Ethically Speaking was held 9/12 and was a great success! Plans are underway for future events and the details will be posted here on EthicalHouston and our our facebook: EthicalHouston page.
Speaker’s notes and hand-outs are available here.
If you would like to become involved in EthicalHouston and help plan its future events – please contact Franklin Olson. We welcome your support.
The Successful Life
What makes a successful life? Strong family…Close friends…Financial success…Spiritual resonance…Recognition by peers?
In this post-modern relativistic world of the 21st century, many quite well educated and knowledgeable people struggle with these, and similar questions, of what is right and what is wrong. Many are influenced by the dominant culture that often seems to imply that anything goes as long as you’re not caught.
Or, that dominant culture sets out criteria for success and happiness that often seems empty and can’t deliver the goods. Feasting on emptiness can lead to a hunger for more meaning. Many of these same people feel alienated from this kind of life, wanting to engage in meaningful relationships, work and community service. But they are only one person, they think.
Ethical Houston seeks to provide an ongoing forum where the young professional can share ideas, hopes and dreams, and develop relationships that provide the virtues of trust and loyalty through ethical and responsible thoughts, words and actions.
Join Ethical Houston for face to face seminars and virtual relationships promoting ethical business, professional and personal dealings among Houston young professionals.
Ethical Houston on Facebook
June 3, 2009
Okay! I’m a Homer on Natural Gas
I’ve been around long enough to know that pretty much everything has political implications. But PLEASE, someone explain to me why coal is getting preferential treatment as a fuel over natural gas. And why all the talk about alternative fuels being the wave of the future when there’s little developmental funding available, in particular for the small inventor. Only large companies can afford to spend the kind of money necessary to do research and to bring alternative fuels to the market. And most of them, due to the length of the time horizon to bringing them online would rather invest in areas that will bring energy online quicker.
My sons have a small company called www.swellfuel.com that for the last three years has been developing a system to make electricity from ocean waves. In order to test his units he’s had to go outside the United States because the regulations on obtaining test sites take too long to obtain and cost too much to get. Investors are reluctant to fund projects where they can’t see results in a short time.
And then there’s the companies that talk the talk but don’t really walk the walk. They talk about being Green and what they’re doing for the environment, but when you drill down deeper you see that it’s not much of a commitment, but more of a public relations effort. That in of itself doesn’t seem ethical.
Growing up in Houston, we had a gas stove in the kitchen and we used gas heating. It got the job done without a lot of pollution. So, to all my good friend out there who are engineers and scientists, please, please explain how it can be ethical not to utilize a source of energy, natural gas, that our country has that could make our country fuel sufficient for a long tome to come.
Add comment March 13, 2010
Sex Education Redux
Deut. 25: 5-10
“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”
The scripture goes on to say that if the brother refuses to marry his sister-in-law, she can go before the council of elders and demand that he marry her. If he refuses she may take her sandal, spit in his face and the man will be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled. Strange law, huh. For Israel sex was more about necessity than pleasure. Women were considered property and had limited rights. But this law is referenced again later in the old testament where a man refused to marry his dead brothers wife and even when God told him directly to marry her, he refused and as a result, God killed him.
Today the purpose of sex and its relationship to family, covenant, and responsibility is much more blurred. For those of us who are older, we mostly learned the facts of life in the locker room or the back of a car on a weekend date. If we had “the talk” with our parents it was generally pretty superficial and stressful for all concerned. And as far as the church giving information, it too was generally pretty superficial, stressful, and the message generally was “don’t” or riddled with messages of guilt. As the culture began to open up and become more permissive we began to get our information from the media, which was usually unreliable. Since the fifties and sixties the media and behaviors have gone through a revolution and yet we still live in a world where it’s difficult to talk openly about behaviors that are at the core of the human condition. The culture on the one hand wants us to be responsible and careful, but gives little good information to help young and old alike.
