Ethics for Dummies
President Bush's stage Machiavelle and counselor/confidant Karl Rove is currently in the hot seat--some media outlets make his situation (and possible transgressions) to be much more dire than others'.
There is the suspicion that Mr. Rove, master architect of President Bush's re-election campaign, let slip CIA operative Valerie Wilson's name to certain parties. Her husband Joseph Wilson was a vocal detractor in terms of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, which helps to paint this sort of color-by-numbers picture of retribution: has Karl Rove taken on the role of Luca Brasi from The Godfather, a feared thug going after those who would hurt or offend his boss?
President Bush is mum on the subject, and has instructed his entire staff to keep their lips sealed. The President stated that he "will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," an interesting comment considering he seems to pride himself on not reading any media reports whatsoever.
In the meantime, a reporter for the New York Times named Judith Miller was sent to the hooskow last week because she refused to name a confidential source. The judge stated that she was violating the law by refusing to cooporate with a grand-jury indictment. Ethics of two varieties lock horns here: ethical procedures by members of the Fourth Estate versus federal law. Law is arguably based on some set of ethics, but law represents more than ethics because it carries the force of the state in retaliation to those who do not obey it. If Judith Miller decided to forego her sense of ethics and give up the name of her source, then there would be no punitive consequence for her, at least meted out by the state, though her personal credibility and trustworthiness with future sources would probably be in jeopardy.
Bernie Ebbers, head of Worldcom and "creative accountant" extraodinaire, picked up 25 years today for perpetrating the largest pecuniary fraud in American history. He used to be a milkman. We in the U.S. all enjoy those "something from nothing" stories, almost as much as we like the "fallen hero" tales. I think Mr. Ebbers had nine counts against him; the minimum sentence for these criminal counts was 30 years. Mr. Ebbers was a generous soul, you see--he engaged in a great deal of charitable works, so his sentence was reduced slightly because of his big heart. Of course it's quite easy to be a giving person if there is some unknown, unaccounted for trove of funds with which you can dispense. Nevertheless, Mr. Ebbers is going to prison (most likely the sauna and squash court variety) for a long while because of his infraction of ethics as well as law.
The House Ethics Committee is finally moving towards an investigation into the actions of Congressman Tom DeLay, whose travel and staff payroll expenditures and "soft money" political contributions are under scrutiny. Representative DeLay has not been implicated in any wrongdoing--the investigation will help to answer questions about the legality of his alleged misconduct. Here is a possible case of ethics being overtaken by arrogance (DeLay) versus the ethics of the acceptable and honorable conduct of members of a governing body (the House of Representatives). Yeah, I guess that last part of that sentence makes me laugh too.
What is the sum of all of these examples? Ethics, a body of conduct and practices and ways of behaving and interacting with others and within a society, is something to which most of us adhere to a greater or lesser degree since we learned to speak. Ethics instilled by your parents, family members, friends, peers, religious or spiritual convictions, political or governmental or social sensibilities: ethics are our "interactive manners." Ethics are stronger than cultural mores but weaker than laws (in terms of direct enforcement), but ethics seem to be greater than both because they speak to how one acts as a human being.
It's interesting that we can get into trouble for either straying so far away from an ethical center that we hurt others, or for clutching so tightly to our ethics that we can get in the way of (supposedly) acting on behalf of the greater good.
Here I've only discussed examples of people whose career paths have taken a steeper incline than most: top government officials, captains of industry, reporters for world-famous publications.
It is not my sense that corporate offices are natural incubators for ethical conduct; a friend of mine works for a publisher, some of the practices and employees of which he lampoons in his blog. Three of his co-workers (one being his boss) discovered the blog and are now keeping a very close eye on my friend's behavior. The writing does not name anyone or the company, and is not libelous or defamatory, but is certainly unflattering. My friend now fears passive-aggressive harrassment (moreso than is the norm in that office, I suppose) in response to his creative outlet which he maintains on his own time.
What about my workplace, or yours? Do you see a sense of ethical engagement from those with whom you work? Are acceptable ethics outlined or encouraged or enforced where you work? Or does your management think that ethics is the name of a British band, or maybe some new kind of fad candy?
Ethics for Dummies as a book idea seems funny to me, but I have to think that if such a book existed it would sell vast numbers--not necessarily because so many people are interested in ethics, but because seemingly so many people need a refresher course on proper conduct.
