The Ethics of I’ll Never See You Again

21 02 2010

 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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : ethics

Tit for Tat Ethics

11 02 2010

 

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:

  1. How do you see Tit for Tat working or not working?
  2. What situations might you use Tit for Tat in your own relationships?
  3. What better ways might you engage persons that you feel have broken ethical covenant?

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Ethical Tipping Points

7 02 2010

                                     

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?


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Ethics and the Games People Play

29 01 2010

 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.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : ethics

It’s Cuckoo To Me

24 01 2010

Literature and films have often been the catalyst for change.  One such movie was the 1975 film, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.  The now classic film about the institutionalization of the mentally ill came at a time when great advances were being made in the treatment of the mentally ill.  It was only inevitable that as a result of both of these events that there began a process across the United States to deinstitutionalize treatment.  The idea was that persons with mental illness could be treated best with medication and counseling in the communities where they lived.  They could be with family members or live in group homes and be treated by community mental health programs. 

 In many parts of the country this became a reality.  But in other parts, including Texas, it became an excuse for cutting services since, at that time, advocacy groups for the mentally ill were not well organized.  The result was that many mentally ill persons were just turned loose and if families could not or would not take care of them, they ended up on the streets or in prison.   Much of that situation still exists in Harris county today.  It seems that often in our culture we only address a portion of a problem rather than looking at it holistically.  Consider the situation in Texas and in particular Harris County.  Texas is at the bottom of per capita spending of any state in the country and “Harris County is fourth from the bottom in per capita funding of any county in the state” which makes Harris County on a per person basis rank at the bottom of any state. (Schnee, 2006).  But this is not just about money, even though money is necessary.  Here are some other Harris county statistics to consider:

  • About 140,000 adults who experience mental health conditions suffer a severe mental illness, which is severe depression, bipolar disorder, and/or schizophrenia.
  • Almost half of adult Harris County residents who suffer from a severe mental illness could not access treatment from the public or private health systems.
  • Over 20 percent of inmates of the Harris County jail have had a history of mental illness.
  • Almost 20,000 Harris County youth needed services from the public mental health system each year, but the majority (76%) did not receive treatment services.
  • More than 62 percent of the 16,000 youth in Harris County Juvenile Probation Department have a diagnosable mental illness.
  • In 2009, 5 mentally ill persons in Harris County were killed by the police.
  • No new public mental health beds have been built in Harris County in the last 30 years.  In fact, there are fewer beds available.

(Local plan of MHRA of Harris County 2006-07)

It is only with the advocacy of such organizations such as NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Illness) and DBSA (Depression, Bipolar Support Organization) and The Mental Health Association of Houston have citizens been able to make changes in the system as it now stands.  And the MHMRA of Harris County does a good job with the funds that they have.  But to me it’s a bit Cuckoo to move from one antiquated and medieval form of treatment to a system that is woefully inadequate and where families have to fight so hard for services for their children and loved ones and where the mental hospital of last resort is our jails and prisons. 

 When government is considering funding for programs, whether mental health or criminal justice, healthcare, or education they leave out massive amounts of needed services in the name of being fiscally responsible.  The statistics above show the severe lack of services for the mentally ill. And the figures I’ve cited don’t even address the housing issue, which is critical.

 What are the ethics of a society that will not take care of the least of these among us?  Having worked with families who have family members with mental illness, I know that the problem goes far beyond the issue of mental illness.  Mental illness creates other problems for society including criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and the break up of families.  These problems are not just the fault of not having an adequate mental health system.  They’re all interrelated and have a bearing on the health and well being of the society as a whole. 

 As a society, we have to recognize our interconnectedness and see the ethical and moral implications of these issues.  We can’t hide the mentally ill, the homeless, the criminal offender, the addict and the unemployed or underemployed away from the rest of us who consider ourselves “normal”.  And more importantly, we can’t hide ourselves from these realities. Hard as we try, the world will break through our gated communities and security systems and even with guns and special patrols will make us prisoners in our own homes.  Some would say that world already exists. 

