Ethical standards in decline

fishin'

I agree with you in large part but individuals act differently in certain groupings.

I agree with you fishin, we are they. If we want them to change we have to at least try to do something or they will always dominate.

Great observation Fish'n

fishin

I believe you to be in error. Obviously, any group is comprised of individuals. But it is surely not the case that all group structures will operate identically. Motorcycle gangs, boy scout troops, meat packing unions, Rotarian chapters, miliatary divisions, and church luncheon committees act differently. They do so because they are structured differently and exist for different purposes.

Corporate structures and goals do not exist only in people's minds. They exist as legal entities and they clearly exist as functioning units quite different from many other sorts of functioning social units.

You say 'they don't do anything on their own...they don't make decisions'. Then, also true, in the same sense you argue, is that the Hell's Angels or Charlie Company don't do anything on their own. It's not a very useful claim. Charlie Company and boy scout groups will engage the community around them in unique ways as a consequence of their structure and purpose.

A corporation will as well. If that corporation is formed to make profit (let's assume Martha Stewart did awaken one morning with a calling from God to bring better doilies to the world), then it will engage the community around it in a particular way.

(last sentence ought to read...(let's assume M S did NOT awaken...)
-noting also that that is no particular wish of mine.

Show me one single check signed by a corporation. Show me one letter written by a corporation. Show me one policy letter written by a corporation. They don't exist! Every one of those is created or signed by INDIVIDUALS. Yes, "Corporations" exist as legal entities. But individual people make each and every decision within that structure. There is no "Corporation" out there making decisions without indivudual people actually pulling the strings.



I disagree that it's not useful. Every single individual within ANY organization has the responsibility (as a member of society) to act both ethically and morally. If everyone does then the organization, whether a Corporation, the Boy Scouts or the Hells Angels, should end up in the same boat as a whole. It's not guaranteed and that is why groups have leaders- to monitor the progression and actions of the group as a whole but in the vast majority of cases if everyone acts ethically then the final outcome will be ethical as well. Making a profit is an overall objective but it isn't the only objective. If the people that comprise the organization (corporate or otherwise) act ethically then every decision that affects the search for profits will be ethical.

Blaming nameless, faceless "Corporations" is a copout. Doing so allows the individuals responsible off the hook for their decisions/actions.

I don't know if any of you caught "60 Minutes" on TV Sunday but here is a story that illustrates exactly what I am talking about:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/60minutes/main529601.shtml

The basic jist of it is that this insurance company was denying people's disability insurance claims based on profit/loss instead of whether or not the people were actually disabled or not. Based on the story it seems that pretty much everyone in the company knew what they were doing was wrong but they did it anyway. It seems that the ethical operating standard amongst the employees was pretty damn low here. If every employee had acted in an ethical manner the story wouldn't exist.

Frankly, what is embodied in that 60 Minutes report doesn't surprise me in the least. I think Fishin' has it right here, being a part of a corporation doesn't relieve one of the need to deal equitably and ethically with others, and the "faceless" corporation is a front used by venal men and women to try to dodge responsibility for being . . . well, nasty little shits . . .

This has been a long but interesting read. I understand but have no actual quotes that concisely reflect past and current ethical standards. It is my thought that the word "decline" is too often used in place of the word "changing". It is too easy to reflect upon the current scandals as a reflection of societies trend. Little is said to address those people, companies or, political figures whose behaviors are driven by an ethical or moral standard wiich id directed toward the population they serve. Of all the comments made I am drawn most to Setanta's remark :"...What one learns at home" as the as the corner stone of ethical behavior. In a behavioral sense, modeling behavior is of primary importance in the early development of ethical standards and behaviors. It may well be reinforced within the educational system but, if not modeled in the home, often falls upon deaf ears. These individuals then become members of cooperations, groups and organizations. And as posed by another, these individuals ethical standards drive the activity of that group.

Are ethics in decline? The question presupposes that there is some universal definition of "bad, good, better, and best". Is there some universal standard that can be applied to thought and behavior? The Abrahamic religions insist that their values alone are True, and that any belief that differs from their own is false, and "bad". Moral/ethical codes and values held by Buddhists, Jains and other religions do vary from those held by the followers of Abrahamic religions. Were the aboriginal inhabitants of the jungles, and distant islands more morally depraved in their nakedness than the missionaries who came to save their souls? Some have even regarded murder as a highly moral act. Whatever it is that people believe, they believe is good and true. When most people's behavior conflicts with what they believe, they feel guilt. This is as true for those we regard as monsters as it is for the saints.

