Ethical Conflict

22 12 2009

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:

  1. Out-group seeks to gain redress for injustices
  2. In-group will not meet or recognize validity of out-group
  3. Out-group continues to seek redress and to meet.
  4. In-group uses force and physical or economic intimidation to suppress out-group
  5. Out-group enlist secondary support from both inside and outside their group
  6. Out-group uses demonstrations and economic sanctions against in-group
  7. A breech occurs in the wall of support with moderates breaking ranks with in- group.  Moderates seek change to ameliorate and pacify out-group. 
  8. The beginning of relational power sharing
  9. 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.


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

Relational ethics, politics, and conflict (part 2)–Constitutional Covenant

14 12 2009

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

  1. Constitutional Identity                        
  2. Constitutional Transformation
  3. Constitutional Relationship
  4. Constitutional Cooperation
  5. Democracy, Participation, Accountability
  6. Constitutional Diversity
  7. Democracy and Ubuntu
  8. 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?


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

Relational Ethics, Politics and Conflict

12 12 2009

  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:

  1. Shareholders
  2. Management
  3. Workers
  4. Customers
  5. Suppliers
  6. The public
  7. 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:

  1. Making sub-prime loans to unqualified people with the idea of fulfilling home ownership as the American dream for everyone.
  2. The bundling of these loans into packages that were rated AAA even though they were not.
  3. Giving brokers and investment persons huge bonuses for putting together complicated derivative concepts that very few people understood. 
  4. 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:

  1. Congress for making it possible for unqualified parties to buy a home.
  2. Congress for allowing banks and other financial institutions to get so large and complex that bailouts became inevitable.
  3. The institutions for not having the discipline to monitor their programs and insure that they were sound.
  4. 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.


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

Cultural Isolation (part 5)–Languages and Lenses

30 11 2009

             We all know the effects of people speaking different languages on communication and understanding.  Even when both parties can speak the language and are from different cultures, there is still a distrust of the other, particularly if there are big differences in culture and ethics. There may be natural prejudices, but language can be just one more barrier to inhibiting trust.  In this piece, we’re not as concerned about those kinds of distrust and cultural isolation as we are language differences within our larger American culture. 

            We’re referring to language within professions and organizations that both give those members a sense of togetherness and mutual understanding but how that language impedes communication and may alienate others who don’t share the language.  Even though the following are somewhat nonsensical they make the point.  As you will readily see, these are terms that might be used in an educational setting:

  1. Reinvent metacognitive enrichment
  2. Leverage standards-based paradigms
  3. Orchestrate visionary functionalities
  4. Unleash meaning-centered goals
  5. Repurpose literature-based higher order thinking

Even though these terms are somewhat contrived, similar terms are used extensively by the education establishment.  I imagine the intent is to have clearer understanding of a word or phrase, but for most people it’s just gobbledygook.  (I bet you know what that means). 

            Have you ever tried reading a government grant proposal?  The following is information on an inquiry to grants.gov for grants related to ocean energy conversion.  This proposal was the highest level of relevance of all listed grants.  It was entitled “Teacher Quality Partnership Grants Program Recovery Act (ARRA) CFDA 84.405A,  This is the part of the proposal as to who is eligible.

Eligible Applicant: An eligible applicant must be an “eligible partnership” as defined in section 200(6) of the HEA. The fiscal agent of the grant may be any of the partners as described in section 200 of the HEA. The eligible partnership means an entity that– (1) Must include each of the following: (i) A high-need LEA. (ii) A high-need school or consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA, or, as applicable, a high-need ECE program. (iii) A partner institution. (iv) A school, department, or program of education within such partner institution, which may include an existing teacher professional development program with proven outcomes within a four-year IHE that provides intensive and sustained collaboration between faculty and LEAs consistent with the requirements of Title II of the HEA. (v) A school or department of arts and sciences within such partner institution; and (2) May include any of the following: (i) The Governor of the State. (ii) The State educational agency. (iii) The State board of education. (iv) The State agency for higher education. (v) A business. (vi) A public or private nonprofit educational organization. (vii) An educational service agency. (viii) A teacher organization. (ix) A high-performing LEA, or a consortium of high-performing LEAs, that can serve as a resource to the partnership. (x) A charter school (as defined in section 5210 of the ESEA). (xi) A school or department within the partner institution that focuses on psychology and human development. (xii) A school or department within the partner institution with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development. (xiii) An entity operating a program that provides alternative routes to State certification of teachers.

Is this really about ocean energy conversion? I also almost need my magnifying glass to read it.   And this is just the first section of the explanation and doesn’t include the bid proposal package and the explanation as to how to fill it out.  I came away angry at the whole process of trying to get information on something that might be helpful to not only myself but to the world. 

