Thoughts of an Old Debater
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)
Add comment January 17, 2010
Immigration—A Disconnect Between the Clergy and Laity
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.
1 comment January 14, 2010
Who Will You Trust
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.
Add comment January 10, 2010
Do Not Fold, Bend, Mutilate or Spindle
There were three that passed up the man who had been assaulted and robbed.
Continue Reading Add comment January 4, 2010
There’s a Jinn in the House
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.
2 comments December 30, 2009
Questions about QuestionsDec. 8, 2009
Add comment December 24, 2009
Pray the Devil Back to HellDec. 4, 2009
Add comment December 24, 2009
Ethical Conflict
Ex. 8:12-15
“After Moses and Aaron left Pharaoh, Moses cried out to the Lord about the frogs he had brought on Pharaoh. And the Lord did what Moses asked. The frogs died in the houses, in the courtyards and in the fields. They were piled into heaps, and the land reeked of them. But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.”
In part two of Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict we explored the idea of covenant as a means of dealing with conflict and the basis for establishing reciprocal ethical standards. But this may be putting the cart before the horse. Theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr in his book Moral Man and Immoral Society takes a more radical position on conflict than many sociologist and academics. He states, “the relations between groups must therefore always be predominately political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proportion of power which each group possesses…. The coercive factors, in distinction to the more purely moral and rational factors, in political relations can never be sharply differentiated and defined. It is not possible to estimate exactly how much a party to a social conflict is influenced by a rational argument or by the threat of force….Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflict, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.” Theologian Bernard Loomer also addresses the issue in terms of power inequalities and states that “we seldom relinquish our power voluntarily. We loosen our grip and make our concessions only when we are forced to do so by some competing group that has acquired sufficient power to bring us to the negotiating table, as the history of the labor-management conflict and the modern women’s movement illustrate….We tend to trample on or remain indifferent to those people whom we feel we can safely ignore.” Throughout history we see this phenomenon occurring over and over. In the Exodus scripture we note that Pharaoh agrees to let the Israelites go to keep from having frogs throughout the kingdom. But when Moses and Aaron leave the court he changes his mind and decides not to let them go. That’s why it took seven plagues to get Pharaoh to let them go. Even then he reneges on his promise and goes after them with his army, only to have his army destroyed. Power is difficult for despot to relinquish.
In order to understand this inequality of power we not only need to address the issues of economic and social power but also in-group, out-group relationships. In-groups are those persons who form a power relationship that is dominant in the particular culture that it exists. Out-groups are those who lack the power of influence of the in-group and are considered in some sense to be inferior to the in-group. In the Pharaoh, Moses scriptures Pharaoh was the in-group and Moses was the out-group. These differentiations exist in multitudinous ways where an in-group may be an out-group as it relates to another more powerful group and vice versa. Even though Moses was perceived as being the weaker, because of his relationship with God, he was really the stronger.
Because an in-group sees itself as being better and having more self-esteem and power over the other, ethical treatment of the out-group may suffer. Ethical behavior of the out-group may also be affected. In the arena of race relations a white in-group may feel itself superior to a black out-group and therefore snub or treat them with less respect and take advantage of them including doing bodily harm to out-group members. The out-group may view this treatment as unjust and justify stealing, burning or otherwise breaking existing laws as punishment and “pay-back” for past grievances.
In the instance the O.J. Simpson murder trial that ended in acquittal, most whites who saw the trial believed that Simpson was guilty while the majority black jurors and the African American public tended to believe he was innocent. There were many in the black community who may have believed that he was guilty but that the acquittal was pay back for past injustices to blacks.
If there is an inequality of power in societies that effect ethics how then is it that some cultures and situations are able to make covenants that bolster relational structures? Where then, does the concept of covenant in ethical conflict fit? I suggest that there are steps that precede many conflicted power struggles before covenantal relationships can exist. Some of the possible steps are as follows:
- Out-group seeks to gain redress for injustices
- In-group will not meet or recognize validity of out-group
- Out-group continues to seek redress and to meet.
- In-group uses force and physical or economic intimidation to suppress out-group
- Out-group enlist secondary support from both inside and outside their group
- Out-group uses demonstrations and economic sanctions against in-group
- A breech occurs in the wall of support with moderates breaking ranks with in- group. Moderates seek change to ameliorate and pacify out-group.
- The beginning of relational power sharing
- Forming a permanent covenant
All during the process the out-group attempts to have a dialogue with the in-group or to forcibly displace the in-group. In the earlier stages this does not happen and may take years for negotiations to begin in earnest. At some point with or without a plan developed, the two groups form the semblance of covenant. The covenant may begin with the in-group acknowledging that the out-group has a right to exist and to bring grievances. Conversations may start and stop at every point of the negotiations. And from the outside, constituents from both the in-group and out-group may do whatever they can to maintain the status quo, even when bloodshed occurs.