During the nineties, Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was making a speech before the United Nations on the world Aids pandemic. Someone asked her in a Q and A what she thought about teaching people alternate ways of dealing with their sexuality, and in particular masturbation. Her answer was, “I think that masturbation is a part of human sexuality and perhaps it should be taught.” For that statement and a public outcry for her to resign, President Clinton asked and received her resignation saying that he did not agree with her on the subject– and this coming from Clinton. Hardly a month passes without us seeing somewhere on the back pages of our newspapers where a person in some authority like a school administrator has made statements about sex and sexuality and has been asked to resign. Much of the time the argument is made that sex is not to be taught in school unless it’s about total abstinence. Those who protest, state that it is either for the parents to teach their children about sexuality or for the church to do so. Unfortunately, most often neither happens. Today our children have new sources for learning about sex. They can just turn on the TV, or go to the internet or for many who are latch key kids, learn about it while mom is away at work.
Sex and sexuality is more than learning about the nuts and bolts of the act itself. It’s about learning about responsibility and self worth. It’s about a young girl learning that she doesn’t need to “put out” and get pregnant to have self worth. It’s about a young man learning that he doesn’t get his manhood from “scoring” and that if he fathers a child he will be expected to help take care of that child. Sex has become more of a sport than about relationship. Sex is depicted as momentary and lacking in intimacy. There are no consequences. Even STD’s hold little concern for many.
Many young people engage in serial relationships, sometimes ending in marriage and often not. And what becomes of those multiple relationships. Among middle class women we know that in breakups women are more likely to seek help from friends, therapy, etc. while men tend to internalize their feelings and move on. Even serial relationships and one nighters are often depicted as having little effect on the parties who engage in them. These multiple breakups can have a negative emotional cumulative effect. In the movie “High Fidelity” with John Cusack and Iben Hjejle, Cusack is in the process of breaking up with Hjejle and tells her that this breakup doesn’t even make the top five of his life long breakups. It becomes obvious that all of his multiple breakups have taken a toll on his ability to trust and to be intimate.
So, what of morality and ethics. In this situation I equate morality with those taboos of behavior that our religion or family teaching gives us. Ethics is about the way we treat one another and the covenantal relationships we establish with one another. For young people the concept of ethical implications of a relationship may be too sophisticated. Hormones are raging and they’re blinded by their new found power. Friends and media depict this behavior as normal. And they can’t see beyond the moment. That’s why it’s important to give correct and sound information. Since they’re not mature enough to understand the implications of relationships, it’s important to give them adequate information. Even though the law of relationships given in Deuteronomy seems quite bizarre to our modern mind, it’s about ethics and not morality. It was believed by Israel that a man had an obligation to help his brothers’ line continue if he died and not to do so, was an abomination to God. Women had few rights but this was a right that she had to ensure that her children and her husband line be continued. It was an ethical issue because it dealt with the realities of the time.
So, what are the ethics of relationships and sexuality for us today? To me, it’s that we’re all blessed children of God, worthy of respect and concern. Sexuality is not just about an act. It’s that even in a moment of passion we consider the full humanity of the other as well as our own selfhood. Children who are born into loving families where both parents are involved in raising children are more likely to stay in school, stay out of poverty and prison and live a productive life.
As parents and teachers, we can’t just see the world as either being like Father Knows Best or a world of internet porn— neither is reality. Reality is that today 40% of all children are born out of wedlock with 70% of African American babies born out of wedlock to women who often have no network to help them cope and will soon find that the quickest way to find ones self in poverty in America is to start out poor, have a child with no father around and little education. Reality is that over 60% of college grads in their thirties live in co-habitation relationship. Reality is that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce. Reality is that there are different sexual expectations between upper middle class persons of all races and those who are poor.
When Jocelyn Elders made her statement about masturbation, no one asked her what she meant and how she might suggest teaching. But we know that living in a masturbatory fantasy world is also not the answer. I mean, what do we think men and women who frequent porn sites do, just read the articles? Maybe if we had waited to let her explain herself we might have a clearer understanding about what she meant. But we closed her off and we’ll never be able to engage her in a more open conversation about what it means to be fully human.
Add comment March 9, 2010
Is My Bonus too Big?
