More Ethical? Not That Simple
by Miki SaxonLast Friday I wrote that ‘right’ and wrong’ were moving targets.
With the large number of companies that have been destroyed or severely damaged by behavior ranging from stupid through unethical to downright illegal there is a call for more ethics to be taught at ever level.
Everywhere you turn you hear people saying that we need more ethics, but ‘ethics’ have never been clear cut.
Actually, I think they’ve always been situational, fluid and simultaneously contradictory. Look at the definitions from dictionary.com
- (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
- the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
- moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
- (usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
All of the descriptions use words with no absolute concrete meaning; sticking to my usual example, murder has always been considered wrong, but the definition of murder, even today, keeps changing and often isn’t agreed upon even within the same society, e.g., the pro-choice/anti-abortion war.
Now look at the first four definitions for moral, the usual synonym,
- of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
- expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
- founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
- capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
Same thing, there are no absolute terms with which to define it.
Perhaps, then, ethics should be defined by current law, but that certainly hasn’t worked. It’s far too easy to adhere to the letter of the law and totally ignore the spirit of it. That keeps you out of jail, but certainly doesn’t make you ethical.
As a friend said the other day, “An ethical man knows it’s wrong to cheat on his wife; a moral man doesn’t.”
Further, there can be conflicts between personal ethics and law, where adhering to one violates the other. Should law prevail or personal ethics? Whichever you choose, it’s because you agree on a subjective level.
People say that those decisions should be made for “the greater good.” Again, by whose definitions? I’m sure that Hitler believed his actions in “purifying the races” were for the greater good—as he saw it—however I, and a large number of other people, don’t agree.
But even though this example seems so black and white, you’ll find people who still agree with Hitler’s reasoning and work to carry it forward.
In 2007 research from Harvard Business School showed the wide gap between what we think/say and what we actually do.
In that light “more ethics” becomes somewhat problematical.
What do you think the answer to being “more ethical” is?
Image credit: flickr
June 17th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Miki, You left out values and principles and how they enter this mix. This is a complex area of study and without some accepted societial principles and a system of accountablity no system of ethics will stand the test of time. As societies become more diverse and try to incorporate varying, conflicting societial principles and values, this dilemma will only get more confused, complex, and frustrating.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Hi HC, granted I didn’t use the terms, but I think they are implied; for instance, by the murder example.
Complex is an understatement, but your last sentence is a great summing up of the situation.
The question is how do we deal with the diversity in a shrinking world where the screw-ups of one society can so broadly affect the rest, as we are seeing so clearly today.
And not to argue, but I’m not as concerned with how things “stand the test of time,” since I don’t believe any values or principles will; they will continue to evolve and change—if they didn’t we would still have slavery in this country.