Often moral relativism and situational ethics are offered as an alternative to the notion that there is some universal range of ethical values that apply everywhere, to everyone, and for all times. Modern Existentialism that grew out of the devastation of the Great War (1914-1948), openly questions traditional values as absurd, or meaningless. That is dangerous ground. If there is no certain "good", or "bad" thought/behavior, then the gates are open to any behavior at all. The worst villain may justify the most horrific acts, by claiming that they were made in conformance with their code of ethics. The tiger cannot murder. Is a shark vicious for tearing a leg off of swimmer? How important is intent in determining if a thought/act is "good", or "bad"? How many think and act with the intent to do "evil", whatever that means?

So what is moral and ethical behavior? Try this for a rule of thumb. Those thoughts and actions that tend to increase the suffering naturally associated with living are wrong and should be avoided. Those thoughts and actions that tend to decrease suffering are better than thoughts and actions that result in increased suffering. Of course, who can tell what the outcome will be for any given thought, or action? Intent is problematical. Is a lie intended to prevent suffering less any less damaging if the outcome is more suffering than even the most brutal truth might have been? If a person lies only to avoid their own suffering, is that the same as lying to protect someone else?

Only after we have a good grip on these sorts of questions, can we begin to address the question posed. Are ethics in decline? Bah!

The young have always been optimistic, adventurous, and dedicated to change. The old have always disliked change, because it entails risk of losing whatever the old think they have gained/achieved. Change is inherent to life, but change is neither "good" nor "bad". One gives up certain things/attitudes to take advantage of new ideas, new ways of doing things easier, faster, and with less suffering. The young almost always believe that perfection is somewhere just around the corner. The old know better. Every advance spawns it's own problems.

fishin

NOT etting individual decision makers off the ethical hook is precisely a part of what I'm pointing to here.

You say corporations are not nameless and faceless. But in fact that is effectively what they often are, and by design. For example, try to get at a tobacco exec, who knowingly decided to increase the nicotine content in his product, with a criminal prosecution or a civil suit. (Please don't bring in the 'smoker is responsible' argument - we are talking about the other half of the equation - corporate ethics). I would far far rather have these guys and girls transparent and liable for their decisions, but they are protected within a structure both legal and organizational.

Let's take, as an example, a small town hardware store. Joe, the owner, is absolutely dependent upon the quality of his products and his ethical reputation for his own well-being. His relationship with his community is very immediate.

Contrast that with the execs at ADM who met with execs from the other main lysene producers and conspired to fix prices. (http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/092600.html) They got busted only because one of their team was going through domestic turmoil, otherwise it would have all passed without notice. For these guys, the community is so distant as to be in another solar system. What determines their personal well-being are considerations much different than Joe in his hardware store. They can be unethical and make a ton. They can, as in the case of Enron, be rewarded personally by being unethical. But importantly, the culture around them will not shout out 'Stop!', it will commonly shout out 'Do more of it!'. Shareholders in Switzerland care about what?

Company policies are written and unwritten. There was no written policy in Arthur Anderson to collectively decide to advise their clients on how to skirt around the law and then sign off on their books. Yet, that's what happened and the entire corporation was prosecuted. It's worse when it's done collectively as a corporation than by individuals. It was the government who provided the tools to be able to do this based on not just leaving business to their own devices but providing protection based on the fear of lawsuits gambit. They just recently did it again with the homeland security bill on a payback for campaign contributors (although that may not stand after conferances with the administration that those were unfairly plugged into the bill at the last minutes).

You are talking about a VERY different issue here. Criminal and civil lawsuits have little or nothing to do with ethical behavior. The reason you have problems gettings those execs into court is because of the legal system. To my knowledge there is no official, government sanctioned court for settling matters of ethics. (In some cases the ethical and criminal or civil legal issues match but not in most. In most cases the legal issues are only considered.)



Exactly my point right there. It wasn't "The Corporation" that made those decisions. It was the Executives - people - individuals. These people would be just as unethical if they were unemployed and living on the street.



Ethics transcends "self". In a matter of ethics, their "personal well-being" is entirely irrelevant. The ethical issues that face the execs at the huge mega-corporations are the exact same ethical issues that face the small business owner. Whether the execs at ADM lie to a million customers or Joe lies to just one the ethic that says we will not lie is broken.

If the assertion that it is the corporation that is unethical (and that the laws in effect are based on those ethical standards) then every employee and stockholder in ADM should be in prison for the actions that are mentioned in the article. They are all a part of the corporation. But they weren't even all charged (and it would be foolish to do so).

