Walter Cronkite—Where are You When We Need You?

2 08 2010

 

 

I usually don’t make comparisons to the way things are now, with the way things were.  Usually our fantasies about the past are just that—fantasies.  But in the case of news reporting, I think it helpful to compare the reporting of Walter Cronkite in the sixties and the seventies with our situation today.  Cronkite was called “the most trusted man in America” and held the American publics trust for many years even though he did not always tell us what we wanted to hear and sometimes got the facts wrong.  But even when we later learned that his reporting wasn’t completely accurate we still believed that it was an honest mistake and we forgave him.  The other two major networks NBC and ABC were always trying to hold themselves to Cronkite’s standards because he was the standard for ethical reporting. 

  Along the way something has happened that has created a mean spirited and ethically bankrupt journalistic (and I use the term loosely) environment.  This situation is primarily on the cable TV networks and on talk radio.  You can even extend that criticism to blogs (maybe even this one).  Accurate and civil reporting seems to be a thing of the past.  And because there is so much dead air that needs to be filled, we are inundated with the same meaningless or vitriolic material 24/7.  We only get relief early in the morning when the infomercials hit the airways.  Gauged by the stuff that we get during the day, infomercials are a paragon of truth and virtue.  And cable news continually rails about the same subjects over and over, not even giving us a variety of arguments.  How many times have we heard that tax cuts are the answer to creating jobs or that we need more government spending to get us out of the recession.  And the interviews, where they have up to six pundits shouting at each other at the same time, with the so called moderator hogging the mike and talking over the other guests, makes my head ache.  Nothing new is uttered and the information given is usually inane, unintelligible, or cut off by a commercial. 

 To make things worse, we are now seeing these cable stations taking pot shots at each other.  Whether it’s Fox TV shooting at Steven Colbert or Jon Stewart or vice versa, the new form seems intent on attacking each other.  Since I now have to check in with all these shows including Glen Beck, I realize that I’m contributing to the problem.  Even though I’d rather not be in that position, I’ve become addicted.  It’s like going to the Roman Coliseum and seeing the blood sports of the time—they repulse me, but I feel compelled to watch.  It’s sick.

 In a recent Gallup poll of July 28, 2010 it was shown that only 9% of people rated members of congress as having high ethical standards.  Business executives were rated at 12% with journalists rated at 23%.  And even though we have lost trust in these professions, our frustration and anger is fueled by the constant need for ratings and our thirst for blood lust.

 So, why do I keep watching??????


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Uncategorized

Ethics and Accountability

11 04 2010

 

Romans 3:9-20

“So where does that put us?  Do we Jews get a better break than the others?  Not really.  Basically, all of us, whether insiders or outsiders, start out in identical conditions, which is to say that we all start out as sinners.  Scripture leaves no doubt about it:

‘There’s nobody living right, not even one, nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.They’ve all taken the wrong turn; they’ve all wandered down blind alleys. No one’s living right; I can’t find a single one……Every word they speak is tinged with poison.  They open their mouths and pollute the air.  They race for the honor of sinner-of-the year, litter the land with heartbreak and ruin, don’t know the first thing about living with others.  They never give God the time of day.’

This makes it clear doesn’t it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us to whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place?  Our involvement with God’s revelation doesn’t put us right with God.  What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else’s sin.”  Petersen’s, The Message.

 We humans have a blind spot.  Some would call it the unconscious, others would call it the Shadow and some would just call it denial and the Bible calls it sin.  Whatever you call it, it’s something that affects our moral and ethical behavior.  From the view of Christianity it’s why we have confession as a part of our worship or faith journey.  It’s how the person in a twelve step program can look deep inside to make a moral inventory as a part of recovery.  And it can be intensely painful to take that hard look at oneself. Even when we want to be aware of our shortcomings, prejudices and ethical lapses, we have difficulty seeing it or admitting it.  But within most of us, there is the capacity to see that part of self that is less than beautiful.  

John Wesley

 John Wesley used bands, classes and societies to create “a community of brotherhood of discipline, edification, correction and mutual aid, in conscious separation from the world, as the primary visible expression of the church.”  He did not just focus on “correction” but considered the whole person.  Most would say that implementing such a methodology would be impractical if not impossible in today’s complex, fragmented and secular society.   Being “corrected” by others smacks of guilt tripping and religion has too long had guilt as a way of keeping people subservient to the Church.

