Ethics by Ron

Love is widely respected but means many things to different people: four broad and generally accepted definitions are: FRIENDSHIP, AFFECTION, SEXUAL LOVE and AGAPE (a deep concern for another/s without expecting reciprocity);

This essay addresses AGAPE or ALTRUISTIC LOVE, which is found to some degree in each of the lesser forms of love;

Since we are biological beings, people seek the basics of safety, security, shelter, food, good health and children;

Being human also means we seek freedom / liberty / independence – this seems to be inborn, as anyone who has raised kids will recognize;

As a direct consequence, we are bound (or free) to make choices;

Because every one of us is unique (like snowflakes and leaves), every choice we make is also unique;

Making a choice also has an inevitable consequence: a unique, personal responsibility for the outcome of each choice;

Such responsibilities are two-fold, what happens to us, and what happens to others, as a result of each unique choice;

Measuring responsibilities may be defined as whether we increase our own and others’ freedoms (good outcome!) or diminish these (bad!) – or increase our own freedom at the expense of others (bad?) or vice versa (good?);

Where does LOVE enter into a discussion of liberty? It appears to me that concern and careful consideration for others as we make choices that involve others, may impact their liberty. This recognition of others’ existence, rights and dignity while we decide what choices to make is a form of love.

To LOVE in this altruistic way appears to me to involve making choices that contribute to both personal and communal LIBERTY. This sort of love seeks to GIVE not to POSSESS.

Why hasn’t altruistic love (AGAPE) already become universal in our anxious search for freedom?

There are many characteristics inherited from our forefathers (human, humanoid, sub-human and animal) that need to be unlearned for this sort of LOVE to be activated.

The most powerful of these inborn characteristics is FEAR, which has been a vital need in order for our ancestors to be able to survive. But although survival appears to me to be the earliest form of freedom, FEAR is still the basic antithesis to altruistic LOVE.

Fear has many facets and leads to powerful emotions of anger, egotism and greed. Love is debilitated in the presence of these emotions, which have lost their survival purpose in our present world of safety, community, wealth, and technology.

The earliest stages of human development provided for safety and social adhesion in groups (such as families / clans / villages / cities / states) that have improved our ability to find food, shelter, security, better health and family support, which all contribute to our sense of freedom. This has been the foundation of civil community, government, social structure and the gradual development of democratic processes that increase individual liberty at the price of some discipline, law and personal consideration for others.

Much love and basic teaching of our children can bring the power of fear and emotional outbreaks under control by the child’s intellect and provide a capacity for making wise choices as an adult, which is the ground for both citizenship and true, altruistic love to take root.

To best love our own children, we try to bring them up to become independent and free, so as to enable them to make responsible / adult choices that add to the general well-being. For our children to become “mature adults” (that is capable of loving others and of making responsible choices), they must become aware of, and learn to value, LOVE. And the best place to learn to love is in the security of the give and take of family life. I have always maintained that true human maturity can best be achieved through the experience of raising a family!!

Raising a family also teaches parents this finest form of love (AGAPE), of giving freedom to our children for them to become independent, responsible adults. Developing such altruistic love appears to me to be the highest purpose of life and nature. This causes me to ask “WHY?”.

Do we exist in order to gain this “essential” capacity? Again why? Has this to do with the purpose of existence itself? Can we infer from this that LIFE has, in fact, a PURPOSE and that this has to do with the way we handle responsibilities in this life and what may come after? Can it be that the capacity for deep, altruistic love is a factor that determines how well qualified we are for the next stage, namely, of life in the hereafter?

I would like to speculate that our personal “capacity to love”, may, at the time of death, be a ticket into the next stage of life. Like any ticket, the best seats go to the “best tickets”!!! This thought might even spur us to seek the highest capability we can to take our responsibilities seriously, and to love to the highest level that we are able to achieve in this trial period that we call “life”.