 Some would say that I’m advocating socialism.   It only becomes socialism when we decide that it is the government’s job to take care of the poor and the sick and the impoverished.  Some believe it is either the responsibility of the impoverished individual to get themselves out of their predicament or for the Church or charities to provide for the needs of the poor.  But it requires a commitment and a covenant on all our parts to change things.  But there’s a personal price to pay.  Who of us is willing to take the homeless into our own home, to give the ex-offender a job or invite him/her into our churches and to pay for the man on the side of the road who was accosted, robbed and beaten?  And who among us is willing to take in an aged person with no resources and give them a home in their old age or adopt a child with special needs?  I’m not talking about just giving the homeless man on the corner a dollar and thinking that we’ve done our duty.  Society pays a price for the acts of the irresponsible and the impoverished.  But who among us is not impoverished in our love of neighbor.  In most main line church denominations, over 50% of members do not give at all.  So, what is the price of having 30% of the Texas population living in poverty?   

 What is your ministry and how much of your time do you devote to it? How much do you give to your church or local charities?  How does one decide where they can do the most good?  And how will we prioritize our time and resources to fulfill that ministry?    

           The line “one flew over the cuckoos nest” is a bit of a misnomer.  Cuckoos don’t have nests of their own. They’re parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other smaller birds and pushing one egg out of the nest to make room for their own egg.  They fit into nature’s scheme. And it’s been that way since the first cuckoo laid the first egg in her neighbor’s nest.

 How do we fit into the greater scheme of things?  Do we have to bend to the way things are, or can we bend towards the way things should be?  Last week, a good friend of mine said, “but the gospel is so hard.  Did Jesus really mean that in order to obtain eternal life that we had to give everything away and then come and follow him?”   I hope that we will all struggle with that question and set our eyes on bending towards the way things should be.  With God’s help, in time, the way things should be, will be a reality.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : ethics

Thoughts of an Old Debater

17 01 2010

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)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : ethics

Immigration—A Disconnect Between the Clergy and Laity

14 01 2010

 On January 11 along with about four hundred clergy and laity from major denominations and Jewish congregations, I attended the Interfaith Immigration Convocation at St. Paul’s UMC in Houston.  The purpose of the meeting was to develop a constituency among denominations to make public the Principles of Humane Immigration Reform that we collectively support.  The convocation further stated that “we hope to provide a moral framework for our city that will allow people of faith to reflect on these important issues as Congress begins to discuss them in the New Year”.  

 The presentations and positions of the leaders of these faith communities was generally well received by the group in attendance.  However, there was an underlying anxiety expressed by many pastors, particularly from primarily Anglo congregations that these positions were not compatible with those positions expressed and held by laity in the pews.  Immigration is probably the biggest issue that divides along the lines of clergy and laity.  But our faith traditions call us to love neighbor particularly the alien, the widow and the orphan.  Over and over in the bible we see this theme emerge as what we are called to live into and witness too. 

 This idea of loving God and loving Neighbor including the immigrant seems to be lost on a large and vocal lay contingency.  Most often, as a last resort when confronted by biblical imperatives,  the objection to immigrants is leveled at the illegality of these persons entry into the United States.  And most often the solution offered is that we should send them back to where they came from.  But the problem is much more complex than people swimming across the Rio Grande or walking into the US through the Arizona desert.  It is also about reunifying families.  The waiting list for getting family members brought to this country where they have a parent or spouse takes anywhere from three to eight years.  It’s about children who were not born in the US but have gone to school here, have graduated from high school or college and cannot legally get a job that they may be qualified for.  And it is about our country’s  need for unskilled labor but the US only having 5000 visas annually allotted for unskilled laborers.