Over the past year we’ve all been inundated with articles about large executive compensation packages and in particular about compensation packages to executives in companies that received bail out money from the government. And this at a time when those same companies were laying off thousands of lower level employees to cut expenses. Of the eight banks bailed out, Citigroup, Inc. seems to be the most beleaguered and along with Goldman Sachs and AIG has received the most criticism for their high executive compensation packages. One of the major arguments in favor of these high salaries and bonuses is that in order to keep good talent you have to pay high salaries. Some might say and have said that if these are the best minds to run the business, that American business and in particular banking is in big trouble. The disparity between the top and lower level Citi employees is huge and the anger among the rank and file is well documented. A blog run by Indeed, Inc., an executive employment website documents numerous postings about Citigroup’s wage levels. Here’s just one:
“A Citigroup recruiter called me for a SENIOR Accountant position @ Citigroup. I was told that the position maxed out @ $35k. For a SENIOR level position. I would hate to see what they pay their entry level people.”
From Zacks investment research “Citigroup Inc. may cap cash bonuses for 2009 at below $100,000. The 2009 bonus pool at the company is expected to be similar to the 2008 level, which was low compared to the other years. Citi may pay a large part of the bankers’ and traders’ bonuses in stock that cannot be sold for a number of years.
Citi may pay up to 40% of bonuses in the form of deferred cash and stock and the balance in the form of non-deferred cash and IOUs, which will turn to common stock in April.
Currently, Citi is working out the details of its bonus plan. Recently, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo asked Citi and 7 other of the largest banks in the nation that received significant federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide information on the amount of 2009 bonus packages and their structure. Cuomo also asked the banks to explain the effect the bonus pools would have had if the banks had not received the TARP funds.
According to Cuomo, the full disclosure and transparency of the bonus information are essential as recent government actions have given rise to public accountability issues, and TARP banks are struggling with these actions.
Citi received $45 billion in bailout money from the TARP at the height of the credit crisis. Later, around $25 billion of that was converted into common stock, representing nearly 34% of its stake held by taxpayers. The company repaid the remaining $20 billion in bailout money in December 2009, freeing the obligatory pay restrictions on its key executives.
Citi’s plan to cap cash bonuses is to save the bank from people’s fury over the TARP banks’ 2009 bonus plans. However, the bank says may still find it difficult to keep its top employees.”
From Reuters “Regulators, lawmakers, and others are trying to determine how changing compensation packages might reduce the chances of future financial meltdowns. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is considering charging lower rates for deposit insurance to banks with pay practices that it deems superior.
According to a July report from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Citigroup as a whole paid $5.3 billion of bonuses for 2008.
Officials at rival companies told Reuters that Citigroup employees will essentially receive at least 60 percent of their bonuses in cash or stock that can quickly be sold. That level is high compared to some rivals, which could help the bank retain employees. But some Citigroup employees groused at the relatively low portion of the bonus that will come in cash.
Loren Steffy in the February 26 Houston Chronicle reports on executive pay for the General Motors Ceo, Ed Whitacre and past interim CEO Fritz Henderson. Whitacre’s package includes $1.7million a year plus $7million in stock. Fritz Henderson who for all practical purposes was fired is being given a $60,000. per month consulting agreement plus an expense account. He is required to work at least 20 hours a month on the job. Steffy suggests that Whitacre take the job for $1. per year since he received $158million from AT&T when he retired. The interest on the $158million is about four times the $1.7million he’s receiving now. By contrast Ford CEO Alan Mulally agreed to accept a $1. salary if Ford needed a federal bailout. That was not necessary and Ford has gained market share and is expected to soon be in the black. Mulally’s salary is slightly more than Whitacre’s at $2 million. Last year GM received about $50 billion in bailout. And as a result of that bailout you and I are now Whitacre’s employer.
The media, the public, government regulators and congress are going through their hand wringing dance asking what should we be doing with all the bad guys. Much of what has happened in the past few years was a long time in coming. Questions of whether employment contracts should be honored in companies that are either bankrupt or being kept afloat to keep from going bankrupt are being used as a defense of big severance packages. Arguments about high paid executives going elsewhere if they aren’t paid huge pay packages seems a bit contrived. Where will they go? Hedge funds which have shut down over 200 shops in the last two years? Or, Europe which hasn’t had the bottom fall out yet? Probably the best place for many of them to get employment would be with lobbyists who deal with the Washington bureaucrats, regulators and politicians who will probably not make any substantive punitive changes except as it may affect those companies and executives who played the game ethically and by the rules.
My observation is that most relational issues such as this begin as ethical issues and because a minority acts unethically, new laws and regulations are passed in order to close loopholes or deal with unintended consequences. But the sad truth is that those that want to circumvent the law will find ways to do so, and in so doing will effect the ability of the rest of us to carry on ethical business dealings.
