Ethical standards in decline

To my understanding, ethics is the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong.
I think, it's rather late for someone, if didn't learn it before he went to an "institution of higher learning".

Although I've taught sometime at an university, I just could tell from one German institute. Besides, it wouldn't be the appropriate faculty: ethics was a major subject at faculty for Social Work.

Maybe we could discuss where ethics come from?

I would agree with Walter that the individual's ethos, if not existant before arriving in an institution of higher learning, is not likely to form in that environment. This is something which should constitute a part of education as the French use the word, i.e., what one learns in the home.

As for the contention that ethics are in decline, i would only say that a lifetime of reading history convinces me that what is more likely is simply that we've caught a bunch of the s.o.b.'s lately. I have no reason to believe that any previous generation was more ethical than those alive today, nor any previous century, for that matter.

I agree. The recent revelations about JFK's health reinforced this for me -- "Camelot" had its share of problems, but at that time, the press did not pursue those kinds of things. Is that better or worse than the current state of affairs? I'd say some of each. I think a politician's romantic dallying is given outsized importance today, in terms of actual affect on his/ her ability to lead, but I don't think I'd want the press to deliberately not report things.

Is there any reference to ethics in our schools of business

In line with what other here have said, in the grand scheme of things I don't think people are any more or less ethical than at any other given time. Deception has been with us for a very long time.

Recent generations have perhaps "taken the next step" but that only puts the ethical lapse on a larger scale (larger amounts of money, more henious crimes, etc..). The ethical lapses have been there all along though..

Whether a theft is of $20 or $2,000,000, the same ethical lapse exists.

There's also a perception thing (um, sorry perception - nothing personal), e. g. there's a widespread belief, particularly in the US, that all lawyers are thieves and responsible for pretty much every social ill but the designated hitter rule.

Fact is, just like doctors, we're subject to a canon of ethics, and can lose our licenses for violations of same. I'm not saying there aren't bad lawyers and judges, but there are also unethical police officers, teachers, pharmacists, writers, etc., many of whom can wreak as much if not more societal damage than unethical attorneys. But why do lawyers get the bum rap? Is it because of lawsuits that are brought, many of which are seen as frivolous? Heck, we don't bring 'em alone - we need clients to bring the suits and juries to award the damages. Yes, there's some pushing (particularly, unfortunately, of the poor and uneducated) to sue for anything and everything. I won't deny that. But to claim that that's one-sided is to deny reality - many lawsuits today are seen like the lottery. Hey, I get righteously indignant when my neighbor tries to pull something, but if I get into a car accident with a city bus, break out the soft cervical collar and suddenly I can't work ever again!

I use attorneys as my example because that's what I know, but I think the analogy works elsewhere. It seems to, at least in part, come down to situational ethics. You know, folks who get all overheated when their leaders or neighbors are caught doing something untoward, but do the same thing themselves, justifying it because they haven't yet been caught. And then, when caught, what kind of apology goes out? "Mistakes were made." and other kinds of silliness - yeah, mistakes were made, but how about owning up to the problem, admitting you screwed up and then taking responsibility for your punishment? Sadly, it seems most people seem to see that as a sign of weakness these days.

Jes made me think of another component -- how much information we get, and how that influences how we see many different phenomena.

To take the child abductions as an example, a) it is just not, statistically, a major risk, and b) there wasn't even a major increase, there was just an increase in how much it was reported. But for a while there, people thought a stranger lurked around every corner, waiting to snatch a kid.

I think there are some parallels in how much any given ethical lapse is reported; there are good, ethical businesspeople, and some bad, inethical businesspeople, and there always have been. We may be getting an inaccurate idea of the proportions because of what is currently being reported.

I thought the lawyers DID come up with that DH nonsense, but, i could be wrong . . .

How about the labels "the me first generation" and "I'm gonna get mine now"? These have popped up fairly recently and must have some basis in founding

"DH"?? Designated Hitter? The lawyers did that? Why those...

Boss, i don't think you can take that to mean that people are less ethical than in the past--simply that society has opened a public discussion on the subject, and those labels were created because people had decided to focus on the issue.

Setanta
I'm the jealous type, now your calling other people "Boss"!

Setanta

What you have said MAY add to my point. You said " those labels were created because people wanted to focus on the issue".

What was the issue?---could it have been a concern for something that was happening that society didn't like the look of ---perhaps the beginning of a decline in moral and ethical behavior. It obviously was a concern to society for some reason.

I think it has more to do with the luxury of worrying about these things, instead of whether the kids would get polio or the crops would fail. Ya know?

Actually I'm wondering a little bit by now, what you mean by "ethic".

I've looked it up in several books - obviously the term is used different.
Quoting from the Britannica encyclopædia:

"The terms ethics and morality are closely related. We now often refer to ethical judgments or ethical principles where it once would have been more common to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. Strictly speaking, however, the term refers not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy."