 One purpose of this convocation was to give people the courage and the resolve to get the facts about immigration and then to tell their neighbors and representatives in Washington that we want Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  The inaccurate information about immigration is rampant.  It’s important to get the facts.  There are many in the business community that would also like to get comprehensive immigration reform.  Many of them are unknowingly breaking the law and must now e-verify all new hires.  We heard one story at the meeting about a man who had worked for a construction company for fifteen years .  He had been paying taxes, raised a family and had been a model citizen.  Someone in Arizona with the same SS number filed for unemployment which flagged the Houston worker.  As a result, the employer had to fire the employee.  From a purely economic standpoint, look at The Cato Institute, a conservative liberation think tank at

http://www.cato.org/immigration  They clearly believe that it is in the best interest to have immigration and in fact not having immigration reform costs the US billions of dollars a year.  

 So, what of the issue of legality?  Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.”  To me this means that there are two sets of laws that govern our lives.  Man’s laws and God’s laws.  Jesus in this statement is saying that man’s laws are not always just and that we need to seek to discern and fulfill God’s laws.  History is replete with examples of man’s laws being contrary to what we now accept as being just and that resonate with God’s will.  In our own country we can start with slavery, child labor, women’s rights and most recently Jim Crowe laws that prohibited blacks from even getting a drink of water from a “Whites only” water fountain.  Over and over in these cases those who want to maintain the status quo have argued that “it’s the law” and to ask for change of an unjust law is not acceptable. 

 We recognize that immigration is a difficult and complex issue and that there are no easy answers.  But the debate will continue and we in the Church, whether clergy or laity will need to have the courage to first of all, talk about immigration in our congregations and secondly to use our leadership and conviction to discuss the issue in a respectful way and third to put a face on the issue by having conversation with persons different form us.  If we do not begin to talk about the issue in a rational and biblically based manner we will continue to allow those who shout the loudest to dominate the conversations and to hold forth with nothing being accomplished.  We all can agree that our current immigration system is broken.  To me the question is, what will be the landscape around this issue of immigration be in ten years?  Immigration reform is an ethical and moral issue that goes to the heart of our faith tradition.   Pastors will have to have the courage to speak from their pulpits on welcoming the stranger, but more importantly we lay persons who believe that our current law on immigration is not just, must ally ourselves with our pastors to say, “we need and want comprehensive immigration reform and we want the debate to be civil and rational and the results should mirror our faith traditions of welcoming the stranger and Loving God and Loving Neighbor.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Who Will You Trust

10 01 2010

  In a recent PBS program entitled “The Emotional Self—Family, Friends and Lovers” several studies were sited concerning children’s bonding to caregivers being crucial for future relationships with others.  In particular several studies of children raised in Russian orphanages where the children received little adult holding and love, showed that the children had great difficulty in developing a trust in others as well as a disassociation with the world in general.  In other words, there was little interaction and trust.  One of the themes in previous articles is that there is a mutual relationship and understanding of what ethical standards will be followed by each party or the society will be bound.  Morality is just that—a moral compass, whereas ethics is more systemic and may not always reflect the morality of groups within the culture.  The program went on to say that humans are hard wired to connect.  Ethics is one way a society in general defines the standards by which we will connect. Ethics is one way that we define our roles in these trust relationships.  If trust does not exist, it is difficult to relate.

Think about when you were in elementary school.  If a group of you were playing kickball and someone broke a rule, if would often result in either some of the players leaving the game or the ostracizing of one of the players or someone picking up their ball, leaving, thereby breaking up the game.  The infraction was a breach of the implied ethics of the game.  If you can remember being a part of something like this, you may also remember how you felt.  For me, it was a feeling of betrayal by the person who broke the rule.  I may not have totally broke off the friendship, but at least I did not allow myself to be put in the same vulnerable situation.  I also learned some empathy for others who suffered injustice.  Unfortunately, not all children internalize these experiences and generalize them to their relationships with others. Trust is learned from birth.  In a healthy human relationship, I learn that when I cry someone would come to feed me, change me or meet my need to be held and comforted.  I came to trust that those needs would be met by my mother or father.  As I became older I became either trustful or distrustful of other people in my life to be consistent and trustworthy.  Hopefully, I also learn that it’s okay not to be the center of the universe and that others rights and feelings are important, not only for them, but for me too.