 Even today though, there are some Christians who are attempting to implement accountability among themselves.  To what degree they are successful is not known but most people would not see themselves in such a relationship.  I have heard stories of some men’s accountability groups that will meet at an IHOP once and week and go through a confessional procedure of accountability.  But one of the problems with this, particularly with men, is that we tend to be so competitive that we engage in one up-manship.  If a man states that he’s been struggling with lust, another one states that he’s actually carried out his lustful thoughts, while another might say that he’s carried out his lustful thoughts with three women. But who am I to judge.  If it works for them, it should tickle the hell out of me. 

 So, is there any answer to these challenges that more of us would embrace and be useful in holding ourselves and others accountable?   There may be some clues to help.  One of the greatest difficulties with self analysis is that we tend to be myopic.  We only see what we want to see and the more we surround ourselves with those who are either like we are or that will not address our shortcomings, the more difficult it is to change and be accountable.  I recently watched a TV program about Enron and was astonished at how pervasive the Skilling attitude of survival of the fittest and the religion of profits permeated the entire company.  It was as if no one believed that there was anything that they couldn’t get away with.  Trying to figure out ways to beat the system was the order of the day and anyone that denied that philosophy or questioned it did not last very long in the company. 

 Here are four possible ways to deal with this myopia.

             1.  Don’t just surround yourself with people who think or act like you, but with people who will give you honest feedback.  This should be a person with integrity as opposed to someone who will give into your weaknesses.  But they should not just be willing to give feedback but also to look at themselves with at least the same degree of objectivity that they give to you. Inbreeding within institutions becomes an anathema if allowed to go untested.  In those situations no one is willing to say “the emperor has no clothes.”  

             2.  Recognize that “we are complicit in everyone else’s sin.”   It’s not enough to just throw stones.  As an example, we may feel that our country is on the road to financial ruin. But if we give in to the religion of consumerism, easy credit and meism, we must recognize that in order to change the system we not only have to speak up but we have to make some fundamental changes in ourselves and our personal expectations. 

             3.  Look at our own prejudices and blindness.  Part of prejudice is taught from early childhood but part of it I believe is hard wired.  It’s hard to split out the influence of prejudice in our thinking, but if we’re honest with ourselves we have to admit its presence.  No one is free of prejudice.  What’s yours?

            4. Look beyond the obvious and see how interconnected sinfulness can be.  As we have shown in other articles, there is a cumulative effect to poor ethics.  One error in ethical behavior can permeate an entire system.  We tend to create a disconnect between our faith commitment and our actions.  I use the simple example of leaving the parking lot at church on Sunday morning.  We’ve just come from a sermon on compassion, brotherly love and kindness, only to charge out of the parking lot and not allow others to get out ahead of us.  (yes, I’m guilty). 

5. Know what the scripture says and put it into its proper context.  Jesus was always showing those in power that they were missing the intent of the law when they tried to impose the letter of the law.  A good example of this is the story of the woman caught in adultery.  The men gathered around the woman wanted to stone her as the law required but Jesus pointedly showed them that they were sinners too and that if any of them was without sin that they should be the first to stone her. 

 6. What about calling out elected officials on ethical issues?  Many persons may not agree with their faith community’s position on certain issues.  But do we point out this disconnect between their actions and their denominations position.  We currently see this on such issues as abortion, comprehensive immigration reform and fair distribution of wealth.  Or is that too legalistic and intrusive into the personal?  Does personal belief, despite denominational stance trump institutional positions?

It’s been said that in genteel company it is not proper to talk about religion or politics.  Maybe that’s the place that it should be discussed, but in a civil and respectful way.  What do you think?


Comments : 66 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Sex Education Redux

9 03 2010

 

                                                                                              

Deut. 25: 5-10

“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family.  Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of brother-in-law to her.  The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

 The scripture goes on to say that if the brother refuses to marry his sister-in-law, she can go before the council of elders and demand that he marry her.  If he refuses she may take her sandal, spit in his face and the man will be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.  Strange law, huh.  For Israel sex was more about necessity than pleasure.  Women were considered property and had limited rights.  But this law is referenced again later in the old testament where a man refused to marry his dead brothers wife and even when God told him directly to marry her, he refused and as a result, God killed him.