            These are only two examples of the complexities of language in our culture.  It’s no wonder that parents, students and educators are frustrated with a system that is so difficult to understand and implement.  Not to mention that the system is constantly changing with more detrimental results.  We’re all aware of the blatant language barriers that the government puts in our way to communicate.  So, how do you think that these language impediments impact ethics.  Let’s consider two.

  1. Distrust from the reader and arrogance on the language provider.  Anything that impedes our ability to communicate effectively and respectfully leaves us subject to misunderstandings and feelings of being marginalized.  Those who produce these language differences live in a rarified oxygen rich environment that bears little relationship to most people’s reality.
  2. These kinds of language barriers encourage circumvention of the system.  The more you complicate a system the more ways become available to circumvent. 
  3. It often also requires an intermediary expert to communicate and interpret the language which further distances the two parties.

Along with the impediments of language is that people look at their reality through different lenses.  My experience in Spring Branch as explained in part 1 is only one  example of my not being sensitive to the realities of the Anglo’s living in that community to their anger, frustration and feelings of being threatened with the immigrant population that rapidly encroached on them.  Until I confronted them, I had no idea what they felt.  On the other hand, as I continued to work in that community I had numerous experiences with the Hispanic population and from them I experienced their reality through a completely different lens.  At one meeting, immigrant women from the community were sharing stories about their experiences in this new country.  One woman who spoke no English began telling her story.  She was holding her baby and as she talked tears began to roll down her cheek as she held the baby closer as she rocked the baby.  Even though I didn’t speak Spanish, I felt the pain of her story and my heart reached out.  I later learned that she was talking about incidents of shootings and other violence in her neighborhood and the lack of safety.  She was worried about her children and what might happen to them in this new environment.  In her story I witnessed life through a different lens. 

You might ask, so how does that impact ethics?  Much of unethical behavior is a result of either not knowing or not caring about the other.  We simply are engrossed in our story and our own self.  Our sense of mercy, justice and caring get all muddled when we don’t view life through others lens of experience. 

If we feel marginalized by institutions such as the government and the education system there is a tendency to treat those institutions with less respect.   Why report all your income or vote for school bonds when you feel alienated from the system.  There is a sense that these systems don’t really want input, that they’re only interested in perpetuating themselves and their interests and that there’s no way to change the system to be more responsive to common folk.  This is a tragedy.  For people to feel that they are subject to the tyranny of the expert, to obscure language and see reality through different lenses only creates an atmosphere that separates us from one another and that encourages unethical behaviors.


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

Cultural Isolation (part 4)–The Tyranny of the Expert

26 11 2009

Three experts that we've put our trust

      Today we live in a world of experts.  Or so you’d think.  It’s important to have letters in front and in back of your name. PhD, MD, CEO, and over 900 acronyms and abbreviations denoting certain expertise and standards for qualification have come to be important indicators of our place in society.  The complexity of society has been somewhat responsible for this as knowledge has become more focused and narrow.  No longer do I just work in the employment department at my company.  I may be an employment benefits administrator, or a FMLA/Leave specialist, or a Human Resources Analyst.  And these are just three jobs in the field of Human Resources.  A normal human being, after reading the job description of these positions can get a pretty good idea of what a person is supposed to do.  But take another field in the computer technology area. 

            ‘“Operations research” and “management science” are terms that are used interchangeably to describe the discipline of using advanced analytical techniques to make better decisions and to solve problems. In private enterprises, operations research is used in planning business ventures and analyzing options by using statistical analysis, data and computer modeling, linear programming, and other mathematical techniques.

Operations research analysts are often involved in top-level strategizing, planning, and forecasting. They help to allocate resources, measure performance, schedule, design production facilities and systems, manage the supply chain, set prices, coordinate transportation and distribution, or analyze large databases.’ (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Handbook, 2008-09 ed)

            I suppose that if you’re an Operations research analyst this is all very clear, but if I was a freshman student in college and was thinking about what I wanted to do with the rest of my life, I might have difficulty grasping the scope of this job. 

            The point of this discussion is that as our society becomes more complex the more we have to specialize, which in turn creates more cultural isolation.  Not only do we not know what our neighbor does but we can’t talk with him because of our language and paradigm orientation.  Experts are supposed to know more about their subject than the rest of us.  They’re schooled and accredited, whereas we aren’t.  This sometimes gives us a sense that we are not as good as they are thereby putting more confidence in them than may be deemed necessary or advisable.  That is the reason, at least in the counseling field, that boundaries between the counselor and counselee are so important.  The counselor has power that if used improperly results in unethical behavior.  The same can be said as it applies to other professions.   Those with accreditation have more power with/over their clients and the clients need protection from improper or sloppy behavior. 