 But along the way, we all have to recognize that we are not the center of the universe and that we don’t make all the rules.  I am not entitled to do things only my way.  As a result I have to adhere to the standards of others.  Some people, throughout their whole life, feel entitled to doing things their way and that ethics, morals, and laws only pertain to other.  They have no covenant with others.  They may adhere to the rules for a while until they decide for whatever reason that those rules are not in their interest, so they set up their own rules, which most often are about them and them alone.  Whether this action is a result of too much permissiveness in childhood or an anomaly in hardwiring or a lack of bonding in early development is not clear, but the way we are raised and nurtured plays a part in the way we respond to the rules and conventions of the culture. 

 This is why it is so important to both nurture children to trust in the world through the love of parents and caregivers, but to also teach children beginning at an early age, the difference in right and wrong, the reciprocal nature of relationships, and to empathize with others  and how to evaluate ethical dichotomies. As we become adults, we have the opportunity to develop deeper and more intense relationships.  The same principles will apply as with children.  How do I share, how do I get my own needs met, and what role does empathy play in these relationships.

 Childhood family relationships are one way that we learn these roles.  School is another. And our faith traditions are another.  To me our faith traditions are a method that in today’s pluralistic society is of utmost importance; to be able to see that God is both a loving God and that God has laws, that if broken result in consequences.  These consequences are not acts of punishment, but that come about as a result of our own actions in a universe of natural laws.  These natural laws are not just physical laws.  They are also laws of relationships.   We don’t always understand these laws but ut none the less, we are bound by them. 

 But even when we break God’s laws we can live in the assurance that through grace we can start over in our quest for connection.  We do not have to be bound by the act; that God is always with us and loves us unconditionally.  That’s a difficult concept for us all.  Again, remember when you were a small child and you did something that you shouldn’t have.  When scolded by your parent you might have said, “mama, you don’t love me anymore.”  And if your mother were a wise mother she might have responded, “no honey, I’ll always love you.  I just don’t like what you did.”  That affirmation has to be repeated over and over so that we see the conceptual dissonance between love and non love. 

 The reinforcement of unconditional love helps us understand that there are things that are constant. Within the world of the moral and ethical constants are important, even though we may not fully understand them.  When, at our core we have these constants it gives us a grounding that makes connecting to one another and to ethical standards easier, even if the constants sometimes seem blurry.  Concepts such as empathy, rationality, and justice override and over shadow more mundane acts of purification and outward adherence.  Jesus said in Matt. 23: 25-26 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!  You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.  Blind Pharisee!  First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.”  Ethics is more than a set of rigid rules.  Ethics and morality reside in the core of our being.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Do Not Fold, Bend, Mutilate or Spindle

4 01 2010

 

            There were three that passed up the man who had been assaulted and robbed.  

 Luke 10:33-36  “But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.  He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.  Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.  The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper.  ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’  “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who into the hands of robbers?”

 This parable is another example of Jesus beseeching us to go the extra mile.  We know that there are numerous lessons that we can learn from this story.  The one that I want to focus is that Jesus puts faces on those that he helped.  It wasn’t something that he did from afar.  We are called to be in relationship with the other, not just give persons a handout or a donation, but to be involved one on one or with a group to share in their lives and they in ours.  This call is not just about charity.  It has its applications to ethics too.  In my conversations with my friend Bob Gower, one of our presenters at the Ethically Speaking conference in September, he told stories about his work at Lyondell Chemical as its CEO.  I was most impressed that he took time to personally visit the plants and to have lunch with some of his line employees to find out about what they were doing and thinking.  To me that’s above and beyond the call of duty.  It not only gave Bob a different perspective of his company operations but it gave the employees a feeling that he cared and that he was approachable.  And the policy of giving employees a feeling of safety to report problems directly to him, was another way of being accessible.  As Bob said recently, “As I read about so many issues–in companies, in government, in the CIA, in Homeland Security–I often think about what I told Lyondell managers and all of our people over and over.  You can not frighten people into doing a good job, you can not just cheer lead people into a good job, not at least over the long haul.  They have to want to do it.  And they will want to do it if you treat them with respect, tell them what is going on, and make sure they know what is expected of them.  That is what works for me, and it has worked with almost everyone else with whom I have worked.”  Some executives would feel that this kind of management was inappropriate and unnecessary for the CEO of a major company.  But the results were borne out in the outcomes of that company, from a very sick enterprise to being one of the top 100 companies to work for in America, not to mention its return to profitability and benefit to shareholders.