Today the purpose of sex and its relationship to family, covenant, and responsibility is much more blurred.  For those of us who are older, we mostly learned the facts of life in the locker room or the back of a car on a weekend date. If we had “the talk” with our parents it was generally pretty superficial and stressful for all concerned. And as far as the church giving information, it too was generally pretty superficial, stressful, and the message generally was “don’t” or riddled with messages of guilt.  As the culture began to open up and become more permissive we began to get our information from the media, which was usually unreliable.   Since the fifties and sixties the media and behaviors have gone through a revolution and yet we still live in a world where it’s difficult to talk openly about behaviors that are at the core of the human condition.  The culture on the one hand wants us to be responsible and careful, but gives little good information to help young and old alike.

 During the nineties, Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was making a speech before the United Nations on the world Aids pandemic.  Someone asked her in a Q and A what she thought about teaching people alternate ways of dealing with their sexuality, and in particular masturbation.  Her answer was, “I think that masturbation is a part of human sexuality and perhaps it should be taught.”  For that statement and a public outcry for her to resign, President Clinton asked and received her resignation saying that he did not agree with her on the subject– and this coming from Clinton.  Hardly a month passes without us seeing somewhere on the back pages of our newspapers where a person in some authority like a school administrator has made statements about sex and sexuality and has been asked to resign.  Much of the time the argument is made that sex is not to be taught in school unless it’s about total abstinence.   Those who protest, state that it is either for the parents to teach their children about sexuality or for the church to do so.   Unfortunately, most often neither happens. Today our children have new sources for learning about sex.  They can just turn on the TV, or go to the internet or for many who are latch key kids, learn about it while mom is away at work. 

 Sex and sexuality is more than learning about the nuts and bolts of the act itself.  It’s about learning about responsibility and self worth.  It’s about a young girl learning that she doesn’t need to “put out” and get pregnant to have self worth.  It’s about a young man learning that he doesn’t get his manhood from “scoring” and that if he fathers a child he will be expected to help take care of that child.  Sex has become more of a sport than about relationship.  Sex is depicted as momentary and lacking in intimacy.  There are no consequences.  Even STD’s hold little concern for many. 

 Many young people engage in serial relationships, sometimes ending in marriage and often not.  And what becomes of those multiple relationships.  Among middle class women we know that in breakups women are more likely to seek help from friends, therapy, etc.  while men tend to internalize their feelings and move on.  Even serial relationships and one nighters are often depicted as having little effect on the parties who engage in them. These multiple breakups can have a negative emotional cumulative effect.  In the movie “High Fidelity” with John Cusack and Iben Hjejle, Cusack is in the process of breaking up with Hjejle and tells her that this breakup doesn’t even make the top five of his life long breakups.  It becomes obvious that all of his multiple breakups have taken a toll on his ability to trust and to be intimate.   

 So, what of morality and ethics.  In this situation I equate morality with those taboos of behavior that our religion or family teaching gives us.  Ethics is about the way we treat one another and the covenantal relationships we establish with one another.  For young people the concept of ethical implications of a relationship may be too sophisticated.  Hormones are raging and they’re blinded by their new found power.  Friends and media depict this behavior as normal.  And they can’t see beyond the moment.  That’s why it’s important to give correct and sound information.  Since they’re not mature enough to understand the implications of relationships, it’s important to give them adequate information.  Even though the law of relationships given in Deuteronomy seems quite bizarre to our modern mind, it’s about ethics and not morality.  It was believed by Israel that a man had an obligation to help his brothers’ line continue if he died and not to do so, was an abomination to God.  Women had few rights but this was a right that she had to ensure that her children and her husband line be continued.  It was an ethical issue because it dealt with the realities of the time. 

So, what are the ethics of relationships and sexuality for us today?  To me, it’s that we’re all blessed children of God, worthy of respect and concern.  Sexuality is not just about an act. It’s that even in a moment of passion we consider the full humanity of the other as well as our own selfhood.  Children who are born into loving families where both parents are involved in raising children are more likely to stay in school, stay out of poverty and prison and live a productive life.