               Ethical imperatives are not always consistent with similar professions.  Two particular licensures that many counseling practitioners in Texas have are the Licensed Professional Counselor and Licensed Marriage and Family Therapy license.  Both of these licenses are administered by the same state agency.  They each have their own board and they periodically modify the ethics criteria for their particular license.  The ethics criteria are basically the same with a few minor exceptions.  However, one difference that I’ve always wondered about has to do with sexual conduct between a counselor and a former client.  There’s a whole list of caveats for sexual conduct with a former patient but the one that jumps out at me is that if a person is a LPC they are permitted to have sexual relations with a former patient after five years, while an LMFT is allowed to have sexual relations with a former patient after two years.  I would never consider having sexual relations with a former patient under any circumstances but have wondered why one license board used five years and the other two.  I’m not familiar with other professions but I imagine that there are other inconsistencies and anomalies in professional ethics criteria. 

Not only are there a myriad of requirements for accreditation for hundreds of professional designations, the requirements for entry into many of these professions continues to stiffen.  In some cases this is understandable as the knowledge base of that profession expands requiring more knowledge on the part of the candidate.  However, there are probably many instances where this is not the case.  It appears that accreditation is more of a job security function.  Take for instance the requirements for Licensed Professional Counselor in Texas.  When I became an LPC twenty years ago one of the requirements for licensure was to have 1000 hours of face to face counseling internship experience under the supervision of an accredited LPC supervisor.  Today it is 3000 hours of supervised face to face.  Also, the criteria to become and maintain a supervisor’s are more intense, thus giving supervisors another source of income.  As far as I can tell there has not been that much addition to the body of knowledge in counseling for a person to be admitted to licensure in those twenty years.  The only conclusion I can make is that the move was to limit the number of new licenses issued. 

To further emphasize the power of the expert, you only have to look in our court system where we have dueling experts who sell their services to advocate for a client.  On the other side is another expert who is equally adamant in their testimony for their client.  Can both be right?  Years ago I was involved in a lawsuit involving the value of a piece of commercial real estate.  Both sides had appraisals for the same property.  Both appraisers were competent and accredited.  But the differential in their appraisals was as much as 50%.  The definition of value is “what a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither of which is being forced to buy or sell, are willing to pay for a property.”  So, given the same facts, how could two appraisers be that far apart.  Could it be that the fact that the appraisers were being paid to advocate for their clients, that the values were skewed towards the clients position?   Is that ethical? And if so, which one is unethical?  Obviously, both can’t be right.  At one point years ago there was a saying that MAI which stood for Master Appraisers Institute, really meant Made According to Instruction.  Because of this tendency by some unethical appraisers, after the savings and loan scandals a number of appraisers were indicted for overstating values on properties that were later deemed to be considerably less valuable than appraised. 

Most professionals are highly ethical and it’s unfortunate that when a few bad apples are unethical that it blemishes the whole barrel and causes those professions to be ever stricter, thus punishing other honest professionals.  But the power still remains and is generally subject to self policing which itself sometimes is flawed.

Cultural isolation that accents our hierarchal differences and places further impediments in our way of communicating, even though well meaning in nature, create more possibilities for ethical transgressions.


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

Cultures in Isolation (part 3) Too Big to Fail

23 11 2009

          We will now explore the some reasons for cultures being in isolation.  I am currently reading Andrew Sorkin’s book entitled Too Big to Fail, which chronicles the rise and fall of wall street and the world economic meltdown in 2007-2008.  Even though the reasons for this fall have some unique qualities they also have common features of other cultures in isolation.  Some common qualities of these organizations are closed loop vision, lemming behavior, and a tight knit loyalty to either the organization, the principles or the leader.  Note that I did not mention greed, hubris, and unethical behavior.  These all contributed to the problem, but don’t really reflect the deeper contributors to cultural isolation.  In many cases they adhered to the concept that they were facilitating the greater good of the free market and its benefits to humanity as a whole. 

The sub-prime loan market and the over heated housing market are most notably blamed as the catalyst that almost brought the world economic market to its knees.   But who could be against putting millions of people into homes that previously could not afford a home?  But there’s little indication that the thinking went that deep.  In financial quarters it was not that altruistic or if it was the possible unintended consequences were not well thought out.   Without going into any great detail, the crux of the problem was a result of taking millions of sub-prime loans and bundling them into packages with better loans and then selling them as packages to investors.  Many of the large banks not only did the packaging, resulting in tremendous profits but also bought packages of these loans from their competitors, again making huge profits on brokering the packages to other investor groups.  Supposedly, by packaging good loans with riskier loans you made the packages into high quality instruments.  The rating agencies that told investors what the risks were to these packages, tended to rate them as triple A rated.  And to insure that the packages were highly rated, the sellers would buy insurance guaranteeing the packages.  Never mind that the insurance had very little behind it to pay off in case of default.  As it has become stated elsewhere, it became a house of cards.

