of coherence and the unity of spirit that are so essential to the will and strength of any free society. When politicians concentrate solely or even primarily on getting elected or reelected, and when business and professional interests concentrate solely or primarily on expedient, short-term financial advantages, other nations are quick to note our lack of firm convictions and our easy readiness to compromise.
The strength of America must be reflected in our ideas and ideals, not just in our weaponry. No soldier can be expected to confront death when the reasons for his sacrifice are not even recognized by the citizens for whom he fights.
The strength and solidarity of America must be reflected in our ideas and our ideals, not just in our weaponry. Weapons need to be supported by will and purpose to be most effective. No soldier can be expected to confront death when the reasons for his sacrifice are not even recognized, much less appreciated, by the citizens for whom he fights and dies. I emphasize these points in this context because one of the greatest reasons for being ethical is to be able, to be competent, to serve your community and mankind. Ethics is universal, not just American, not just Western. And nations, as well as individuals, must learn to be concerned with the welfare of others. It is the duty of the ethical society as well as the ethical individual to be efficient and strong.
As you weigh these arguments for being ethical, consider one more fact. Most Americans are still honest and ethical. Hundreds of millions of business transactions are made daily, strictly on the basis of honesty and ethical responsibility. In spite of the destructive fact that many of our citizens are dishonest and untrustworthy, they are still in the minority. So the question to you is: Do you wish to be part of the minority of people in this country whose dishonesty and irresponsibility are destroying our society, our government, our freedom - destroying your own present opportunities and the whole future chance of your children to live in freedom? If you do not, then do not tolerate these aggressive ripoffs - actions for which we all pay, in higher prices, fear, and lack of freedom.
How does one decide what's ethical?
Who knows what is right or wrong? We all do most of the time, and nobody does all the time. If most people in America didn't already agree on most things that are right and wrong, we wouldn't be able to maintain order.
Most people do not have much difficulty in telling what's absolutely right from what's absolutely wrong. Think about your own life. It may surprise you how few times you really have had a problem in knowing which decision you should make. Sure, some people are tempted to shove an ethically difficult question out into the gray areas, even when the areas are not so gray. And certainly we must all take into consideration the many new cultural, economic, and political changes. But our task is to make tested, traditional values applicable to these new situations.
How does one decide what is ethical? Generally, people really don't want to get into any long discussion about what is honest, what is ethical and what is not ethical. No one is perfect, they say, and they know they are not. They feel uncomfortable in trying to state what is right or wrong. They say everyone is entitled to his own opinion. And, again, they come back with the old standard clincher: "It depends on the situation anyway."
We have heard much about the "special situations" that allow for any kind of conduct. For example, one "situational" ethicist pictured for me a pioneer woman, alone in a distant cabin with nine children, one a crying baby in her arms. She heard the yells of "wild" Indians as they came toward the cabin. She took the children up to a hidden attic. Just as the Indians approached to enter the cabin, the baby cried. She smothered the baby and saved herself and the eight children. Thus, the "situational" philosopher asserted, the situation often justifies the action - in this case, murder. I replied that the situation he described was rather unusual. I pointed out that there could be an exception even to exceptional situations. Those Indians might have been "good" Indians, whose land and neighbors had not yet been ravaged. In such case the baby's murder would have been needless. A person should not use a one-in-a-million situation to justify releasing himself from the 999,999 normative obligations.
However, there can often be special circumstances, such as in the practice of medicine. In such cases one needs a highly developed sense of values in order to readily make a series of ethical decisions that will add up to establishing a strong conviction as to what action is right or wrong. In an effort to adjust to whatever is your business or profession, you should guard against the stream of entreaties to compromise on principles as well as on methods. Once compromise becomes too handy a tool for easy adjustment to demands, you lose your backbone of convictions that enables you to do the right thing
Some people are tempted to shove an ethically difficult question out into the gray areas, even when the areas aren't so gray.
almost spontaneously, that is, to make ethical decisions from a habit of being ethical. We have devoted too much time in our schools to the logic that would enable us to rationalize away our ethical, our human, responsibilities. Some scholars trust the wrong authorities, such as their colleagues' opinions, instead of their own common sense, their own intuitions, and the collective wisdom and experience of humanity. These scholars keep asking "What is ethics?" and "What are ethical judgments and actions?" and so on, simply because other scholars have asked these questions from time immemorial. Socrates' questions about virtue and "the good" were in an important sense rhetorical. His concern was to teach people what they already knew by virtue of their being human. Some modern philosophers have turned a few, albeit significant, questions into a profession. They are the Sophists, the sellers of wisdom, whom Socrates condemned. It is often so much easier to logically explain our actions than to humanely justify them.
FEA ConstitutionManual of Professional Practice, Part IManual of Professional Practice, Part IIResolving Ethical DilemmasExample ExaminationMini Case StudiesBiblical ReferencesCommon Sense and Everyday Ethics, Part II
Home
FEA Membership Application