THIS may therefore be the “highest purpose of life” and the reason we are endowed with the responsibilities of “choice” and of expanding “freedom”, namely to learn how to LOVE and get the best tickets to life after death.

　^ go to top of page ^

(105) 15 September 2008

Saints

This mutual confidence, trust and respect that we value so highly is characteristic of certain individuals: people who help others, like nurses and other care-givers; people who voluntarily offer services where they are much needed, like Peace Corps; others who commit to being pastors or priests; and, even though most of us do not like war, volunteering for military service calls for our respect! And also many of us are acting out altruistic deeds with little or no expectation of reward, or even recognition, in minor events every day.

Consideration for others, altruism, seems to be the glue holding our civilization together. The opposites, self-interest and egoism, frequently conflict with social and family well-being. We have seen that a sort of evolutionary process may be at work as an historical review will show - more people are enjoying a better life than ever before because prosperity, observance of law and good order, and increasing acceptance of cultural, religious and racial differences, contribute to peaceful living through consideration for others.

Abraham Maslow, over fifty years ago, stated that people have four or five levels of NEED. Absolute basics are life, air, food and water, security and safety! Next come social needs for family, community, recognition and belonging; finally, our highest needs include intellectual security and self-realization (having a goal and working towards this). What Maslow observed was that threats of loss at lower levels of his hierarchy of needs, detract from being able to realize higher needs. So I find a precise parallel with self-interest and egoism threatening trust, respect and consideration.

People who offer us trust, respect and consideration at the highest levels are indeed like “saints”, very unusual behavior which causes us to see them as saints. Like loving everybody, being a “saint” appears to be an ideal! Are we really expected to be SAINTS? Is there a purpose in having such high goals? As our civilization gradually provides for better living for all, are we individually expected to become more saintly? More trusted, respected and altruistic? And if so, WHY?

Could it be possible that there is a purpose in this civilizing process that is preparing each of us for some more significant goal? Could this goal be personal survival after death? Saints are traditionally expected to “go to heaven” and if we each are expected to become saints, is “heaven” just an existence after death?

^ go to top of page ^

(104) 28 July 2008

Consideration

Trust and respect from others gives us self-confidence and good judgment, we concluded in blog 103, and generates an effective way of relating to other people which, I suggest, is CONSIDERATION.

Both self-confidence and good judgment relate primarily to how we act and react to others. Consideration is acting and reacting with others in ways that do not damage their well-being and may enhance it. How has consideration for others evolved from sheer survival (eye for an eye!) in primitive times? Probably unity of family and tribe, shifting from hunting to gathering, then to agricultural life, all required increasing our capabilities for cooperation.

The very earliest traces of primitive community life show clear signs of “rules of behavior” that gradually developed into “laws”. Early codes set out timing for ploughing, seeding and harvesting - many also related to keeping people honest (accounting and billing) and disciplined (serving a king and paying taxes!). One thing common to most early “legal requirements” was how to COOPERATE especially for shared security and defense against invaders, for settling disputes, trading, accounting and billing, etc..

It appears that survival of primitive social groups required cooperation, which is “consideration for others“. Care for well-being of the community was thus an essential for the evolution of civilization. Our concept of governing “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a direct call for each of us to care for each other. This is pure CONSIDERATION!!

Let me bring this down to the personal level, who ARE these others that we “need” to care for? To keep trust and respect by others for us, it is essential for US to respect and trust others -- but it is impossible to blindly trust everybody we are in contact with -- or IS IT? Christ told us to “love” everybody but it does look high-risk in today’s world -- perhaps it is only an ideal to be strived for! On the other hand, people we know and are consistently in contact with at home, at work, etc., all are easier to get along with if we are quietly confident that they are trustworthy -- this even increases their respect and trust towards us!