2 or 3 of ADM's corporate execs are however - because they were found to be INDIVIDUALLY responsible for the scam.

IMHO;

A corporation can be no more or less ethical than can a tree. It is the people operating under the group dynamic of the corporation (or government or church luncheon committee) which exhibit the uniquely human attribute of "Ethics", for good or ill. Group dynamics are amazing phenomona, directed by both internal and external influences. As Dan Walker said, "If you have a disorganized group of hundreds of agitated people hanging around and a few dozen people dressed for a riot show up, what do you think is going to happen?" Its not likely any single member of Rusty Calley's Infantry Company would have begun shooting civilians on individual initiative, yet when the order was given, many began shooting despite their own misgivings. People in leadership positions can have tremendous impact on the group dynamic of an organization. Too often those in leadership positions in corporations or governments foster an atmosphere condusive to the seeking of immediate tangible gain for the organization, whether such gain be ethical or not, and regardless of longer term implication of such gain-directed activity. It is man's basic nature to live in the present, and to seek such present advantage as may be had. Were this not the case, there would be no need for laws, nor for militaries or even religions, for that matter.

That's what I think, antway.



timber

fishin

One last try.

My goodness, you keep skating away form my point at a zillion miles and hour. Yes, I know that a corporation doesn't go pee. A riotous mob doesn't go pee either. Nor does it write cheques. But to then say that a mob is nothing of real importance in ethical matters seems a bit odd.

Are you not prepared to make any statement about, for example, LA gangs? Ought we not to even talk about 'gangs' as a group structure with goals and internal policies quite irrelevant to ethical/moral matters?

You resist ANY discernment regarding how a group might be established, organized, protected or unprotected by law or tradition and what the likely consequences of this might be for the behavior of the individuals within it.

The point here...please please stretch a little...is that some structures FACILITATE OR REWARD unethical conduct (thus are relevant targets in a discussion on ethics).

Fishin wrote the following:
There is a recurring theme (and not just in this thread..) that somehow there is some difference between "individuals" , "society" and "corporations" (or "Businesses" if you prefer..). The difference is artifical. It's something that has been entirely created in people's minds.

I reply:
Society may be nothing more than the sum total of all the thoughts and acts of individuals. The individual may be the basic component, but this does not make society any less real.

The denial of the existence of society would seem to be an effort to reduce all responsibility to the choice of individuals without regard for any roll society may have played in the formation of that choice. It further would relieve the individual of any responsibility for the society in which he lives. In my opinion it is a grave mistake to think this way. Society is something real and different from an individual.

Craven, glad you liked the RLS quote.

I resist it because, as I've said quite clearly several times now, it's a false premise. Each individual either acts ethically when it comes time to make any given decision or they don't. How the law reacts to that is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical to begin with. Whatever group they may be a member of is similarly irrelevant.

Lumping people into a group and trying to pin society's faults on that group is the very same thing that brought us racism, sexism, religious intolerance and a host of other ills. As I said originally, I realize that blaming "big business" is the current fad but, IMO, it's just more of the same old garbage and it's just as much of a mistake. It's a way to avoid putting the responsibility on individuals and it allows us to escape from having to consider our own possible hand in the unethical behavior.



Since when was this the point? The on-going point since yesterday has been my prior comment about the recurring theme of blaming "Corporations".

If in your point you later substitute "corporations" for "some structures" then I'd disagree with the statement. There are however, some structures (like organized crime..) where I would say that the statement vague but true. Those organizations are created on an unethical basis to begin with and every individual entering that organization goes in knowing that in advance (so they are each acting unethically to begin with).

You've taken my statement out of context here. The original comment was in reference to ethical decision making and actions. I never denied the existence of society. Society however, doesn't make decisions. Again, it is a nameless, faceless entity. We, as individuals make up society and we (collectively) make decisions for the whole. We each also have to accept our individual share of responsibility for our part in those decisions (or lack of) that turn out badly.

LightWizard and Hazlitt

Sorry, I haven't had as much time to address your posts here and elsewhere. But we tend to agree on a lot of these issues, I think. But wanted to say I always find value in your posts.

Timberlanko

You speak to 'group dynamics' which is a central theme of my posts here. You add, at the end..."It is man's basic nature to live in the present, and to seek such present advantage as may be had. Were this not the case, there would be no need for laws, nor for militaries or even religions, for that matter."

I think that is so. Of course, constraints on human behavior (laws) target not merely the individual, but group entities as well. And that is because such entities, though conglomerates of individuals, operate within the community, and those operations have consequences.