            In most cases, these transactions were not illegal or even unethical.  But leveraged securities at 30-1, in hindsight do not seem prudent.  But everyone who was anyone on Wall Street was doing it, so it must be okay.  And anyway, the profits were tremendous.  In reading Sorkin’s book you quickly get the picture of a closed loop system that by its nature is myopic.  These were supposed to be some of the smartest financial brains in the world and yet even a high school economics student, given enough factual information could see the repercussions.  Money was certainly a factor and motivation for creating and perpetuating the system.  But I think it was more than that.  First they could not/ did not look out beyond the closed loop.  And two, there was nothing from the outside to give them a compass to follow.  And even though there were regulations in place to keep much of this from happening, many of the framers of the regulations were the ones reaping the profits.  And government was complicit  in facilitating legislation that would be a set up for eventual failure.

            Many years ago I was involved in commercial real estate development.  Because financing was always challenging for smaller developers, I was always looking for windows of opportunity to borrow at rates that made sense economically.  During one of the periods of high interest rates, I had a young man visit me offering to broker loan money for new commercial properties that I might want to build. He said that he had outlets for short term money at a floating rate of 2 points over prime.  Prime at the time was 14%.  At that time my rate would be 16% with a two point origination fee.  The usury rate in Texas had been raised to 22% from 18%, so you can see the mentality of the market.  I told him that we were out of the market since rates were so high and I couldn’t see how the economics would work.  He became somewhat belligerent and badgering, stating that this was the market and that rates were only going to get higher and I needed to borrow, since others were doing the same.  He pointed out that other companies were doing similar deals and flipping them to investment groups and making huge profits.  He even said that these kinds of loans were available on raw land, a non income producing property and people were staying in the project for six months and then selling to another investor.  I told him I just couldn’t see it; that it was too risky and sent him on his way.   In was not many months later that the real estate market tanked and billions of dollars were lost, savings and loans around the country closed, and banks by the hundreds either went under or were bought out by bigger banks. 

            We had not taken the bait and had survived.  At other times in my career, I was not quite so prudent and made financial mistakes because I followed the other lemmings into the sea.   We survived these financial crisis in the real estate market, but they required years to recover.

            The other factor to be considered in The Too Big to Fail scenario has to do with loyalty.  Successful organizations tend to generate great loyalty among its members.  We generally consider this to be a positive attribute of the organization.  There is a sense of togetherness and connection to have common goals and objectives.  But in creating this internal loyalty there is a tendency either to blindly adhere to the leaders wishes or become blind to the realities outside the group.  Sorkin relates an incident that could be generalized to any successful organization, whether the military, a government, the church, or business.  He states that in a meeting with executives at Lehman Bros., who were in an internal fight in the company and  before he died, Lewis L. Glucksman in order to maintain solidarity came to the meeting with a handful of number 2 pencils and gave each of them a pencil and told them to bread it.  Of course, no one had any difficulty in doing so.  He then handed a handful of pencils to Richard Fuld, who later became CEO of Lehman and instructed him to break them.  Because there were so many, he couldn’t.   Glucksman then said “Stay together, and you will continue to do great things.”  This is a story that has been repeated throughout history in one form or another and shows the power of loyalty to a cause.  But sometimes it’s necessary to step back and reappraise the situation, ask ourselves whether it make economic sense, or whether it’s legal, ethical, moral or responsible.  That takes great leadership and a sense by those under the leader that input and reflection are permissible and in fact are expected.


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

Cultures in Isolation (Part 2)– Don’t Tell Me What to Do

22 11 2009

Jeremiah  5: 1 ; 7: 3-11

“Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares.  If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city.”

            ”Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place.  Do not trust in deceptive words and say, ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!’   If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever.  But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.”

            No one likes a prophet.  It was true during the time of the prophets and it was true in the time of Jesus and it’s true now.  In today’s world the language of the bible and the concept of God as a vindictive capricious old man seem antiquated and mythically irrelevant.  Most people can’t relate to this kind of God, even if they believe in God.  The Church of the past placed great emphasis in this understanding of God and people both in the faith, and unbelievers say that this concept of God is an ancient concoction that needs to be purged.  J. B. Phillips in his book “Your God is too Small” explores our historical and limited view of God.  Characterizations of God as the “resident policeman”, “parental hangover”, “the grand old man”, and “the puppeteer” are all limitations and holdovers from a time past.  He goes on to say that because of the immensity of God our human mind cannot wrap itself around the fullness of God’s being.  He states that the closest we come to an idea of the nature of God is through Jesus of Nazareth.  He quotes John to make his point.

