Shadorne, if I ever doubted that I liked your opinions and philosophies before, (which I didn't), I will never doubt again. I applaud you for taking the high road and telling it like it is. Not to be prudish or stuffy, but by day my work brings me face to face with the seedier side of life and all manner of criminals and fraudsters - and frequently with people who prey on the elderly.
At night, I teach a law and ethics class and it is VERY disturbing how many of us (the percentages are documented in numerous surveys) not only justify or rationalize ethical breaches but then think we would be judged as one of the most ethical people our friends!
A way to spot such unethical acts many times IMHO is when we do something that seems innocuous and justify it with any of the following:
1. Everybody's doing it.
2. If I don't do it, someone else will.
3. It doesn't really HURT anyone.
4. That's the way it's always been done
5. The system's unfair.
6. We'll stop when the lawyer's tell us we cannot do it.(think Enron, Sunbeam, Worldcom, Tyco, Fannie Mae and the list goes on)
Just as insidious - just simply label your act by a different name! Spinsters are GREAT at this - you know, Napster called copyright infringement "Peer-to-Peer filing sharing" Enron and Fannie Mae called it "Earnings Management" instead of cooking the books.
Even more dangerous is the slipperly slope or the moving line of ethical boundaries.
Check out a real life story about a famed USC professor and former LA County City Planning Commisioner named George Lefcoe - he tells the story of how one of his constituents, a funeral home that was NOT an applicant while he was at the commission, sent him a ham as a Christmas gift one year. He tried to do the ethical thing (to avoid even an appearance of impropriety or bribery) and return the ham - but nobody at the funeral home was apparently authorized to accept it. The next year he got the ham and gave it to a charity - while this LOOKS innocuous - this is where the slippery slope begins. The next year he gave it to friends, the next year he enjoyed it with family and then finally and by the fifth year he admitted he started to wonder around December 10th where his ham was!! I know this type oc act looks benign but this is how he go further and further that slippery slope. Each step, taken in isolation, looks innocent but by the time you get years out - you have ripped off the company for millions!
Many a CEO and CFO have justified cooking the books - not necessarily for the maximization of their own stock options - but claiming they did it to keep the employees from losing their jobs!! Right. And the justifcation begins.
I apologize for this rant - but I believe our society is getting more and more unethical and greedy (and I am a FIRM believer in the free market system) and we seem to find new and innovative ways to justify that behavior.
Two of the ethical philosophers who have proposed "ethical systems" for resolving ethical dilemmas (considering personal values will differ based on many factors such as culture, religion, upbringing, etc.) suggest asking yourself the following when facing a decision about the proper way to act in a given situation:
1. Would I be alright if my behavior became a universal principal? or
2. How would I act if I entered this situation without knowing what side I was on? (think of two attorneys who are told they must give their repsective "opening statements" in a criminal trial without knowing if they are representing the State or the Defendant!) I bet that opening statement would be VERY fairly presented in a neutral, ethical way. (Yes, I am lawyer and know this is preposterous since a lawyer is acting as an "advocate" but you get the point).
OK, I am done, it's just a subject near and dear to my heart. Lest you think otherwise, yes, I have done things I am not proud of or that I would do differently - but as I get older I keep trying to learn and consider the other person's perspective and the consequences of my actions.
Now that my rant is over, do you have any new music to reccommend? (and yes, I will buy it)!!
Frank
At night, I teach a law and ethics class and it is VERY disturbing how many of us (the percentages are documented in numerous surveys) not only justify or rationalize ethical breaches but then think we would be judged as one of the most ethical people our friends!
A way to spot such unethical acts many times IMHO is when we do something that seems innocuous and justify it with any of the following:
1. Everybody's doing it.
2. If I don't do it, someone else will.
3. It doesn't really HURT anyone.
4. That's the way it's always been done
5. The system's unfair.
6. We'll stop when the lawyer's tell us we cannot do it.(think Enron, Sunbeam, Worldcom, Tyco, Fannie Mae and the list goes on)
Just as insidious - just simply label your act by a different name! Spinsters are GREAT at this - you know, Napster called copyright infringement "Peer-to-Peer filing sharing" Enron and Fannie Mae called it "Earnings Management" instead of cooking the books.
Even more dangerous is the slipperly slope or the moving line of ethical boundaries.
Check out a real life story about a famed USC professor and former LA County City Planning Commisioner named George Lefcoe - he tells the story of how one of his constituents, a funeral home that was NOT an applicant while he was at the commission, sent him a ham as a Christmas gift one year. He tried to do the ethical thing (to avoid even an appearance of impropriety or bribery) and return the ham - but nobody at the funeral home was apparently authorized to accept it. The next year he got the ham and gave it to a charity - while this LOOKS innocuous - this is where the slippery slope begins. The next year he gave it to friends, the next year he enjoyed it with family and then finally and by the fifth year he admitted he started to wonder around December 10th where his ham was!! I know this type oc act looks benign but this is how he go further and further that slippery slope. Each step, taken in isolation, looks innocent but by the time you get years out - you have ripped off the company for millions!
Many a CEO and CFO have justified cooking the books - not necessarily for the maximization of their own stock options - but claiming they did it to keep the employees from losing their jobs!! Right. And the justifcation begins.
I apologize for this rant - but I believe our society is getting more and more unethical and greedy (and I am a FIRM believer in the free market system) and we seem to find new and innovative ways to justify that behavior.
Two of the ethical philosophers who have proposed "ethical systems" for resolving ethical dilemmas (considering personal values will differ based on many factors such as culture, religion, upbringing, etc.) suggest asking yourself the following when facing a decision about the proper way to act in a given situation:
1. Would I be alright if my behavior became a universal principal? or
2. How would I act if I entered this situation without knowing what side I was on? (think of two attorneys who are told they must give their repsective "opening statements" in a criminal trial without knowing if they are representing the State or the Defendant!) I bet that opening statement would be VERY fairly presented in a neutral, ethical way. (Yes, I am lawyer and know this is preposterous since a lawyer is acting as an "advocate" but you get the point).
OK, I am done, it's just a subject near and dear to my heart. Lest you think otherwise, yes, I have done things I am not proud of or that I would do differently - but as I get older I keep trying to learn and consider the other person's perspective and the consequences of my actions.
Now that my rant is over, do you have any new music to reccommend? (and yes, I will buy it)!!
Frank