Yet this mutual confidence, trust and respect that we value so highly can be destroyed so easily -- a mis-spoken comment or criticism, a doubt about some deal or statement, a moment of envy or spite, fear of being short-changed -- these and so many other mistakes can, in an instant, replace trust with suspicion. This goes in both directions, by me towards you and equally by you towards me. Then the process of rebuilding this lost respect and trust becomes much, much longer and much more difficult.

^ go to top of page ^

(103) 14 July 2008

Respect

A good question to ask ourselves is: do I really trust and respect myself? We try to develop self-esteem in our youngsters but I wonder if we really are confident of our own self-esteem? Nobody has asked us to “love our neighbor MORE than we love our self”, but how can we measure how much we love and respect ourselves? This has to do with self-respect and I think we need to look into this a little bit more deeply.

Let’s start by asking the question that ended Blog 102: can I really be trusted by others one hundred percent?

The first question must be who are others? Husbands and wives trust each other to a great extent, but we must doubt that this is 100%! How about lovers? Children soon learn that parents cannot be truly trusted, and by the time they are teenagers, total distrust often becomes the norm!

Respect is another matter, and we do respect people that may not be 100% trustworthy but are competent enough to fix our plumbing or our teeth! We also respect others because of their station in life -- ministers, bankers, police and firemen, charities, and others who provide us with security.

But the heart of this is in us, ourselves -- how much do we trust our own judgment? Our own selves? We all know people who appear to be totally self-confident and yet do they show this to others just to cover up uncertainties and lack of confidence in themselves? To look honestly inside our own selves is not easy. For those who have extreme problems with self-doubt, even with assistance from a trusted counselor or professional psychologist, it is very difficult to reach true self-understanding/respect. Yet with age and experience, self-respect can and does grow and can be taught to others.

The most practical and easiest way is by parents raising their kids to be confident and respectful -- sounds so old-fashioned -- but it is, I am sure, true! Another way is for parents to encourage their children to “succeed” -- this can be in reading and writing, in math, and in skills such as music, sports and in making friends. One of the major consequences of “succeeding” in school and non-academic skills, is competitiveness, which in the very best scenarios, leads to trust and respect for competitors --- but too frequently causes envy, spite and general feelings that militate against kids finding “trust and respect“.

Trust and respect from peers provides a sound basis for developing our own self-confidence and good judgment.

^ go to top of page ^

(102) 30 June 2008

Trust

An interesting thing to note about TRUST is that it comes in several “flavors”. A fundamental form of trust is mutual trust such as between two intimate friends or spouses. Trust can also flow in only one direction such as when we entrust our lives to a doctor or surgeon; this sort of trust develops primarily in areas of skill and technology where the specialist is “trusted” to know much more than that we, ourselves, are able to make competent judgments on. People also may trust US for many reasons while we may not necessarily trust THEM. Most financial transactions show a special faith or trust that what is recorded on paper or in a computer, bank, stockbroker, etc., will actually take place. Even money itself is only paper making a promise that a transaction will be fairly compensated -- to people trusting only gold, paper money appears untrustworthy!

Trust is probably the basis for communal life, the basis for civil behavior, for civilization. Trust needs therefore to be given a high priority. Distrust makes life complicated and the earliest historical records seem to show that care was seriously needed even in very primitive transactions. The most primitive records had to do with debits, credits and accounting for transactions! The Italians have a saying “To trust is fine, but to be cautious is better”!! There is a lot of wisdom in being cautious, in fact Prudence is one of the Virtues! Most “Laws” are instituted because we cannot trust others but being cautious may not negate the value of trust.

We all are more comfortable when we find ourselves in a group that we can trust -- our communication is more relaxed and give and take can be friendly while still offering other viewpoints. The earliest trust is generally developed between mother and child, but suspicion arises real soon that even Mother cannot be totally depended upon! So also during childhood and youth we constantly get disillusioned about whom we are truly able to trust. Yet in many fundamentals, we still “trust” our neighbor -- when driving, we all observe the rules of the road (or mostly!!); we draw paper money from the ATM; we eat and drink stuff that others prepare and still are confident that we are not being poisoned (in spite of scares!!); we work and get paid, etc..