John 14: 9  “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”

John 14: 6 “I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

Phillips interprets this by saying, “ Jesus says, in effect, that there will be no inward endorsement of the truth of the way of living he puts forward as the right one, until a man is prepared to do the will, i.e. co-operate with the purpose of God.  This at once rules out arm chair critics of Christianity and any dilettante appraisal of it merits. “You can’t know,” say Christ, “until you are willing to do.”   He further states that Jesus calls us to “pick up our cross (i.e. bear the painful cost of that denial) and follow him (i.e. live positively according to the principles that I teach and demonstrate).” 

“Now at the moment a person does this, even temporarily and tentatively, they find themselves in touch with something more real than they have known before.  There is a sense that they are touching a deep and powerful stream that runs right through life. In other words, the moment a person begins to really love, they find themselves in touch with the life of God.”

            There is also the warning that even though we can experience Grace, there are consequences to our actions.  Even our best intentions are subject to judgment and consequences.  Just because we don’t know God’s law or can’t foresee the unintended consequences, none the less consequences flow out of our actions.  Our ethical and moral decisions have effects.  I don’t think that God sits in Heaven and metes out judgments and punishment on a daily basis.  To the contrary, God has set in motion God’s physical and spiritual laws for us to live by, interpret or ignore.  Even in the 21st century, with our knowledge base, we don’t always foresee the results of our actions. 

            In spite of our cultural isolation and the realities of the challenges facing the human race, we still stubbornly live out of personal self interest, a sense of individualism, positivism or on the other end of the continuum, a sense of dread and doom.  Much of what we hear from the television pulpit is the gospel of prosperity.  If we only believe enough, we are told, God will make us prosperous.  On closer observation, we know that’s not correct.  Often, regardless of belief and right actions we will suffer.   None the less, God is with us.

             On closer observation we see that Christ takes all of life into Himself.  Our separation and lack of understanding or adherence to His will are all taken into Himself.  And in so doing he still acknowledges his love for us in this isolated and broken state.  He weeps and bleeds and dies in our separated state.  He shares in our joys and our life’s learnings.  In His resurrection he acknowledges and points to this alternative way and it leads to Him and to new life.  He points us towards the God of new beginnings; that we can make mistakes and even be lost in our will to power, but that if we are willing to acknowledge this brokenness we can start new, even knowing that we will fall again.  Even if for only a little while we can be in the Light and know that there is another way and that we are always welcomed back.

            But acknowledging our fallenness is only the first step.  We next have to commit to change and learn from our mistakes and realize that we are not the center of the universe.  We look back at Gen. 3: 22 “And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’   We might say further that we have the ability to know good and evil, but sometimes our eyes are covered with scales. 

In William Menzies 1936 movie adaptation of H.G. Wells book Things to Come, the world is followed through a series of wars and plagues from 1936 until 2036 until a pool of technocrats build a society in Basra Iraq and finally in 2036 dominate the world with their superior technology and intellect.  Even in their domination there is a sense of cold resignation that something is missing and one of the characters Cabal, then delivers a speech to the idea of progress and humanity’s quest for knowledge, asking, “And if we’re no more than animals, we must snatch each little scrap of happiness, and live, and suffer, and pass, mattering no more than all the other animals do or have done. It is this, or that. All the universe or nothing. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”

I contend that there is another alternative.  It is that faith in the power of relationships, where we live, love, suffer and pass but along the way, are connected in a spiritual way to our inner selves, to one another and to God.  Our salvation is not in our knowledge of the universe, or in things, wealth or power, but in the realization that we are all connected and unconditionally loved in spite of our self absorption.  Life then becomes an adventurous journey to share that vision with one another and live into it.


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

Cultures in Isolation (part 1) Misplaced Hopes

20 11 2009

           When I decided on the subject for my doctoral dissertation in Organizational Psychology I used my local community in west Houston, Texas as the area to be studied.  For years there had been a cultural divide between the south side of I-10 and the north side of I-10.  Traditionally, there had been a rift between these two neighborhoods.  Even though both were Anglo, there was an economic difference with the south side being more affluent than the north side.  This was evidenced by the rivalry and the distrust of the north versus the south on the school board.  Beginning sometime in the 1980’s the north side began to change dramatically with undocumented Hispanic immigrants flowing into older apartment projects and changing the character of the community.  In my study, I wanted to see if an intervention in the north side community would enhance understanding and cooperation between the two sides.  The idea was to help develop a labor center for male immigrant workers living on the north side.  These undocumented immigrant men would stand on the corners waiting for contractors to pick them up and employ them for day labor jobs.  It seemed simple enough to me.  Having a safe place for the men to meet, get out of the cold and heat, and get them off the street seemed like a win-win situation.  As it turned out our intentions were seen more like the white mans burden, except the adversaries were white.  Not only did the white establishment not want to embrace the concept, they wanted the immigrants to be shipped back home where they came from.  They even suggested that if those of us on the south side were so intent on helping the immigrants that we should build the center in our affluent neighborhood on the south side.  So much for my naïve belief that I knew how to engage others whose life experience was different than mine. 