There is the suspicion that Mr. Rove, master architect of President Bush's re-election campaign, let slip CIA operative Valerie Wilson's name to certain parties. Her husband Joseph Wilson was a vocal detractor in terms of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, which helps to paint this sort of color-by-numbers picture of retribution: has Karl Rove taken on the role of Luca Brasi from The Godfather, a feared thug going after those who would hurt or offend his boss?
President Bush is mum on the subject, and has instructed his entire staff to keep their lips sealed. The President stated that he "will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," an interesting comment considering he seems to pride himself on not reading any media reports whatsoever.
In the meantime, a reporter for the New York Times named Judith Miller was sent to the hooskow last week because she refused to name a confidential source. The judge stated that she was violating the law by refusing to cooporate with a grand-jury indictment. Ethics of two varieties lock horns here: ethical procedures by members of the Fourth Estate versus federal law. Law is arguably based on some set of ethics, but law represents more than ethics because it carries the force of the state in retaliation to those who do not obey it. If Judith Miller decided to forego her sense of ethics and give up the name of her source, then there would be no punitive consequence for her, at least meted out by the state, though her personal credibility and trustworthiness with future sources would probably be in jeopardy.
Bernie Ebbers, head of Worldcom and "creative accountant" extraodinaire, picked up 25 years today for perpetrating the largest pecuniary fraud in American history. He used to be a milkman. We in the U.S. all enjoy those "something from nothing" stories, almost as much as we like the "fallen hero" tales. I think Mr. Ebbers had nine counts against him; the minimum sentence for these criminal counts was 30 years. Mr. Ebbers was a generous soul, you see--he engaged in a great deal of charitable works, so his sentence was reduced slightly because of his big heart. Of course it's quite easy to be a giving person if there is some unknown, unaccounted for trove of funds with which you can dispense. Nevertheless, Mr. Ebbers is going to prison (most likely the sauna and squash court variety) for a long while because of his infraction of ethics as well as law.
The House Ethics Committee is finally moving towards an investigation into the actions of Congressman Tom DeLay, whose travel and staff payroll expenditures and "soft money" political contributions are under scrutiny. Representative DeLay has not been implicated in any wrongdoing--the investigation will help to answer questions about the legality of his alleged misconduct. Here is a possible case of ethics being overtaken by arrogance (DeLay) versus the ethics of the acceptable and honorable conduct of members of a governing body (the House of Representatives). Yeah, I guess that last part of that sentence makes me laugh too.
What is the sum of all of these examples? Ethics, a body of conduct and practices and ways of behaving and interacting with others and within a society, is something to which most of us adhere to a greater or lesser degree since we learned to speak. Ethics instilled by your parents, family members, friends, peers, religious or spiritual convictions, political or governmental or social sensibilities: ethics are our "interactive manners." Ethics are stronger than cultural mores but weaker than laws (in terms of direct enforcement), but ethics seem to be greater than both because they speak to how one acts as a human being.
It's interesting that we can get into trouble for either straying so far away from an ethical center that we hurt others, or for clutching so tightly to our ethics that we can get in the way of (supposedly) acting on behalf of the greater good.
Here I've only discussed examples of people whose career paths have taken a steeper incline than most: top government officials, captains of industry, reporters for world-famous publications.
It is not my sense that corporate offices are natural incubators for ethical conduct; a friend of mine works for a publisher, some of the practices and employees of which he lampoons in his blog. Three of his co-workers (one being his boss) discovered the blog and are now keeping a very close eye on my friend's behavior. The writing does not name anyone or the company, and is not libelous or defamatory, but is certainly unflattering. My friend now fears passive-aggressive harrassment (moreso than is the norm in that office, I suppose) in response to his creative outlet which he maintains on his own time.
What about my workplace, or yours? Do you see a sense of ethical engagement from those with whom you work? Are acceptable ethics outlined or encouraged or enforced where you work? Or does your management think that ethics is the name of a British band, or maybe some new kind of fad candy?
Ethics for Dummies as a book idea seems funny to me, but I have to think that if such a book existed it would sell vast numbers--not necessarily because so many people are interested in ethics, but because seemingly so many people need a refresher course on proper conduct.
posted by Robovike @ 7:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home