Government and business in American history at least have gone through periods where ethics were sacrificed to the (God) of commerce. Then we go through periods of reevaluating our standards of ethics. It's almost like the kids who get into trouble, appease the parents and when the heat's off, tries to see how much they can get away with the next time. I know that's too simple an analogy as the problem is more complex and, no, I don't believe our schools put enough emphases on ethics, especially by example. Specifically, why ethics will bring to fruition a good idea while lack of ethics may work in the short run but will ultimately destroy an entity. Should ethics be an elective in higher education?

I think we can trace this back to Watergate, Boss. (Get over it, Husker, i call the little girl behind the counter at Wendy's Boss.)

Because of the revelations of high-level chicanery during the Watergate hearings in the Senate, as well as the concurrent probe into the break-in at the office of the psychological counselor of what's his face--the Pentagon Papers guy--the issue came to the fore front in a way it would not have done had there been a few days of headlines about a specific scandal, followed by the news being buried ever more deeply in the pages of newspapers.

Many of those accused during Watergate were attorneys, and, if my memory serves, this ethics issue first came up with regard to the publics perception of the decay in standards among attorneys (yeah, like they once had been angelic and trustworthy, and suddenly fell from grace). I continue to believe that you can no more trust people in positions of public trust without constant scrutiny now, than was the case in the past. However, Watergate, with the addition of the Pentagon Papers brouhaha, followed by "Korea Gate," and any number of such events since then, have focused society's attention. I don't doubt for a moment that other administrations have been just as unethical in the search for ways and means to re-elect their man as were those who supported Nixon. In the run-up to the 1864 elections, Lincoln's supporters pushed two significant measures through Congress--absentee voting (so that the soldiers of the Federal Armies could vote for Lincoln--the prognostication was correct, they did by a vast majority), and a second measure which held that at such time as 10% of the adult male population of any state which had seceeded, who had not taken arms against the government, applied for re-admission to the union, said state would be readmitted. Due to the second measure, Lincoln carried Tennessee and Louisiana in the 1864 election, which, in the event, only buried McClellan a little deeper. It did mean that Hannibal Hamlin got dumped, and Johnson of Tennessee replaced him as Lincoln's running mate. It did not mean that Tennessee or Louisiana had anything like legitimate governments--these were rump governments made up of a handful of men, some few genuine supporters of the Union who had weathered their personal storms, and the rest opportunists about whom it could not be proven that they had taken arms against the Union.

So, i don't think things change much, and i don't think that people are any more nor any less ethical than in the past. I do believe that it has become a serious issue to Americans in the latter part of the 20th century, continuing into this new century. I do believe that Americans have, in the past, been entirely too lazy . . . i mean trusting, no, really, i do . . . about keeping an eye on people in positions of trust in society, whether in government or not.

THE KEY TO PROSPERITY

by James F. Bracher

The horrors now befalling Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global Crossing and numerous other companies and institutions may seem like punishment of the whole economy for the excesses of a few in the 1990s. Yet, when businesses fail in their values, they rot from the inside. No one is doing this to Enron or Arthur Andersen. They brought it upon themselves.


We have created a world where the prevailing structures promote the politics of convenience over the commitment of leadership. During the Internet bubble, values came to be viewed as expensive and conservative relics of the old economy. The "relentless relativism of the new" saw values as limiting, fixed and unyielding.


In the race to sell the greatest possible product or service, the false promises of hollow values spoke too frequently to what we would not or could not do. But the angel of values rode into the whirlwind of the NASDAQ craze and directed the storm to descend darkly across many of our largest companies and institutions. We had come to expect immediate gratification in the form of instant wealth and overnight success.


However, it all starts - and ends - with values. In setting a direction, leaders, like sailors, do not let storms decide for them the direction they will go. Well-grounded leadership knows storms cause course corrections, but the goals do not change because they never do. Storms provide opportunities for us to recommit. Our leaders must be secure in the knowledge that their values have prepared them to guide us through turbulent times.


Twenty-three years ago my professional obligations moved from Christian ministry to leadership consulting so that supportive counsel could be more effectively integrated with challenges toward excellence in both the personal and professional lives of those with whom I came in contact. It became necessary to find new avenues to assist those in positions of responsibility because the mission of my previous work as a pastor was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. However, that position was overly focused on only half the job: comforting the afflicted. Now, perhaps like never before, there is the need to afflict the truly comfortable by holding up a mirror to those who are in the worst position to see themselves, namely those in power, whether economic, political, social or religious. A mirror is essential.


Leadership is required for every group or organization. Though many are chosen, few are called. Values such as commitment, perseverance and integrity are too often "averaged down" in a misguided search for "consensus." Current circumstances demand a rethinking. We must reject our "comfort with drifting" and seek the satisfaction of setting direction, reaching destination, and fulfilling our destiny. In those moments, we will have found the keys to prosperity: values in all aspects of living, both personally and professionally.



James F. Bracher is the Founder and Chairman of Dimension Five.