The situation may be complicated when one or both sides engage in violence against the other side or when there exists a myth of entitlement such as the violence in Northern Ireland and in the Palestinian, Israeli conflict that has been fueled by both reality and myth that justifies further violence. (Def. myth—Attempt to state humanity’s faith or belief in the reality of experience and the meaning and value of that reality for life on the historical level.[Christian Word Book]) In both of these instances each side to the conflict are bound together by an ingrained historical myth that must be dealt with before change can occur. Often the full impact of the myth cannot even be discussed either with the other group or with outsiders. Much of the groups self is bound up in the myth. In these instances there is little incentive to listen to the others point of view, their history, their myth or for them to treat the other ethically. Their anger, prejudice and mythology are the glue that binds them together. And in a perverse way it binds both adversarial groups together in a seemingly endless Gordian knot.
In order to bring about change there needs to be a new story, a new created mythology that embraces the possibilities for living together in the future. This has to come out of dialogue and will not have come about as the initial goal of that dialogue. It comes about as a result of a continuing dialogue through each side telling their story and in the process, creating a newly constructed story.
Coming soon—a process of creating a new story.
Add comment December 22, 2009
Relational ethics, politics, and conflict (part 2)–Constitutional Covenant
In earlier blog articles we discussed the problem of passage of laws requiring more and more disclosure and accountability. The more complex the issue and the law, the more ways some people and organizations found to circumvent those laws. Normal unintended consequences due to the complexity of issues were exacerbated by passage of more laws, restrictions and often with resulting law suits and other impediments to free movement and actions. Then there are those who are responsible for enforcement of laws and regulations. In our current crisis we observe finger pointing at agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the treasury, and other agencies who were given the responsibility of enforcing and overseeing the appropriate regulations. The more laws that are enacted and the more regulations that are promulgated the more chaos seems to occur.
So, what is it that binds us together? We contend that it is covenant. What exactly is covenant and how does it differ from a contract?
“It is important to recognize that a covenant is far more than a contract. In contracts, parties give legal undertakings to effect transactions for reciprocal benefit. In covenants, people bind themselves together, in pledges of faithfulness and loyalty, to promote mutual well-being. The Chief Rabbi of Great Britain spoke about Covenants to the international gathering of Anglican Bishops, the Lambeth Conference, earlier this year. He summed up the differences between covenant and contract in four succinct points. · Contracts concern our interests, while covenants concern our identities. · Contracts deal in transactions, while covenants deal in relationships. · Contracts benefit, while covenants transform. · Contracts are about competition – if I win, you lose; while covenants are about cooperation – if I win, you also win.”
Most Revd Thabo Makgoba
It makes little difference what laws are passed or what restrictions are placed on those who are governed, if persons do not covenant with one another to be governed or to act ethically, then it will not happen. Our constitution is such a covenant. In its inception the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution covenanted that they would abide by such an agreement, because “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed even when all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Over our history there have been many disputes and debates over the meaning of different parts of the constitution. But in the end we have held onto those principles even when we suffered thorough the civil war to maintain the union and what it stands for. Only in debate, examination and litigation have we continued to view the evolution of this wondrous document. Democracy is not easy. It requires participation, conversation and consensus and ultimately acquiescence to the rule of law and the will of the people.
These policies inform our ethical behavior. Can we covenant with one another to abide by certain ethical standards in dealing with one another? Some would say not; that over the years we have lost something in our dealings with one another. To some extent this may be true. But I believe that we may be looking backwards with a dimly lit candle. We fantasize about the way things used to be when we remember that a man’s word was his bond and you could depend on a handshake.
This characterization may be true in some cases but we only have to look at our own history of robber barons, carpet baggers, and snake oil salesmen who bilked the poor and unsuspecting and oppressed the working class.
The Most Revd Thabo Makgoba the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in the Harold Wolpe Memorial lecture discussed the concept of Constitutional Covenant. Some of his points included:
What's good for me is good for America
- Constitutional Identity
- Constitutional Transformation
- Constitutional Relationship
- Constitutional Cooperation
- Democracy, Participation, Accountability
- Constitutional Diversity
- Democracy and Ubuntu
- Constitutional Economic
A full copy of his speech may be seen at the following website. Even though it addresses the South African constitutional situation it has relevance to our own constitutional principles.
http://archbishop.anglicanchurchsa.org/2008/11/harold-wolpe-memorial-lecture.html
Even though we live in a secular world, both our constitution and Archbishop Makgoba’s speech point us towards a higher calling as we struggle to live together morally, ethically, legally and responsibly.
“More than half of recent MBA graduates say their programs should have focused more on ethics, corporate governance, and sustainability, according to a survey from the Association of MBAs’ Research and Consultancy Center. According to a summary of the survey in the Raleigh (North Carolina) Triangle Business Journal, 59 percent of the 544 graduates surveyed agreed that business education programs should focus on all of the stakeholders affected by a business, not simply the shareholders.”