Add comment March 2, 2010
Texas Has the Best Textbooks in the Country. Or do we?
My good friend Nancy W from Little Rock Ark wrote me the other day with a concern she has with State Board of Education of Texas. You might ask why does someone in Arkansas care about the SBOE? The reason is that the SBOE of Texas is the state that about 46 or 47 states in the US follow when it comes to deciding on school books for their schools. So, don’t we make good book choices? Not according to many citizens and school officials. Texas has become the battlefield for issues revolving around science and creationism and more recently over what is being included in history and government books as it pertains to references to the founding fathers creating a Christian nation. According to many, this is first of all not true and trying create the impression that that this misrepresentation is a clear breach of the “wall of separation between Church and state” that Thomas Jefferson spoke about. The current issue is whether the United States was conceived as a Christian nation. Conservatives argue that it was. Others would say that the founding fathers even though religious espoused the idea that God was not necessarily a Christian God. Consider the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…..that all men are endowed by their Creator…. This asserts that God has a hand in the affairs of men but that is more a deist conception of God, rather than a Trinitarian God.
A good book to give a balanced assessment of religion in the creation of the United States is Jon Mecham’s book American Gospel. Here are several quotes attributed to the founders. (2006)
“Writing to a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, President Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that America “gives…bigotry no sanction.” In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the senate in 1797, the Founders declared that, “ the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” p. 19
Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1790:“ I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, an I have…some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” P.2
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles,” he [Jefferson] said, “ all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.” P. 29
“I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another,” Jefferson wrote. “I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to changer another’s creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives…” “ For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read,” Jefferson said. “By the same test the world must judge me.” P.35
The most controversial appointee running for re-election Don McLeroy and his opponent Thomas Ratliff are so far down the Republican primary ballot they’re lost in the myriad of judges, representative and straw votes that it’ll be difficult to find them, much less know the issues involved.
I’m sorry Nancy, but anyway, here’s your comment it its entirety.
I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith. For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff. I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith. For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.
7 comments February 27, 2010
The Ethics of I’ll Never See You Again
An alternative to the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is a cooperation game with a set number of rounds with a finite final round that the players know about. The rule is that you cooperate every round until the last round and then defect. Therefore the one who defects on the last round is the winner. The reasoning goes that if both players know when the last round is going to be, then they will both defect prior to the last round, which will change the whole dynamics of the game and the way they cooperate in the earlier rounds. Basically, cooperation ceases and people revert to more pragmatic strategies. But is it true that if we know when the last round is that we will take advantage of the situation and be unethical in our behavior. If we can get away with something, will we do it? I’ll give you two examples of the I’ll never see you again scenario.
Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were traveling to Austin when we were caught in a terrible thunder storm. I turned my windshield wipers up to full capacity. As they were whipping around, the blade on my side of the car came loss and started flopping around to where I couldn’t see where I was going. I finally was able to get to a small town off the highway and found a shade tree mechanics shop. The mechanic looked at the blade, got a small wrench and tightened a small screw that had been holding the blade in place. I asked how much I owed him and since he wasn’t the boss, he called someone and came back and told me it would be $25. The whole operation took less than five minutes. I thought that was terribly exorbitant but since I needed to get back on the road I didn’t argue about the price, paid it and went on my way. But I wondered to myself and my friend what it would have cost someone who lived in the town, if in fact they would be charged.
The other example had a completely different outcome. I was coming back from a boating outing with my two young sons. I had recently bought a very old boat and trailer and hooked it up to new motor. At the time I bought the boat I had thought what a great bargain it was. That was not to be the case. As I was driving down the highway, I happened to look in my side mirror and noticed that there was a wobble in the tire on the trailer. I stopped to inspect it and found that the lugs had eaten away the wheel rim and the wheel was dangerously close to allowing the tire to fall off. It was Sunday afternoon and I was out in the middle of no where with my pre-teen sons. What was I to do? I was even considering just leaving the boat, trailer, and new motor and hoping I could come back the next day and retrieve something. As I stood there considering my limited options an old pickup truck pulled behind my boat and an old man got out. He came up, we had a short conversation and he said that he would go home and bring some very large washers that he had and we could jerry rig the wheels to where I could limp home. He left, and after about an hour and I was beginning to think he’d decided not to come back, I saw the old pickup emerging in the distance. We spent a few minutes putting the washers in place. I didn’t have much cash on me but I offered him what I had and he said, “no, cudn’t accept nothin mister. All I got to say is that if you ever see me on the road broke down, just stop and do the same.” Even today as I think about his act of kindness it brings tears to my eyes. I’ve never seen him again and I’m always too busy or too afraid to help someone broken down on the road, but maybe in some other ways, I can just pass his kindness forward.