            The experience enlightened me to the fact that our isolation from one another creates all sorts of misunderstandings.  We make assumptions about the “other” or we completely disregard the “other”.   Additionally, we often cannot assess the unintended consequences of our actions.  Whole industries have been created in the past fifty years to make assessments of these unintended consequences with the result that often good ideas are shelved because of undo concern about these consequences.  On the other hand, as a result of this vigilance we have averted untold tragedies. 

            We observe cultures in isolation in neighborhoods, but also see it in corporations, community, government and political constituencies.  And usually those with the power are the ones whose interests succeed.  With the consternation and complexities the world faces, the issues almost seems overwhelming. And this isolation affects ethical decision making.  We tend to see the issues through our limited perception and do little to have conversations about the experiences and perceptions of the other. It may be that in the seeming chaos and anger there is hope and some solutions.  So, where does this hope come from?  Let’s consider several possible areas that we might turn to.

  1. Technology–   Some time ago I was talking to a young man about the flooding problem in Houston.  The basic fact that you must know is that Houston floods.  Whether it’s that Houston is only 60 feet above sea level and has a fall of one foot per mile to the coast, or that Houston is prone to periodic Monsoon rains of five to ten inches of rain in a few hours, or that we’re prone to the devastation of hurricanes such as Rita and Ike,   Houston floods.  But it’s more than just our topography.  Houston also is a city that has grown to over four million people in a very short time and up until a few years ago had less than ideal regional planning.  Houstonians liked it that way, though.   And one of these areas of regional deficiencies was in flood control.

           Our conversation centered on flooding that was taking place on the southeast side of Houston some thirty years ago.  As more development occurred upstream there were less places for water to seep into the water table and more and more water was thrown into the bayous, thus causing more flooding downstream.  To him it was just about greed of developers who had the city and county officials in their pockets.  As a result of this continued periodic flooding the citizenry in these areas began to protest.  They did not want their homes to be flooded every couple of years.

      I agreed with the young man to a point.  It was sad that people were losing their homes to flooding.  But I pointed out that thirty years ago no one could adequately predict the impact of development.  The technology was not available to make those determinations.  Today, with computer modeling and other technology, we have flood plane maps; we can calculate the effects of development on the community as a whole.  This doesn’t mean that flooding has been stopped.  But with continued development and our understanding of our environment we can minimize the effect of unintended consequences.  With accurate information more ethical decisions can be made.  But even experts and their computer modeling can be subject to interpretation and disagreement.  Only slight changes in input, carried out into the future can make huge differences in conclusions, thus providing conclusions that are inconclusive and subject to even more disagreement and scrutiny.  This use of technology has in some cases heated up the debate and made many believe that government or other powerful interest make decisions about our lives that should be left to the individual. Technology, even though useful in dealing with the issue of unintended consequences will result in ethical tensions as it deals with the tensions between the rights of personal freedom and community responsibility.    

        While some nations will embrace debate over unintended consequences, other nations will run headlong into advancing the short term goals of technology at the expense of their own population as well as their neighbors.   It’s estimated that by the year 2050 there will be over two billion more people on earth.  Sustaining that kind of population will be even more of a challenge that what we face today.  The ways in which we carry on this conversation is crucial to the future of humanity. Solutions may be painful or not in the interests of certain groups of people or nations.  But dialogue is crucial even if it means moving a little slower or having to confront tragic unintended consequences.  Today humanity is inextricably connected and interdependent on the other.  The biblical imperative of Love God, Love Neighbor is more important than ever.   But is loving neighbor enough.? (see part two)


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

Confronting the Shadow Side

10 11 2009

06pDichotomy75

In the last year Americans have been appalled and angered by the actions of some on Wall Street.  But the anger is not held exclusively for Wall Street.  Washington and our legislature and agencies charged with the job of protecting persons’ life savings have also been viewed as culpable.  It’s as if our ethics and morality have been thrown to the wind and the forces of greed, ineptitude and incompetence have taken over.  And currently, to get out of the mess, we have to put our hope and faith in many of the same people who got us there in the first place.  As I write, it seems that most of those who were responsible for the financial debacle will go unpunished and in fact will come out whole and still in power.  There are a few exceptions to this such as Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford, but they seem to be the exception.     