Trust is complex and, in my experience, still needed even in contracting for others to do work; we need a plumber, we call him/her get a phone quote, say go ahead, get the work done and accept the repair even when we don‘t know exactly what he did, then we pay with a check (just a signature on a scrap of paper) and the deal is done!! Look at how much trust is involved in each of these steps. So even if we are living in a litigious society, there is still plenty of trust going around.

Thoughts along these lines raise questions of how wonderful it might be if EVERYBODY could be trusted one hundred percent -- life would be easier -- but it all seems to start with me!! Can I really be trusted one hundred percent? Can I be totally respected by others? Is this a dream ideal or can such trust and respect truly be found?

^ go to top of page ^

(101) 16 June 2008

An Introduction to Trust, Respect and Consideration

This is the beginning of a new series of blogs focusing on how the subject topics may contribute to CIVIL SOCIETY as well as to our purposes in living in this world. The following is an outline of topics I shall try to develop in more detail.

Trust calls for respect which in turn is a prerequisite for consideration of others. Civilization is the product of a civil society which in turn depends upon individuals’ capabilities for preferring social well-being over personal choice, that is, for caring for others.

Who are these “others”? The first and most intimate are family and “tribe” members. But even within family life, some stress and many differences of opinion can jeopardize trust, respect and consideration. “Others” include friends and neighbors, associates at work, members of club, church or social groups, as well as co-citizens, co-nationals, co-members of the whole human race.

How are trust, respect and consideration for others generated? SLOWLY! And how easily are they damaged or destroyed by others? VERY! And by us, ourselves? So often!!

We should also review VALUE SYSTEMS. These underlie our subject topics, especially comparative values and our ability to make “good” judgments on WEIGHTING these, as well as our sharing, and failing to share, values -- current stresses between western and mid-eastern values and priorities give this a particular urgency.

Another area needing exploration, is whether there is any purpose in our living in this world. Intangibles like values and beliefs lead not only to trust, respect, consideration and “civil behavior”, but to opinions, discussion and conflict. Are such values and beliefs set in concrete? Should values and beliefs be flexible? Is life a challenge to each of us to try reconciling conflict? Does this mean that there is a “good” in reconciling differences? Is it our purpose to seek reconciliation?

The process of bio-evolution appears to move from simpler forms to more complex. Increasing complexity is found in the process of “civilizing”, and appears to characterize intellectual growth as well as development from childhood to mature (civilized) adulthood. Could increasing complexity be a goal in itself? Or does moving toward ever-increasing complexity imply some more profound goal, purpose or destiny?

Does a “purpose” in our living here in this world imply some ultimate goal? Could such goal be an afterlife? Could our degree of success in becoming more complex and in practicing reconciliation be measured? By whom? For what reasons? Does our “score” or “grade” contribute to our standing after death? Is death really an “ending? Or a new “beginning”?

My purpose is not to persuade, but to open up sensitive areas for discussion and speculation!!!

^ go to top of page ^

(48) 15 October 2007

The purpose of Love and Life?

Freedom, maturity and respect for others are evidently what start us on the road to a civil society and democratic processes, which provide for security, liberty and the “pursuit of happiness” enshrined in our Constitution. The concept of citizenship is founded on freedom, maturity and respect for others, including respect for laws that democratic processes create and enforce. This respect for others is in turn founded on recognition of the inborn worth and dignity of our fellows. This is agape love!

But because raising a family also teaches parents this finest form of love (Agape), of giving freedom to our children for them to become civilized, independent, responsible adults, developing such altruistic love appears to me to have a higher purpose than simply creating a civil society, even if this is indeed a worthy goal. Nature and life appear pretty consistently to progress, per Darwin and others, to “higher” levels. I cannot believe that “civil society” can be the “highest” goal of nature and life. This causes me to ask if awareness and growth of agape love could be such a “highest” goal and, if so, Why??

