Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Before the bubble burst in 2008 I was writing a blog called Leadership Turn for b5 Media. The comments left led to a four post series. The Siemens bribery scandal brought me back to the subject in 2008 and I returned to the subject in 2009. It’s fluidity and changing definitions have always fascinated me (you can find more recent posts by using “ethics” as your search term).

Unlike those who see ethics as black and white, I’ve always seen them as shifting and changing with society. My favorite example of that change is murder. Every society condemns murder, but labeling a killing as such depends who died — no slave was ever murdered by their owner.

Finally, it’s good to keep in mind that legal doesn’t mean ethical and ethical isn’t synonymous with moral.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Ethics and Corporate Leadership  August 27th, 2007

Are Ethical Values Set or Fluid?  August 29th, 2007

So You Think You’re Ethical…  September 11th, 2007

The Quandary of Ethics  September 14th, 2007

Legal Isn’t Always Ethical  May 29th, 2008

The Changing Face Of Right And Wrong  April 3rd, 2009

More Ethical? Not That Simple  April 10th, 2009

Image credit: BK

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

A year after I wrote this Alphabet was created as the holding company for Google and its siblings and “Don’t be evil” was scrapped in favor for “Do the right thing.” Supposedly nothing changed, but it did open the door to a wider definition. In the years since, doing the right thing for stockholders seemed focused on maximizing their returns in every way possible. This included mining personal data, with or without permission, and selling it to advertisers.

Until now, money seems to have acted much like Holy water, eliminating the taint of evil from the acts of Google and its ilk. Europe has been fighting, passing laws and working to hold these companies responsible. Now, Americans are waking up to just how much damage Google, Facebook, etc., have done/are doing and saying ‘enough is enough’.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Did you know that the sixth point of Google’s 10-point corporate philosophy is “You can make money without doing evil?”

But ‘evil’ is a fluid term when it comes to making money.

And if Google is into anything it is into making money.

Take Google Plus. Google isn’t trying to displace Facebook and doesn’t even care if you use it.

That’s not really the point.

Google Plus may not be much of a competitor to Facebook as a social network, but it is central to Google’s future — a lens that allows the company to peer more broadly into people’s digital life, and to gather an ever-richer trove of the personal information that advertisers covet.

Plus is now so important to Google that the company requires people to sign up to use some Google services, like commenting on YouTube.

Some people have no problem being tracked and their personal information being shared to the enrichment of the sharing parties.

To millions of others, stalking in the name of better ad targeting smacks of evil.

Of course, when world domination is your long-term goal you need to keep those definitions fluid.

Did you know that the sixth point of Google’s 10-point corporate philosophy is “You can make money without doing evil?”

But ‘evil’ is a fluid term when it comes to making money.

And if Google is into anything it is into making money.

Take Google Plus. Google isn’t trying to displace Facebook and doesn’t even care if you use it.

That’s not really the point.

Google Plus may not be much of a competitor to Facebook as a social network, but it is central to Google’s future — a lens that allows the company to peer more broadly into people’s digital life, and to gather an ever-richer trove of the personal information that advertisers covet.

Plus is now so important to Google that the company requires people to sign up to use some Google services, like commenting on YouTube.

Some people have no problem being tracked and their personal information being shared to the enrichment of the sharing parties.

To millions of others, stalking in the name of better ad targeting smacks of evil.

Of course, when world domination is your long-term goal you need to keep those definitions fluid.

Source: Business-Management-Degree.net

In a Halloween discussion With KG Charles-Harris (you should read it if you haven’t already) we talked about the possibilities of robots becoming self-willed. I said that might be an improvement over humans, but KG had a different take and it’s been stuck in my mind.

“True, but unfortunately children often absorb some of the worst traits of their parents…”

What bothers me is I don’t think that it’s true anymore for several reasons.

• Children absorb traits and values from their parents/family, but they are just as likely to absorb them from the media and even more likely these days to draw them from their peers.
• Kids may parrot their parents when young, but tend to move in their own direction more and more as they age and grow.

Although I know what KG means when he says “worst,” it is still a word with fluid meaning that is often dependent on one’s own values and beliefs.

This fluidity is particularly noticeable when looking at highly charged subjects, such as politics or religion, where one person’s theme is another’s anathema.

I’m also don’t really agree with Chris’ comment that the worst human trait is greed; another word whose meaning is not always what as expected.

Perhaps I’m too much of an optimist, but if (when?) robots do gain sentience I don’t see them moving in lockstep or necessarily following in our footsteps.

That hasn’t happened even with human generations, e.g., I doubt the Silent Generation saw their values reflected in the Boomers.

Actually, I think sentience, i.e, self-awareness, is a guarantee that there will be no more uniformity in a race of robots than there is in the human race.

Flickr image credit: jepoirrier

Last week Kristen King asked Should Religion Be Part of Your Brand? She said “I wish companies would keep their religious views to themselves…[it’s] unprofessional and it makes me angry.”

It makes me more than angry.

Kristen used Covenant Transport and a design element on their truck that says “It Is Not A Choice It Is A Child” as her example (read her post, I’m not going to repeat it all here).

One of the comments said, “To try to dictate that I should not stand up for the rights of human beings is tyrannical… Would you want to work with a practicing Murder?”

But as Kristen says, “Morality and ethics according to whom?”

Last year in Are ethical values set or fluid? I said “Universally, murder has always been considered bad, but what constitutes murder is ever changing.”

For centuries killing your wife was considered bad taste, but since she was property it wasn’t a crime; certainly killing your slave wasn’t murder in ancient times and in the pre-Civil War days it depended on where you lived and what you believed.

The Army of God thinks it’s OK to bomb abortion clinics and kill the staff, while Osama bin Laden wants to kill “infidels.”

Religion, like sex, used to be private. Now it is evangelized, advertised and promoted the same way as any other commercial product.

But commercial products don’t vilify you for not buying them.

As I said in my comment, “I am so tired of having almost every person I meet explain to me why
1. I’m a horrible person because I don’t have “the true faith” and will go to Hell.
2. The only true faith is their version and if I don’t switch I’ll go to Hell.
3. They’ll pray for me.
I find number three the most insulting, since it dismisses everything else and assumes their superiority.”

Some defend religion in business as nitch marketing, but where is the line drawn? I’ve been on the receiving end when a “Christian” business owner found out that I didn’t share his beliefs. Fortunately, the court didn’t agree that the differences were an acceptable reason for violating a contract.

There may be valid reasons to mention religion, such as Hebrew National (mentioned by one commenter), but Hebrew National doesn’t spend its money lobbying to make kosher the law of the land.

I passionately subscribe to S.G. Tallentyre’s (not Voltaire) statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” only I don’t disapprove, I just disagree.

What I disapprove of is the effort to cram it down my throat; to claim that YOUR morality, YOUR judgments, YOUR beliefs are CORRECT and should color every decision I make or become the law of the land.

What do YOU think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: similarlee  CC license