 This hands on management style also had an effect on company ethics.  There’s probably not a lot written about this, but it stands to reason that when you have a relationship with a person, and you have grown up with a belief in ethical standards and the worthiness of all human beings (see I and You) you will tend to be more ethical than if you see persons as commodities and blocks on an organizational chart. 

 Because of the complexity of today’s society, it’s difficult to build personal relationships within large organizations.  And when there is that attempt it is often in programs like “town hall meetings” or talking head presentations where people come to expect that the presenter will do something to alleviate their concerns, when in fact the presenter may not be empowered to do so.  This only makes the listeners even more frustrated and angry.  They may have been listened too, but not heard. 

 In the 1960’s there was a slogan that was associated with the ‘free speech movement’.  “Do not fold, bend, mutilate or spindle”.  The protests of that time were a cry for more open dialogue and accountability with those in power positions.  The slogan is interpreted as we are not computer cards with any identity other than being just a number.   There is often still the feeling that we are only numbers on a bar chart.  We are merely a demographic and not individuals.  Throughout the world today there are numerous individuals and organizations that are attempting to make our institutions more accountable and responsive to human interests and needs.  And there are indications that we have the tools to bring about better relationships in our communities and organizations.  As we have said in numerous places on this blog, it is impossible to legislate people’s ethics.  But we are now recognizing that as individuals we are also a part of an interconnected network of persons who demand ethical standards that inform our relationships with one another.  The question then that was posed to Jesus and prompted the parable of the good Samaritan of ‘who is my neighbor’, is that everyone is my neighbor and therefore my ethics demand that I treat others as ‘self’.  We may not have the time to create personal relationships with more than a few people in our lives, but we can acknowledge them as having worth as children of God and treat them accordingly.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

There’s a Jinn in the House

30 12 2009

Protect our children

Shortly after 9/11 our church embarked on a program to have meetings with Muslims in our community.  The purpose was to learn more about Islam and to see our Muslim brothers and sisters as individuals as opposed to being a monolithic group of fanatics.  For about a year we met numerous times in small groups and during that time I had the privilege of meeting some very fine people who were saddened and outraged by the acts of the few who had destroyed the Trade Center.  One of the men who I came to know and respect was an engineer and a Shiah Muslim.  One day we were having lunch and talking about our hopes and dreams for our children and grandchildren and he said, “I am worried that Jinn will invade my home and will take over my children”.  (a paraphrase).  I inquired about this term and after some struggling with the language he interpreted it as “demons”.  Still not understanding, I inquired further and he said that they were everywhere and all around us.  It was only then that I realized that his explanation was more than a mythical concept.  In fact, these Jinn were real.  They come through the television, on the air waves, in our media, in the internet and throughout our culture.  As we continued to talk, I realized that he and I both wanted the same things for our children and grandchildren—to be safe and hopefully to embrace our faith tradition.

 Last week, my wife and I got our weekly Netflix video, a cable series called Weeds.  It’s about a suburban housewife whose husband died from a heart attack early in his forties.  In order to maintain their lifestyle she became a drug dealer, selling Marijuana to all her suburban middle class adult friends.  In the series, Eight and nine year olds used language that even ten years ago would have been banned on TV and would be given a film an “R” rating.  Today, even on network TV the boundaries on language, sexuality and violence have been pushed back to levels that just a few years ago would have been considered unacceptable.  My wife only stayed for a few minutes, stating that the program was gross and she refused too see the whole series, but as I watched the program, I thought that if the life depicted in the series was anywhere near real life, then we have truly been invaded by Jinn.   

