An abdication of leadership?
by Miki Saxon
I have a question for you.
Jean Murray, who writes Small Business Boomers, sent me a link to this story.
“The city of Alexandria, Virginia has hired a professional ethicist to help decide how budget cuts should be made.
The Washington Post reports the ethicists has helped with decisions that include turning apartments built for the mentally ill to temporary housing for the disabled.
Hiring ethicists is not unusual for public hospitals, but seldom has been a practice for local officials who are grappling with difficult budget choices.
When difficult choices have to be made, many see using an ethicist as a moral compass in an effort to do the least harm.”
A friend of Jean’s said, “It sounds to me like a failure in leadership. These people were elected by the citizens of Alexandria to make the tough decisions, and they want someone else to get them off the hook.”
Do you agree? Should the politicians have made the decision or was it a wiser choice to get input from someone who makes a living being ethical?
Please cast your vote in comments, whether you choose add something else or not.
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Image credit: flickr
January 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am
When deep cuts are necessary, I think it makes more sense to ask someone else to analyze and recommend them, as illogical as it might seem.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Hi Jude, I agree that it makes sense. Perhaps a more neutral view with less of an ax to grind.
Thanks for adding to the conversation!
January 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
I believe that it’s a cop-out. According to the dictionary (paraphrased) an ethicist is someone who studies morality and moral decisions. Don’t you think these people ought to know what its moral already? If they are trying to save money I know the first thing they should cut.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Hi Jeff, most morality these days is deeply rooted in a specific ideology and can rarely see, let alone consider, anything different. Perhaps this was an effort to see past conflicting ideologies.
Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts!
January 13th, 2009 at 12:02 am
This is a tough call. It sounds like a failure of leadership, but it may be necessary to look at the pattern of responses to previous crises before concluding that. There is nothing wrong with getting independent “expert” advice – whether from individuals or “blue ribbon” panels – as long as you evaluate it, make the thinking your own, and then take ownership of and responsibility for the resulting decisions, rather than pointing to the expert opinion.
The problem I have with this scenario is the introduction of the “professional ethicist.” Is there really such a thing? Can such a person apply ethical considerations to any specific or all circumstances? It sounds to me like both sides are willingly kidding each other, to permit them emotional and intellectual cover for kidding us.
Great post – thanks!
January 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Hi Jim, I have to say that I agree with both your points. I let the issue of “professional ethicist” slide while focusing on the pros and cons of a political group accessing an outside opinion.
One would have thought that the only professional ethicists out there were the old-fashioned ones, i.e., the myriad of religious ‘leaders’ who seem to have no hesitancy of announcing the correct moral ground and/or ethical behavior for whatever subject is at hand.
But this is the 21st Century, an era of targeted marketing and specialized product nitches, so it seems reasonable that professional ethicists would arise to provide for those who indeed need to prove to the outside world that they are ethically enhanced and not ethically ignorant or challenged.
Which is my way of agreeing with your final sentence.