            Add to the mix, our need to overhaul healthcare, environmental concerns, education, immigration, the wars, energy independence, and a host of other important national and international issues and it’s no wonder that the average American is angry and has lost faith in both business and government. It’s as if we either don’t know the difference between good and evil or that we just don’t care. The elections of 2008 gave President Barack Obama and the Democratic congress a mandate to bring about change.  The President talked about a new age of bipartisanship and cooperation to change the way Washington did business.  To date, most of his initiatives have been met with petty bickering and political posturing with Washington and the average American more conflicted and angry than ever.  The forces of the Free market economy and those seeking more governmental involvement in every phase of human life and commerce, are more conflicted than ever as each seeks to carve out its territorial interests.  Some believe that more laws and more restrictions are the answer while others believe that less governmental intervention and more personal freedom is the answer. 

            Even in our churches there is rancor and discontent. Whether it’s the belief by many that the Church today is irrelevant to their lives or the ongoing conflicts over inerrancy, homosexuality, and abortion, the Church’s voice is often narrow and intolerant.  So, is there no answer to our plight? 

            I think there is, if we are willing to confront our shadow side and make a continuing assessment of our relationship with that shadow side and our relationship with God.

In his compilation on ethics, Dietrich Bonheoffer states that in humanity’s decision to know the difference in good and evil (through the Fall), the results is separation from God.  In Gen 3: 22 it says, “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” “ In knowing good and evil he knows what only the origin, God himself, can know and ought to know.” (Bonheoffer)  We have separated ourselves from the Source.   Bonheoffer goes on to say, “the good and evil that humanity knows are not the good and evil of God but good and evil against God.  They are good and evil of man’s own choosing, in opposition to the eternal election of God.  In becoming like God, man has become a god against God.”

            When we dig deeper, we see that this is a trait that we all have and more often than not it hides itself in our psyche in the forms of denial, grandiosity, and self delusion.  Paul says in Romans 7: 18-20, “For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.  For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.  Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.”   We just don’t think that deeply about it.  In today’s permissiveness, not many persons would see themselves as Paul did.  There are some good reasons for not sharing Paul’s feelings, since historically as Christians we have seen the overwhelming negative effects of religious guilt.  Today we see God, if we believe at all, only as a positive force and the creator of love.  These are all part of God’s nature, but the God of the scriptures also warns us to be conscious of the shadow side and that our disobedience of His law has consequences.  These are not consequences that a capricious God inflicts upon us, but the consequences of God’s natural law.

            It may be that what we continue to see in the unethical and greedy behaviors of persons in business, politics and all other areas of life, only reflect this permissiveness and assent to self will.   It also reflects our western idea of individualism and self reliance; that we are the masters of our fate and destiny.  Our beliefs in God also often reflect our prejudices and will to power.  We twist our belief system into thinking that if God is a part of the equation, it is us who really influence God’s actions through our belief that God is on our side, even though we may be imposing our self will on Him. 

            The question arises, if we admit our frailties and separation, won’t we be immobilized and guilt ridden to the point of inaction and self recrimination?   For most this is only a fleeting thought.  Too much navel gazing can get one in trouble.  In today’s world, not too many people are doing much navel gazing.  Even though many professions such as attorneys, engineers, doctors, psychologists, CPA’s and corporations are now requiring that members take periodic ethics courses, secularism tends to be ethically sterile.  Professional standards for ethical behavior are a step in the right direction, but more is required.  Our society relies heavily on secular laws that have become so complicated that it is almost impossible to interpret them without an army of lawyers.  In making laws so complex, it makes for whole industries that flourish on interpreting and finding ways to bypass those laws.  Just one current example is the over two thousand page proposed healthcare bill.  And no matter how many laws we pass some people will believe they are above the law.

But there is another aspect of the shadow side.  That is the creative nature that is within us all.  Humans have the capacity to turn their destructive and grandiose attributes into positive actions with positive outcomes for one another.  Our hidden motives may still be out of self interest, but the results can be different.  A person may work for a better education system, because they not only want others to be able to flourish, but at our core we still see that to have an educated populace and workforce, that it is in our best self interest.  Selfish or selfless?  Who is to say?  

There are many individuals, corporations, non-profits, and congregations that carry out their mission with integrity and compassion.  A business person can have as a goal of making a profit but also use their work to benefit the community at large, employees, and the customers served.  There are also many dedicated political and community leaders that give of themselves unselfishly.  Their dedication should be given proper recognition. 

            So how do we confront this shadow side?  How do we unleash the creative positive side of the shadow side?  First, the process is ongoing and one that we work on all our lives. We have to start by recognizing the existence of the shadow side.  And what is the shadow side and why is it so difficult for us to acknowledge its existence and then do something to change it?  Carl Jung believed that the shadow side was that part of us that we were afraid of.  It encompasses those traits and attitudes within ourselves that we do not want to acknowledge.  It’s that part of us that we want to avoid that exposes our deepest fears and inadequacy and our lack of meaning.  But it is also those creative qualities that have been responsible for human progress.  What then motivates us to confront the shadow side and to use those creative forces positively?   We have to conclude that what we’re doing and how we’re living is not the answer to happiness and we want our lives to be different.  We want to connect to the emptiness inside and the lack of meaningful human contact as well as a desire for transcendence.