It makes me reflect that the game that calls us into caring relationships is never over, even when we’ll never see someone again. Just pass it forward.
Add comment February 21, 2010
Undercover Boss
Undercover Boss After the Super Bowl game last week, I watched the new show, Undercover Boss. The COO of Waste Management was that week’s undercover boss and he spent the week working in the field doing what his line employees did. He picked up trash at the dump, he went on a garbage run, and he sucked out port-a-potties. As a result of this experience he had an epiphany about his company’s operations. The employees did not know that he was the COO of the company. He was just a prospective new hire that the company was trying out. Among the things he learned was that for every minute an employee was late they were docked two minutes. Women drivers had to urinate in a can just like the male truck drivers and employees were reprimanded if they did not finish their runs on time. As a result of this experience he called in his staff and told them of his findings and told them that there were changes that needed to be made. Many of those changes were the result of unilateral policies that he had enacted to get better production. In the TV presentation we didn’t see much interaction between him and his staff. It was pretty much another form of unilateral action. Most of the staff seemed uneasy being in the meeting and I wondered what they were thinking being put on the spot for TV. Work place policies can involve ethics. There’s been a lot of progress on accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work place. But what of the female driver as well as the male drivers who had to urinate in a can? When a person works for a company, they usually are an employee at will. They don’t have much to say about working conditions. That’s pretty well spelled out by the employer. The goal of the COO of Waste Management was to maintain and/or increase productivity. We don’t know how those work rules were developed but we saw from the show that it appeared that it was determined from above without a lot of input from the rank and file. Many companies have found that listening to other voices can improve productivity because employees have a say in what happens. Dr. Edward Deming developed the idea of quality circles that used employees to identify problems in the production cycle and to come up with solutions to those problems. This methodology was first used in 1962 by Nippon Wireless and Telegraph and later became a mainstay of Japanese industry. Deming’s methodology revolutionized industry in Japan. It was much later that American companies began to use the system; however not with some resistance. Many American managers felt that it would not work with American workers because it was believed that American workers did not share the same loyalty to authority and enterprise that Japanese workers exhibited. But over time, many American companies have decided that giving workers the opportunity to buy into changing the system and being able to see financial benefits not only to the company but to them, has had positive results. But is this really about ethics? In many cases it is. Ethical behavior is seldom unilateral. The ethics that we abide by are most often covenantal and are seen by all parties involved as important to the well being and fairness of the system. Over time, ethics tend to seek a level of workability and if not, the system becomes dysfunctional and may even cease to exist. If people don’t believe in the ethical standards that are set out as being the accepted norm and that are important for the viability of the organization, they will find ways to circumvent those standards. And that circumvention can be from top to bottom in the organization. So, the question that I pose to you is what has been your experience of ethical standards in organizations that you have been a part? Have they been unilaterally decreed and if so what was the effect on how well they worked? Was there any effort to create a situation where there was buy in and input from the parties involved? If you were in a position to develop ethical standards for an organization that you were a part, how would you go about doing it? Please make comments below, so others may see your ideas expressed. What you have to say is important to the conversation.
Add comment February 14, 2010
Tit for Tat Ethics
In past posts, we have considered factors influencing ethics without much consideration of the structures that effect person’s responses to those behaviors. This post deals with one way of responding to another person or institutions behavior. Game theorist Robert Axelrod set up a competition to see what strategy would be most successful in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game (remember the prisoner’s dilemma). Solutions were submitted by a large number of competitors with the object being to see who would be most successful. Two hundred rounds of the game were played with the winning strategy and surprisingly simple solution being Tit for Tat. The strategy was as follows:
In the first round, one player cooperated and after that did whatever the other player did the previous round. In other words, if the other player cooperated, player one cooperated. If player two defected, then player one responded in a like manner. What’s fascinating is that Tit for Tat never won a round. The best it ever did was a tie, but over two hundred iterations, it had the best score.