Do we exist in order to gain this “essential” capacity? Again why? Has this to do with the purpose of existence itself? Can we infer from this that Life has, in fact, an ultimate Puprpose and that this has to do with death and what may come after? Can it be that the capacity for deep, altruistic love is a factor that determines how well qualified we are for Death?

I would like to speculate that our personal “capacity to love”, may, at the time of death, be a ticket into a next stage. Like any ticket, the best seats go to the “best tickets”!!! This thought might even spur us to seek the highest capacity to love that we are able to achieve in this trial period that we call “life”.

This may therefore be the “highest purpose of life” and the reason that nature and life have endowed us with the responsibilities of “choice” and of expanding “freedom”, namely to learn how truly to LOVE!!!

^ go to top of page ^

(47) 17 September 2007

Altruistic Love and the Search for Freedom and Liberty

There are many characteristics inherited from our forefathers (human, humanoid, sub-human and animal) that need to be unlearned for this sort of altruistic LOVE to be activated.

The most powerful of these inborn characteristics is FEAR, which has been a vital need for our ancestors to be able to survive. But although survival appears to me to be the earliest form of freedom, FEAR may still be the basic antithesis to altruistic LOVE.

The earliest stages of human development provided for safety and social adhesion in groups (such as families/clans/villages/cities/states) that have improved our ability to find food, shelter, security, better health and family support, as well as increasing freedoms. This has been the foundation of civil community, government, social structure and the gradual development of democratic processes which increase individual liberty at the price of some discipline, respect for law and personal consideration for others.

Much love and basic teaching of our children can bring the power of fear and emotional outbreaks under control by the child’s intellect and provide a capacity for making wise choices as an adult. This is the fertile ground in which consideration for others, trust, citizenship and true altruistic love can take root.

To best love our own children, we try to bring them up to become independent and free (specifically of us, their parents), so as to enable them to make responsible/adult choices that add to the general well-being. For our children to become “mature adults” (that is capable of loving others and of making responsible choices), they must become aware of, and learn to value, LOVE. And the best place to learn to love is in the security of the give and take of family life. I have always maintained that true human maturity can best be achieved through the experience of raising a family!!

Adults who have grown up in a loving and secure family become true, contributing members of society and recognize that all the freedoms they enjoy are equally the rights of others. Our search for freedom and liberty is thus totally dependent on individual, personal maturity and integrity, in turn founded in family love and discipline.

^ go to top of page ^

(46) 04 September 2007

Trust, Respect and Love

We have explored TRUST and its relationship to RESPECT, so now I would like to venture into more uncertainty by relating trust and respect to love. LOVE in the context of the Christian New Testament is called CHARITY, and centuries of discussion of meanings for charity seem, today, to focus on the ancient Greek concept of AGAPE. Agape was defined as “fellowship” or support for people, especially for “neighbors”, for people who belong to the “community”, for the community or city. Here are some thoughts on “agape” relationships between people and in “civil” society.

Love is widely talked about, sung about, discussed and offered, but means so many things to different people: four broad and generally accepted definitions are: FRIENDSHIP, AFFECTION, SEXUAL LOVE and AGAPE (this deep concern for another without expecting reciprocity); this chapter addresses AGAPE or ALTRUISTIC LOVE, which is found to some degree in each of the lesser forms of love.

Since we are biological beings, people seek the basics of safety, security, shelter, food, good health and children; being human also means we seek freedom, liberty, and independence – this seems to be inborn, as anyone who has raised kids will recognize; as a direct consequence, we are bound (or free) to make choices.

Because every one of us is unique (like snowflakes and leaves), every choice we make is also unique; making a choice also has an inevitable consequence: a unique, personal responsibility for the outcome of each choice; such responsibilities are two-fold, what happens to us, and what happens to others, as a result of each unique choice;

Where does LOVE enter into a discussion of liberty? It appears to me that concern and careful consideration for others, as we make choices that involve others, is recognition of others’ existence, rights and dignity, and therefore is a form of love/agape.