 There are at least two primary ways that humans deal with their environment.  One is to live a life based only on self interest.   What’s in it for me?  How can I maximize my positive feelings both physical and emotional?  And the other way is to live ones life with compassion and concern for others and all of creation.  This is the message of the prophets and the messiahs.  But even this is done out of self interest.  I give of myself and risk being hurt emotionally and physically for the greater good or for a more meaningful existence.   This dichotomy is always held in tension.  The recognition that this tension exists is the first step in confronting the shadow side.  To deny it or to try and suppress it like Paul will only make it worse.  But acknowledge its existence, we must.  Ultimately, in order to be whole we must come to love the shadow side as being part of us and that it is a powerful source of creativity.     As a Christian, I believe there is hope and there is a way to confront our shadow side with a degree of honesty.  I say a degree of honesty because the shadow side is always trying to hide itself.  Even though I’m not much for formulas the twelve steps of AA is a system that has helped millions of people around the world. Instead of alcohol, insert the words “shadow side” or whatever negative influences dominate our lives.

1.) We admitted we were powerless over alcohol–that our lives had become unmanageable.

2.) Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3.) Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4.) Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5.) Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6.) Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7.) Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8.) Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9.) Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10.) Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11.) Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12.) Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

            This process of confrontation, confession, self evaluation and the desire and act of change can make a difference in the way we see ourselves, our relationships, and God as the ultimate authority in our lives and in the world.  Changing the world begins by changing ourselves and by holding ourselves accountable for our actions.  Christians are called to love neighbor as one self and part of love of self is loving even our shadow side.  Only then can we turn outward and require accountability from others.


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

The Difference between the Moral and the Ethical

28 10 2009

290170wAs the framers of this website discussed what our mission was to be and what our goals were, we sometimes would interchange the word “moral” for the word “ethical”.  Even as we publicized the Ethically Speaking seminar in September we would sometimes interchange those words.  So, are they different?  The answer is, mostly yes.  Something may be ethical or legal, but it may be in conflict with our personal morals. 

One of the best examples of this is in the legal profession where an attorney is ethically bound to represent a client to the best of his/her ability even though the attorney may not agree with the morality of the client.  But ethically an attorney is bound to set aside personal moral belief to ensure that the client is well represented.  It can be argued that sometimes this does not happen.  We all know of instances where attorneys do not give their best effort or use questionably unethical means “just to win the case”.

Many professionals must deal with similar dichotomies.  The professional counselor who has a strong personal belief and commitment to marriage is often faced with issues of infidelity in a clients marriage by one partner or the other.  The ethics regulations of counselors will be a guide to the professional but cannot always satisfactorily mediate the ethical and moral issues presented by the client.

Today, there is some help available to us.  Most professions have strict guidelines for ethical behavior and require regular continuing education to help professionals know the latest in legislation and focus the professional on the importance of ethics. 

But what about businesses and organizations that do not have a stated set of ethical policies or that don’t enforce the policies that they have?  Issues such as dating of fellow employees, petty pilfering of office supplies, taking or giving gifts to suppliers and customers, all are everyday situations that may or may not be problematic.

And what about hours worked.  Wage and hour laws are quite explicit on hours worked and such things as overtime.  Some people believe that so called salaried employees are not subject to overtime laws when in fact they may be.  Many such questions then begin to blur themselves into the realm of the legal. 

In organizations that do not take ethics seriously there is usually a pervasive unethical or even immoral behavior that often begins at the top.  It usually starts small and begins to expand, when no consequences are imposed.  As time passes the behavior becomes more and more pronounced.   It may be years before the behaviors are exposed and consequences are meted out.  And it may be that no one will ever know the difference and there are no consequences. 

As individual employees that see unethical or immoral behavior on the work site, we are challenged as to what we should do.  Unless there is a strong corporate intolerance for unethical behavior where an employee can report such issues to superiors, without fear of retribution, actions may be limited.  At some point the only solution might be for the employee to move on.  This may be difficult particularly if the job market is tight and one has financial or family obligations to consider.

In summary, having some understanding of the difference between the ethical and the moral is important, since we tend to blur those differences.  If you are a person of faith the blurring of those issues become quite difficult.  As persons of faith, we may have to make decisions on our moral beliefs rather than what is considered ethical or legal.  On the other hand, we may need to reflect on our personal moral beliefs and realize that the ethical and legal positions of society take precedent over those personal beliefs.

Do you have ethical and moral issues that you’re dealing with?  Without naming names, let us hear from you on what you struggle with and let us consider alternative solutions together.


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

« Previous Entries Next Entries »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.