The features that make the game work is that it is “nice because the player using it never betrays first. It is provokable in that it quickly and reliably punishes the other player’s betrayal. It is forgivable because it can quickly return to cooperation even after defection and it is straightforward because it is simple enough that other players see that cooperation is the best choice.” ( Games People Play, The Teaching Company, 2008)
Whether this system is workable in all situations in real life is debatable but I think there are situations that it applies. Remember our discussion about putting children in timeout and parents saying that it didn’t work. The fact was that in most of those situations parents were inconsistent in carrying out of consequences and threats. In foreign relations we see that with dictators and demagogues it is difficult to deal with them if they see that when they push against other nations and those nations acquiesce to their pushing the belligerent nation pushes even more until either they get what they want or someone places serious sanctions against them. North Korea and Iran are current examples of this. And we saw this same response with Hitler in WWII. On the other hand, we have seen that Israel has taken a very aggressive posture towards aggression towards it and have used the Tit for Tat strategy very effectively. You attack us and we will immediately retaliate. On the other hand they have not always done a very good job with their own citizens as it pertains to illegal building of settlements on the West Bank.
For individual Christians who believe in forgiveness Tit for Tat may seem severe. We believe that everyone should be given another chance and that is as it should be. But we also know that in both the old and new testament there was the concept of consequences and even though forgiveness may flow out of a broken relationship, consequences still occur. So the question that I ask you, the reader, to consider and comment on are:
- How do you see Tit for Tat working or not working?
- What situations might you use Tit for Tat in your own relationships?
- What better ways might you engage persons that you feel have broken ethical covenant?
2 comments February 11, 2010
Ethical Tipping Points
Early in my business career my brother and I were commercial real estate developers. As in all phases of life, there were lessons that we learned. When you build a project such as an apartment project you go through a procedure to get it up and running. You have the plans drawn, you find financing, make a cost estimate and then buy out the project. In the years that we were building, Houston was in a tremendous building boom that often created a shortage of both materials and labor. This latter shortage was the one that was most problematic. The number of sub contractors available to bid on projects was limited even as we worked to bring the project in at the projected cost. And therein lay the problem. We often had to employ subs that we had never worked with and knew little about. In many cases, subs were somewhat itinerate in nature so we couldn’t do much of a check on them. At any rate, we would contract with them on an agreed price and proceed with the construction. But then the next shoe would drop. A few days into the subs work he would come back in and state that he was losing his “ass” on the job and needed to have more money. Our position was that he had made a deal and that we were going to stick with the agreement. After grumbling some, he would go off with us thinking that was the end of the issue. However, within a few days he and his crew would not show up. This created a problem with everyone else who depended on him to be at a certain point in the project. This made them angry and the whole project would slow, sometimes to a snails pace. Because we were financing the construction, it meant that every extra day that it took to complete the job cost us interest, not to mention pushing back the opening date of the project. Then we would send out compliance letters stating that if the sub did not staff the job adequately, that we would cancel the contract and withhold his retainage. After all, we had our ten page contract with him that gave us all sorts of power. We generally did not have to do this, in as much as that would delay the project more, while we went to court and looked for a replacement sub. So, we muddled through until completion. Unfortunately this scenario was not that uncommon, not just with us but with other contractors.
One day, I was having lunch with a friend of mine who was one of the largest and most successful apartment builders in Houston. He had built and owned over 5000 units in the Houston area. He was noted for being able to begin moving tenants into one of his large new projects within ninety days. This was almost unheard of and I asked him how he was able to get that kind of production. He allowed that he had good subs. So, how do you get and keep good subs I asked? His answer was simple. He said that he did a lot of work, but more importantly he paid them well and expected them to be on the job and to do good work. He stated that the time saved by being able to start moving tenants in quickly and being able to start getting cash flow and stopping the interest clock more than made up for the extra cost of labor.