 If this program was an isolated incident, it might not be something to be concerned about.  But unfortunately it has become the norm.  More and more boundaries are being pushed back and we seem helpless to do anything about it.  Over the last weekend my wife and I stayed in a La Quinta in San Antonio.  We looked to see what was showing on the hotel TV.  I was surprised to see that there was a whole section of adult films.  Ten years ago that would never have been the case.  I was amused that there was a disclaimer that you had to be eighteen to view films on those channels.  I wondered who monitored the monitor.  Sex, violence and destruction are so prevalent in the media we have become anesthetized to it.  Or maybe that shouldn’t be the word. By seeing these depictions in the media our children and we, come to see these behaviors as acceptable and those behaviors are reinforced. They become what is known as a “community standard”.   I realize that my concern is one that has been debated and fought for centuries.  Can we censure free speech in some of its forms for the sake of preserving other moral and ethical standards?  The supreme court has often ruled on issues of free speech from whether someone can yell fire in a crowed theatre to Larry Flint and his magazine Hustler.  One of the current standards is “community standards”.  In 1973 a supreme court case established the Miller test concerning pornography.  It stated that there were three criteria establishing what was considered pornographic. In order for something to be considered pornographic all three criteria had to satisfied.  They were, that it appealed to prurient interests, that it was patiently offensives, and lacked serious literary, artistic, and political or scientific value.  This according to the court would be based on local standards so that something in Jackson Mississippi would have a different interpretation than what was the community standard in New York City.  As you well might guess the ruling did little to clarify the issue.  And as we have seen, little by little the media has been chipping away at what is considered as community standards and has done so on a national level.  Only periodically do citizens rise up and protest and then at great expense and personal stress.

 This article is not just about standards as they apply to pornography.  It also is about protecting children and giving other persons protection from offensive material being allowed in their homes.  It’s not enough to tell a parent just to monitor what their children watch on TV or at the movies or to install the V chip in their TV.  One of my sons does not have cable TV but both of his children go to friends houses that do have cable.  Then their’s the influence of the internet and other media.  Why should parents have to go to the extent that they have to in order to protect their children against what I have come to believe is home invasion from what my Muslim friend called Jinn.  Why should we be assaulted by internet material that is harmful to a person’s health. 

 It seems inconsistent that we are so concerned about lead paint on toys and protecting children from faulty car seats and seem so cavalier about what they are exposed to on TV or the internet.  Using the logic that it is a matter of parental responsibility of what children see or consume in the media, we would have to say that parents should be solely responsible for testing all toys for faulty and harmful construction of products used by children or for dangerous chemical additives in children’s food.  These are issues about morality but they’re also about ethics, because the attitude that seems to be prevalent is that anything goes and it’s an infringement on other person’s rights to have both strong moral and ethical community standards.  Our culture has long decided that the protection of our children is a primary concern of our society.  Whether it’s having laws about child labor or laws against abuse, even by parents or having laws protecting children as end user consumers, or education and healthcare for children, we know that our children need to be protected and are our future.  Because of the complexity of society, it is not possible for parents to know every harmful situation or to be in all places that children are exposed.

 It’s not enough to put some bogus disclaimer on an internet porn site or say that parents should use the V chip on their TV to block certain programs (the last time I saw anything about the V chip was from Bill Clinton).  And it’s not enough to just say that parents are the ones responsible for protecting their children.  It’s inconsistent with standards of morality, ethics and law that we have declared are sacred. 

It’s time that Christians, Jews, and Muslims and others concerned about children unite around the safety of our children.  Don’t let the Jinns around us fragment us in what we all want for our families—a safe place for our children to grow up to be what God has intended them to be.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

« Previous Entries Next Entries »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.