Golden Oldies: More Ethical? Not That Simple
by Miki SaxonIt’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
This post was written in 2009, but could just as well have been written yesterday based on currents events. There’s no question that whether it’s in business, politics, religion, or our personal relationships people in the US and the rest of the world are suffering from a major shortage of ethics.
However, what’s missing and what’s needed to correct the problems depends on your point of view. (And perhaps the image should be updated to read ’22nd Century’.)
Read other Golden Oldies here.
Last 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 cheat.”
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: Samuel Mann