As I reflect on this now, I realize that in addition to paying more, he also had a long standing relationship with these subs. He had worked with them for a number of years and not only did they work well with him but they also had a relationship with one another. There was a mutual trust between them. I’m sure they had a written contract and did the paper work required by the lenders and the legal statutes. But having iron clad contracts doesn’t always get the job done. My friend and his subs had made a covenant that went beyond the written documents.
It’s also about ethics and trust. In my case the ethical questions were two sided. From my side, the ethics question was, is it ethical to squeeze the sub to where he couldn’t make a profit? And from his standpoint, was it ethical for him to come back and try and play the “poor me” game. Looking back on those incidents, I’m not sure what I would do today. But I do know that sometimes ethics are two sided and that parties play destructive games that impede the resolution of problems. Additionally, there are tipping points to ethical situations. There are degrees of ethics and we don’t always know the boundaries associated with decisions. Even if one party has the power to dictate to another party is it ethical and does it make sense? I’ve been on both sides of these kinds of contractual issues and I know that at times it’s important to change the rules a bit in order to move forward.
Currently, our country is faced with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Homeowners are defaulting and giving back their homes by the hundreds of thousands. And our politicians and pundits play the blame game. Congress is at fault, the lenders are at fault, or the homebuyer is at fault. But, some loans are being renegotiated in order to help the home buyer but to me even more importantly to keep someone in the home to keep it from deteriorating and losing more value and effecting the surrounding neighborhood. That’s a pay off for the lender. The point being in these two scenarios is that ethics are not always black and white. Situations change and rigid ethics don’t get the job done. Ethics are also about the self interest of the parties. Just because one party has the power over the other does it make it right to wield that power or does it make more sense to find an answer that creates a win-win situation?
4 comments February 7, 2010
Ethics of the Expedient
A friend and I were discussing ethics and he told me a story of when he was in high school. He was on the track team and one day after practice the boys on the track team found that the Coke machine was broken and that they were able to get Cokes out of the machine without paying. My friend along with a lot of the other track team members took Cokes. The next day the track coach found out about the incident and questioned all the boys as to whether they had taken Cokes. My friend was the only one to admit to taking a Coke. As a result of his confession he was kicked off the team for the rest of the year. As far as he remembers, he was the only one that was disciplined. Was this just? Should he have kept his mouth shut? Was there another way for the coach to handle the issue?
In game theory, there is a classic game called the Prisoners Dilemma. The scenario is as follows:
Two thieves are believed to have robbed. They are split up into separate rooms and given the chance to confess. The specified consequences are as follows. If one confesses and the other doesn’t the one that confesses gets off for his testimony while the other gets ten years. If both confess they each get a five year sentence. If neither confesses they get a one year sentence for possession of fire arms. It would seem that confessing would be the desired outcome except that he doesn’t know whether the other thief is confessing or not confessing.
In this scenario, it would be in both thieves self interest not to confess, even though they neither one know what the other will do. If they both do not confess, they will only receive a one year sentence. What my friend experienced is a variation of the Prisoners Dilemma. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t know what the consequences of a confession meant and he did not tell on others that he knew had also taken Cokes. He bore the whole consequence. What do you think would have happened to him and the track team if he had not confessed and no one else had confessed? My guess is that it would have resulted in a much lesser consequence for the whole team. Would the track coach have suspended the whole team for the season? I doubt it. Maybe harder workouts and some form of group consequences, but not as severe as what my friend experienced. In a sense he became the scapegoat. He did what he thought was right. I imagine that’s what he was taught.
In the last few years we’ve seen business persons, professionals, clergy and politicians go to jail for breaking laws or acting unethically. This is as it should be. But as a result of the actions of a few, those who are innocent are also implicated by association. New laws and regulations get passed or implemented to ensure that future infractions will be avoided. Intuitively though we know that those who will be unethical and unlawful will find ways to circumvent the law and go on doing whatever they deem to be in their interest.
The Prisoners Dilemma and other game theory games are based upon rational and mathematical constructs rather than what’s ethical or moral. Ethics and morals sometimes come into play in game theory but the games tend to be independently determined only by logic, reason, and mathematics. It brings to mind the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He could have probably avoided crucifixion by “going over the hill”, so to speak which was a theme in the book and movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Not only could he have avoided death, but he might have even been able to continue his ministry in some minor way. No matter what your belief is concerning the atonement, most Christians would agree that what happened on Calvary and at the tomb is a cornerstone of what we believe. The Romans and the Pharisees probably believed that by killing Jesus, this new radical movement would end. After all, all his disciples had deserted. Jesus bore the burden of death and defeat but showed us the power of God in the resurrection. And for centuries we have embraced this God of new beginnings and hope. We believe that the Kingdom exists both now and in the future.