 As parents and teachers,  we can’t just see the world as either being like Father Knows Best or a world of internet porn— neither is reality.  Reality is that today 40% of all children are born out of wedlock with 70% of African American babies born out of wedlock to women who often have no network to help them cope and will soon find that the quickest way to find ones self in poverty in America is to start out poor, have a child with no father around and little education.  Reality is that over 60% of college grads in their thirties live in co-habitation relationship. Reality is that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce.  Reality is that there are different sexual expectations between upper middle class persons of all races and those who are poor. 

 When Jocelyn Elders made her statement about masturbation, no one asked her what she meant and how she might suggest teaching.  But we know that living in a masturbatory fantasy world is also not the answer.  I mean, what do we think men and women who frequent porn sites do, just read the articles?    Maybe if we had waited to let her explain herself we might have a clearer understanding about what she meant.  But we closed her off and we’ll never be able to engage her in a more open conversation about what it means to be fully human.


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

Is My Bonus too Big?

2 03 2010

Over the past year we’ve all been inundated with articles about large executive compensation packages and in particular about compensation packages to executives in companies that received bail out money from the government.  And this at a time when those same companies were laying off thousands of lower level employees to cut expenses.  Of the eight banks bailed out, Citigroup, Inc.  seems to be the most beleaguered and along with Goldman Sachs and AIG has received the most criticism for their high executive compensation packages.  One of the major arguments in favor of these high salaries and bonuses is that in order to keep good talent you have to pay high salaries.  Some might say and have said that if these are the best minds to run the business, that American business and in particular banking is in big trouble.  The disparity between the top and lower level Citi employees is huge and the anger among the rank and file is well documented.  A blog run by Indeed, Inc., an executive employment website documents numerous postings about Citigroup’s wage levels.  Here’s just one:

 “A Citigroup recruiter called me for a  SENIOR Accountant position @ Citigroup. I was told that the position maxed out @ $35k. For a SENIOR level position. I would hate to see what they pay their entry level people.”   

 From Zacks investment research           “Citigroup Inc.  may cap cash bonuses for 2009 at below $100,000. The 2009 bonus pool at the company is expected to be similar to the 2008 level, which was low compared to the other years. Citi may pay a large part of the bankers’ and traders’ bonuses in stock that cannot be sold for a number of years.

Citi may pay up to 40% of bonuses in the form of deferred cash and stock and the balance in the form of non-deferred cash and IOUs, which will turn to common stock in April.

Currently, Citi is working out the details of its bonus plan. Recently, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo asked Citi and 7 other of the largest banks in the nation that received significant federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide information on the amount of 2009 bonus packages and their structure. Cuomo also asked the banks to explain the effect the bonus pools would have had if the banks had not received the TARP funds.

 According to Cuomo, the full disclosure and transparency of the bonus information are essential as recent government actions have given rise to public accountability issues, and TARP banks are struggling with these actions.

Citi received $45 billion in bailout money from the TARP at the height of the credit crisis. Later, around $25 billion of that was converted into common stock, representing nearly 34% of its stake held by taxpayers. The company repaid the remaining $20 billion in bailout money in December 2009, freeing the obligatory pay restrictions on its key executives.

  Citi’s plan to cap cash bonuses is to save the bank from people’s fury over the TARP banks’ 2009 bonus plans. However, the bank says may still find it difficult to keep its top employees.”

 From Reuters      “Regulators, lawmakers, and others are trying to determine how changing compensation packages might reduce the chances of future financial meltdowns. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is considering charging lower rates for deposit insurance to banks with pay practices that it deems superior.

According to a July report from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Citigroup as a whole paid $5.3 billion of bonuses for 2008.

 Officials at rival companies told Reuters that Citigroup employees will essentially receive at least 60 percent of their bonuses in cash or stock that can quickly be sold. That level is high compared to some rivals, which could help the bank retain employees.  But some Citigroup employees groused at the relatively low portion of the bonus that will come in cash.

