Ethical Houston

In high school I was not a very good student.  I wasn’t a “sweat hog”; just not that inspired.  However, there was one course I took that has probably helped me more than any other course I took in school.  That was debate.  Let me hasten to say that I was not a very good debater.  But debate taught me to think, do research, and to look at both sides of a question.  And considering both sides of the question was often difficult, particularly if I already had my mind made up.  What I learned though, was that in almost any argument there is a little truth.  It may be difficult to get to the core because of inaccuracies, distortions, and prejudices but none the less, it’s there.  All arguments lean in one direction or another and it’s difficult to see the nuanced differences.  But debate helped me recognize the nuances and to better understand the faulty logic that occur in many arguments.  This has a bearing on ethics as persons reasoning for a position may be rationalized and distorted to justify their actions.

 Recently, I’ve been following the activities of State Board of Education for standards for public school social studies curriculum.  The debate over school books is a perennial issue that many people take very seriously.  Issues of diversity, civil rights, the presentation of Texas history and the role of religion and government in the US get full exposure in these hearing sessions.  This is important and many of us should be more concerned about what our children are exposed to in school.  I might be cynical and say that this concern over minutia is not important, but it is. 

 The internet has become the center of education and information to most of the world.  Unfortunately, it is seen by many as being the truth, even though there is great diversity on the web. How many of us use Wikipedia, “ the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, as our starting point for research.   If a statement is said enough and sent to enough people, it can become the truth.  Blogs are rampant and if they have the readership can become very influential, often without having to prove up arguments.  WordPress.com alone has nearly 275,000 blogs.  Since anyone can have a forum on the internet at no cost, print media is moving away from paper production to the internet, just to survive.  And because there is little or no censorship on the internet, except maybe in China and Iran, anything can be said or shown.

 Exaggeration, deception and unethical behavior is not new.   It’s just more apparent and available through these media outlets.  This is particularly true in election cycles.  Last night I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate. Listening to them, it could be assumed that neither the senator nor the governor had done anything right in all the time they were in office.  This resulted in gross inaccuracies by them both and the candidate who had not held office had a free ride to challenge them both and to advocate certain positions that, to some, might sound plausible but in the reality of our current situation would be impossible to implement.  I’m sure that when we get to the general election the candidates from both parties will paint themselves in the best light, hope they can deliver on their promises and voters will either buy into their exaggerations and unattainable promises or decide that there should be a pox on both their houses and opt out of voting.

 This brings us to the question of whether this kind of behavior is ethical.  Ethical behavior as we have discussed is covenantal, requires monitoring of our personal inner assumptions and prejudices, requires personal truth telling, and a discernment of differing ethical standards.  What politician really tells it like it is and tells voters that everyone may have to sacrifice and that there will be interest groups that won’t be willing to compromise.  No politician will say things like that because they want to be elected and so they won’t be forthcoming.  Being consistent and recognizing the possibility of other viewpoints is important.  This is required in all situations whether, business, political or personal.  Using these criteria, I would suggest that much of what we hear from politician and some media is not ethical. 

 So how can we discern arguments that don’t meet the smell test?  The following are few of the ways that persuasion is used to color and distort the facts or to knowingly be downright untruthful.

                 Argument from statistics-   statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do.;  our engineers say that there is a +-3% fudge factor on our reserves.  Since the price of oil is down this quarter, let’s use the +3% so that it doesn’t seem we have less reserves than we did last quarter.

• Argument from circumstantial detail—an array of facts not intimately related that are drawn together to look as if they are. The murder weapon was found in the back yard of the defendant.  The defendant knew to person murdered.  The defendant had been seen arguing with the murder victim.  Therefore the defendant by circumstances, murdered the victim.
• Argument from comparison—Rome fell because of corruption and a deterioration of values.   The US is also suffering from corruption and a deterioration of values.  Therefore the US is in its last days as a super power.
• Argument from analogy—  in the story of the ant and the grasshopper, the ant put up food for the winter while the grasshopper played.  Therefore people who do not save for a wintry day will have to go begging as the grasshopper did.
• Argument by generalization—everyone is getting on board, so you should too.
• Argument by authority—4 out 5 doctors smoke Camels;  our attorney’s say that we’re okay on this and can go ahead.
• Argument of alteration—(if, then)  Two alternatives.  Either we allow people to carry guns on their person thereby protecting citizens from criminals or we deny citizens from carrying guns and suffer from increased crimes to our citizens. 
• Expansive argument—all (fill in the nationality)  are con artists and therefore should be sent back to (their country of origin).

In each of these forms of argumentation there may be a modicum of truth or in fact the argument may be completely analogous and true.  For the listener, it’s important to internally challenge the argument and seek to determine its validity.  We also need to challenge our own prejudices as we listen to arguments and hear of persons’ actions.  These actions have a quality of ethical bearing and the voracity in whole or in part to the argument. 

            Laws have been passed to help consumers of products and securities to get enough accurate facts to make good decisions.  However, unethical persons/organizations continue to give faulty and information to either puff the features of a product or to downplay or completely avoid negative features of products.  Whether it is downsizing of a box of cereal, the misrepresentation of a security, or the statement of someone running for office, citizens need to be able to discern fact from fiction and the nuances of human nature.  One of the issues before the Texas State Board of Education is whether Henry Cisneros should be put into a Texas junior high social studies book.  This  may or may not be important.  But what is important is for a student to be able to know both sides of the Henry Cisneros story; what he did for Texas and what makes some people want to keep him out of the textbook, and then help students and the public make informed judgments about a persons ethical behavior and make their own decision as to his value as public servant and as a human being.  Or, we can just continue to edit Wikipedia and see it as our source of truth. (see Henry Cisneros—Wikipedia)