“ Another item from the report: While recent graduates reported that about half of their programs examined ethics “to a large extent,” only 10 percent of MBA graduates from the 1980s made the same estimation. “
http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2009/12/07/education-ethics-6/
It’s encouraging that more MBA students see the need for ethics training and a broadening of the curriculum. And the fact that about 50% of student programs examined ethics while only 10% of MBA graduates from the 1980’s felt that ethics was covered with adequacy shows that there is a growing recognition for the need for ethics training in business as well as other organizations.
The question that we have is, can we shift the primary emphasis of ethics from a purely behavioral and cognitive mindset to a paradigm that includes the covenantal aspects of ethics? Doing this would make ethics a much more human function that would recognize that organizations are not cold bottom line entities that rely on computer modeling and other hard science justifications for decision making.
The complexities of the twenty first century demand that we reinvigorate and scrutinize the constitution and how it impacts our ethical dealings with one another. It is a living breathing document, subject to multiple interpretations. Can we formulate the same scrutiny to ethics in the same way that we have done with the constitution?
1 comment December 14, 2009
Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict
In our article entitled “The Difference Between the Moral and the Ethical” we considered some of the ethical challenges for an individual working in an organization. Even though there is not always a clear cut distinction between the ethical and the unethical, it tends to be less challenging since the issues that a person faces are more concrete, definable individually definable.
However, the larger the organization, the more opportunities there are for missteps and unintended consequences. The decision matrix becomes larger and complex. And in some organizations the tendencies exist to see the organization itself and its continued survival as the primary goal. Setting that concern aside for a later discussion, we know that within organizations there are constituent stakeholder groups that must be considered when making decisions. Some of these include:
- Shareholders
- Management
- Workers
- Customers
- Suppliers
- The public
- Governmental entities
Each of these constituent groups has a stake in the future of the organization. Depending on the power of a constituency, decisions concerning one group will affect the others stake and subsequent outcomes. And due to the inevitable imbalance in power of each group, decisions will impact possible ethical, moral, legal and responsible behaviors.
Not only are these of concern when considering ethical behaviors, but organizations (particularly large entities) have to grapple with issues of disclosure whether in annual and quarterly reports or with the media.
We don’t have to go far to see the consequences of these perplexing situations. Examples abound:
- Making sub-prime loans to unqualified people with the idea of fulfilling home ownership as the American dream for everyone.
- The bundling of these loans into packages that were rated AAA even though they were not.
- Giving brokers and investment persons huge bonuses for putting together complicated derivative concepts that very few people understood.
- Bailing out banks and institutions that were “too big to fail”
And as we know there has been much second guessing and finger pointing at all concerned. To name just a few:
- Congress for making it possible for unqualified parties to buy a home.
- Congress for allowing banks and other financial institutions to get so large and complex that bailouts became inevitable.
- The institutions for not having the discipline to monitor their programs and insure that they were sound.
- Individuals who took the deals that later made them lose everything they had.
We could go right down the line with the blame game as each constituent group bought into the shell game. Whether we consider the events leading up to the fall to be unethical, irresponsible or just stupid, much of our economy bought into it. And now as we try to work our way out of the situation, it seems that we are going back to the same old behaviors and prescriptions. We’re told that the consumer is the one that will get us out of the mess by buying more instead of trying to bolster our infrastructure and focus on education, paying off debt and saving for retirement. We continue to witness the increased economic power of countries like China and the oil producing nations and talk a lot about energy independence, our national debt and the unabated orgy of spending for goods that most people don’t need, but feel they have to have. We’re like an addict who knows the outcome of his addiction but can’t seem to have the discipline to change.
So, are we doomed to this never ending cycle of “exuberant optimism”, catastrophe, renewal, and back to social amnesia? Whether it’s the prophets of the Bible or modern day prophet’s, history would indicate that this is our human condition. Rational philosophy and liberal theology tend to imply that humanity is evolving and that humanity’s dark side will be conquered by reason. Sociologist Kimball Young states,
“the only way in which collective conflicts, as well as individual conflicts, can be successfully and hygienically solved is by securing a redirection of behavior toward a more feasible environmental objective. This can be accomplished most successfully by the rational reconditioning of attitudes on a higher neuro-psychic or intellectual symbolic plane to the facts of science, preferably through a free discussion with a minimum of propaganda.”
On the other hand, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr sees the issue quite differently.
“What is lacking among all these moralists, whether religious or rational, is an understanding of the brutal character of the behavior of all human collectives, and power of self-interest and collective egoism in all inter-group relations.” He goes on to say, “The relations between groups must therefore always be predominantly political rather than ethical, that is, they will be determined by the proposition of power which each group possesses…”. “Whatever increase in social intelligence and moral goodwill may be achieved in human history, may serve to mitigate the brutalities of social conflicts, but they cannot abolish the conflict itself.”
With this in mind we will now move to how power and conflict have been and can be used to bring about change.
Add comment December 12, 2009
ethicalhouston
gowerb
nilknarf1940
gayleanngourwitz