 Loren Steffy in the February 26 Houston Chronicle reports on executive pay for the General Motors Ceo, Ed Whitacre and past interim CEO Fritz Henderson.  Whitacre’s package includes $1.7million a year plus $7million in stock.  Fritz Henderson who for all practical purposes was fired is being given a $60,000. per month consulting agreement plus an expense account.  He is required to work at least 20 hours a month on the job.  Steffy suggests that Whitacre take the job for $1. per year since he received $158million from AT&T when he retired.  The interest on the $158million is about four times the $1.7million he’s receiving now.  By contrast Ford CEO Alan Mulally agreed to accept a $1. salary if Ford needed a federal bailout.  That was not necessary and Ford has gained market share and is expected to soon be in the black.  Mulally’s salary is slightly more than Whitacre’s at $2 million.  Last year GM received about $50 billion in bailout.  And as a result of that bailout you and I are now Whitacre’s employer. 

The media, the public, government regulators and congress are going through their hand wringing dance asking what should we be doing with all the bad guys.  Much of what has happened in the past few years was a long time in coming.  Questions of whether employment contracts should be honored in companies that are either bankrupt or being kept afloat to keep from going bankrupt are being used as a defense of big severance packages.  Arguments about high paid executives going elsewhere if they aren’t paid huge pay packages seems a bit contrived.  Where will they go?  Hedge funds which have shut down over 200 shops in the last two years?  Or, Europe which hasn’t had the bottom fall out yet?  Probably the best place for many of them to get employment would be with lobbyists who deal with the Washington bureaucrats, regulators and politicians who will probably not make any substantive punitive changes except as it may affect those companies and executives who played the game ethically and by the rules. 

My observation is that most relational issues such as this begin as ethical issues and because a minority acts unethically, new laws and regulations are passed in order to close loopholes or deal with unintended consequences.  But the sad truth is that those that want to circumvent the law will find ways to do so, and in so doing will effect the ability of the rest of us to carry on ethical business dealings.


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

Tit for Tat Ethics

11 02 2010

 

In past posts, we have considered factors influencing ethics without much consideration of the structures that effect person’s responses to those behaviors.  This post deals with one way of responding to another person or institutions behavior.  Game theorist Robert Axelrod set up a competition to see what strategy would be most successful in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game (remember the prisoner’s dilemma).  Solutions were submitted by a large number of competitors with the object being to see who would be most successful.  Two hundred rounds of the game were played with the winning strategy and surprisingly simple solution being Tit for Tat.  The strategy was as follows:

In the first round, one player cooperated and after that did whatever the other player did the previous round.  In other words, if the other player cooperated, player one cooperated.  If player two defected, then player one responded in a like manner.  What’s fascinating is that Tit for Tat never won a round.  The best it ever did was a tie, but over two hundred iterations, it had the best score. 

The features that make the game work is that it is “nice because the player using it never betrays first.  It is provokable in that it quickly and reliably punishes the other player’s betrayal.  It is forgivable because it can quickly return to cooperation even after defection and it is straightforward because it is simple enough that other players see that cooperation is the best choice.”  ( Games People Play, The Teaching Company, 2008)

Whether this system is workable in all situations in real life is debatable but I think there are situations that it applies.  Remember our discussion about putting children in timeout and parents saying that it didn’t work.  The fact was that in most of those situations parents were inconsistent in carrying out of consequences and threats.  In foreign relations we see that with dictators and demagogues it is difficult to deal with them if they see that when they push against other nations and those nations acquiesce to their pushing the belligerent nation pushes even more until either they get what they want or someone places serious sanctions against them.  North Korea and Iran are current examples of this.  And we saw this same response with Hitler in WWII.  On the other hand, we have seen that Israel has taken a very aggressive posture towards aggression towards it and have used the Tit for Tat strategy very effectively.  You attack us and we will immediately retaliate.  On the other hand they have not always done a very good job with their own citizens as it pertains to illegal building of settlements on the West Bank. 

For individual Christians who believe in forgiveness Tit for Tat may seem severe.  We believe that everyone should be given another chance and that is as it should be.  But we also know that in both the old and new testament there was the concept of consequences and even though forgiveness may flow out of a broken relationship, consequences still occur.  So the question that I ask you, the reader, to consider and comment on are:

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.