In this hope and belief, we also realize that we are sometimes called to pick up our cross too, not just because we want to be martyrs but because that’s a price of God’s freedom. I don’t know the deeper motivation of my friend and the Coke machine incident. Whether it made an impact on his team mates, we’ll never know. But even if they thought he was a chump is not important. What is important is that he did what was right and suffered the consequences for the whole team, even when they abandoned him. As Christians, we’re called to risk doing what is right in spite of the consequences. That’s not always an easy thing to do, when we don’t know whether following ethical principles will make any difference.
Add comment February 1, 2010
Ethics and the Games People Play
Game theory is the study of strategic, interactive decision making among rational individuals. (Teaching Company, 2008) So, why do we want to consider games and game theory as it relates to ethics? Answer—because we all play games and most of these games have ethical consequences. Games are not just board games, or sports. They are at the focal point of our life together. And we begin with these games at a very early age. Take for example a child who wants a cookie before a meal. Her mother has told her that the rule is that she can’t have dessert before dinner and then only if she eats her vegetables. And the mother has told the child that if she breaks the rule that she will not be able to have dessert for three days. But the child really wants the cookie. So the small mind begins to weigh the payoff of getting a cookie before dinner thereby receiving the payoff of eating the cookie and either getting caught thereby suffering consequences or not getting caught thereby having it reinforced that sometimes you don’t get caught. The question then becomes, does the risk justify the reward and the possible consequences, if caught.
There are basically only two decisions that the child can make; take the cookie or don’t take the cookie. And the payoff and consequences are pretty clear too. As the child is young there are no moral consequences or a greater payoff or consequences for the action. The child may not want to disappoint mother, but even that may be overridden by the desire to have the cookie. This is probably the simplest example of a life game. Unfortunately, this scenario is not limited to small children. We see many adults, some of whom end up in prison, who don’t think beyond the, I want decision and the “what will be my payoff and possible consequence”. It’s all about “me”.
When I was working as a family therapist, parents would bring their children in with a behavior problem. Simply put, the child wouldn’t follow the family’s rules or would act out. I suggested the tried and true, “time out” consequence which involved sending the child into isolation for a couple of minutes to regain their composure, think about what they had done, and give mother a few minutes of rest. After a week or two of this prescription the parent would often come back and say that “time out” was not working. My reply would be that working didn’t necessarily mean that the child would stop the undesirable behavior. It only meant that if the consequences were consistent, swift, and appropriate that the child would know that the consequence would always happen. In most cases though, the parent could not be consistent thereby reinforcing with the child that sometimes they could get by with inappropriate behavior and thereby receiving their positive payoff. We know that with older children and adults that this type of punitive consequence response has limited results. As the child gets older, there has to be a buy-in to the process of risk, rewards and rules. The child must come to realize that there are broader implications to their actions. This is when the games we play become more complex and have implications in the greater scheme of things.
But this little game still has implications for us adults. How many of us, knowing that we would not always get caught speeding would not bend the rules occasionally. Most of us have sped from time to time or rolled through stop signs and never gotten caught. We rationalize that we’ve hurt no one, so an occasional infraction is justified. Human nature dictates that sometimes we will bend conventional rules. And that’s not always inappropriate. But most of us realize that there are always consequences and rewards to our actions, even if we don’t know the rules of the game.
The example of the child and the cookie shows us that there are innate responses to situations. At the core of those decisions small children don’t take into consideration such things as empathy and the greater good. Those concepts have to be taught and experience tells us that not all persons respond in the same manner to those areas. We know that some people are more empathetic than others and that other people will risk more and are willing to suffer more consequences.
In articles to come, I will explore other ways we play games and how they can be create positive or negative results in society as they relate to the law, ethics, morality and responsibility.
Add comment January 29, 2010


![Dr_ Jocelyn Elders[8]](http://ethicalhouston.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/dr_-jocelyn-elders81.png?w=232&h=300)









