.jpg)
By Susan C. Price
What is ethics? Naturally, I begin with my ideas, ’cus they’re obviously s-o-o wonderful, as I was asked to write this column...Oh, the dog was too busy? Now I understand....
Ethics is doing the right thing.
To me there are two basic types of “right thing.” One, not doing bad. And two, actively doing good.
Not doing bad is “Don’t do unto others that which you do not wish done unto you.” A very hands-off, just-stay-within-your-own-yard variation. Keep on your side of the fence, and clean up your dog’s poop if it’s on your neighbor’s lawn (or if there is so much of it in your yard, that the stench carries beyond your yard). Bad seems pretty clear to me and easy to find and point fingers at. “Hey, keep your nose outta my face!”
The trickier type, actively doing the right thing, is the classic Golden Rule version, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” To me, this means not seeking to get more than your fair share, and not penalizing others or stealing from them. A learned friend confirms that the Golden Rule, and its cousins, have been around since at least pagan times. There must be some reason this concept (empathy? teamwork? not pissing off your neighbor all the time) worked to keep more people, and therefore the human genome, alive. And yet, many find ways to behave unethically—oh, Lance...really?
Examples of not actively doing right:
- This is what I see when politicians, investment bankers, pastors, bookkeepers, city managers (just mentally reviewing the last six months of the Los Angelese Times) do something to get more than their fair share or act in a way that penalizes (steals from) others.
- Or when our two middle-aged, fully employed long-time neighbors suddenly got the city to create them a designated “disabled” parking space in the limited curbside space in front of our building. None of the neighbors can figure out what disability these two could have developed suddenly, so that neither of them can manage to walk a block (or less) now and then to find parking. The neighbors I have talked to (you knew there was gossip, right?) see this as both a more-than-your-fair-share and an in-my-face ethics violation.
So, ethics seems simple...but rarely is.
Well, that ought to be enough to get all you readers going. Before you start, I am willing to admit that I might be wrong about what’s up with my noisy, hoarder, always-writing-silly-“keep this gate locked”-note neighbors...but the city managers and others who stole the City of Bell blind...nah...they are unethical.
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Susan C. Price
Editor's note: Really, Susan feels that her words should tell you all you need to know about her. Further, she says she has no idea what possessed us to ask her to write an ethics column. She says she is just someone. She has worked in "welfare," state administrative positions, non-profit management, and non-profit bookkeeping. If she helps people, it's because she is nosy as hell. And listens, she says, sometimes.
| Please comment |
Well, the ethicist is not just someone, she is my sister, whom I love, respect, and admire, and she I know is very ethical. Yet her discourse on ethics does seem to obscure some points.
ReplyDeleteThe neat division into negative ethics and positive ethics (actively doing good) break down pretty radically when the counterexamples from positive ethics are actually those of people doing wrong—the neighbors allegedly angling for an apparently undeserved parking space, or the investment bankers who got more than their fair share, presumably through insider information or disastrous mortgage loan collaterized into indecipherable debt instruments.
Actively doing good would seem to be those such as people who volunteer for Habitat for Humanity and use their free time to erect homes for those who otherwise would be unable to afford a suitable dwelling, or those who voluntarily give blood all the time without compensation to help those who may need it, or those who donate sizable portions of their wealth, such as Warren Buffett, to charities they won't control and that won't be named after them. Actively doing good seems to include a generosity of spirit that at least on the surface is non-egotistical, unselfish, and well-intended. But as we know or have heard, the "road to hell is paved with good intentions." So again, ethics is not so simple.
Another aspect of ethics, I guess, is to give those we don't know thoroughly (and we hardly know anyone else thoroughly) the benefit of the doubt—maybe that's related to trying to place yourself in someone else's shoes. This might include obnoxious or seemingly self-serving neighbors. Maybe we could also realize that we are all self-serving at one time or another, and that some of the time that is actually a good thing.
Maybe it eventually boils down to, we don't often know, even if we think we do, what the right thing is. Of course, for most of us, the city officials of Bell were immoral and did the wrong thing. They took too much money from others for doing a supposedly public service. This becomes a more difficult principle when we start to examine other figures in public life: Are major athletes also guilty of being overpaid? Are senior executives who serve on boards that determine their own pay? Doctors? Lawyers? College professors? Retired public employees collecting pensions and health care that some view as "unsustainable." The water of ethical clarity is becoming a bit muddy.
Lance Armstrong seems pretty wrong, maybe because so many millions of us believed him for so long or exulted in his accomplishments and his apparent charity; that is an easy one. But how many other athletes have taken an unfair advantage at some time? And who says whether it's unfair?
Susan, your piece caused me to recall a story my dad would tell about rationing during World War II. Regarding gasoline, most families received the 'A' sticker allowing them four gallons a week. As my grandfather, Vern, was doing war research and needed to be driven to the airport frequently, the Knudsen family was allowed a 'B' sticker, eight gallons a week. Friends of the family urged my grandfather to request a larger ration on the grounds that his work was vital to the war effort. Vern declined saying in effect that his needs were no more important than those of anyone else. I heard this story as a child and remember it still. I just don't know that it's effective in this day and age.
ReplyDeletei still think its important, and i know you do also, or you wouldn't remember it. I think we all get greedy from time to time. I have seen folks at pricey celebrity events, scrambling for a freebie video (it WAS a few years ago..before DVDs), nay, demanding TWO!. Effective to talk about this stuff...one can hope. Whose needs are more important? ...Hmm, sounds like another column to me.
ReplyDeletethanks for the memory. sounds like good folk.. and gave me an idea for another topic
ReplyDeleteNote from the moderator: I apologize for the delay of over 24 hours in publishing Susan's two comments; I have been sick. [The reason for moderation, for now, is that too many spams had been getting through Blogger's filters and being published automatically.]
ReplyDelete