To LOVE in this altruistic way appears to me to involve making choices that contribute to both personal and communal LIBERTY. This sort of love seeks to GIVE not to POSSESS. We all deeply recognize the importance of liberty/freedom, so why hasn’t altruistic love (AGAPE) already become universal in our anxious search for freedom?

^ go to top of page ^

(45) 20 August 2007

Trust as a Function of Respect

The discomfort we find in politics and in democratic processes appears to me to derive primarily from a lack of respect for individuals that practice politics, rather than from the processes themselves.

It is difficult to pin down an exact meaning for the word “respect” as well as its essential significance – we know when we respect someone else, it’s obvious! Respect comes in several flavors: it is given to people of stature and wisdom; also to successful people; to people in “office”; also we generally respect doctors, dentists and nurses and we all have been urged to respect our parents, our seniors, our teachers, often without success!

A major factor in our feeling of respect for another individual is based on the trust we have in that person’s response to our needs. This is true for professionals that we consult because they have knowledge which helps us. We have a different respect for people in power, our boss for example, that derives from fear. But the RESPECT that I want to explore more deeply is that which we have for other people around us in our daily lives.

This respect is a function of good faith -- this recognition that we are dealing with a person who has proved to be reliable and supportive before, often takes a long time to develop. RESPECT accepts the independence and dignity of the other. The innate dignity of another is not easy to accept widely even though it exists in every single person by virtue of their humanity. To a lesser degree it is found in all of nature as we become increasingly aware and respectful of ecological interdependencies.

Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence declared that people have “certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. These rights require each of us, as individuals, to respect other people’s lives, liberties and their personal pursuit of happiness. It is this respect that endows others with “dignity” or worth. It may be a role of government to assure that conflicting rights are reconciled but each individual is, in the same way, responsible for not intruding, in fact for assisting others, in their “pursuit of happiness” – always with some degree of prudence and moderation!!

This practice of RESPECT leads directly to a blooming of interpersonal TRUST.

^ go to top of page ^

(44) 23 July 2007

Trust in Democratic Processes

In the last chapter, we opened the pandora's box of "politics"! There is today, wide-spread distrust of current political processes, reflected in the less than fifty percent turnout for presidential elections and 10-25% for local elections.

This deplorable state of affairs arises, we are told, from voter apathy. Is this really the reason? Let us consider some other or underlying causes of "apathy":

1 - Amongst people I know personally and who are ready to express their concern, the over-riding problem in politics today is the invasive and persuasive power of the media, specifically TV!!

2 - Another major concern is that politicians are making careers for themselves out of the elective process, rather than representing concerns of the electorate to get equitable legislation in place for the public good.

3 - Much public discussion now focuses on fund-raising by both individuals and parties; more money = greater probability of getting elected and reelected; large contributions bring overt or covert indebtedness toward such donors; etc!

4 -Voters generally feel they vote for a Party rather than an individual, which further distances voters from the person "representing" him/her in legislating;

5 -Younger adults feel powerless in voting and consequently do not vote, but are assuredly not apathetic!! Their very strong feeling is total DISTRUST of the political system!!

Is there any solution to "voter apathy"? The very foundation of our democratic system is an electorate able to choose competent representation in governance. Do we really have an "able" electorate? How should we measure "competence" in potential representatives?

These are two very powerful questions: by' "able" do we mean educated/qualified to be competent enough to vote knowledgeably? On local matters? On State matters? On Federal/National matters? Or on some graduated scale? By "competent" should aspirant politicians be subject to "testing" to see if each is "competent" enough to engage in responsibilities of governance? At the local levels? At State levels? At Federal/National levels?

Can we even discuss voter and office-aspirant competencies? Do we expect tests or other qualifications for voters and office-aspirants? Could we consider "grades" for these? Higher grades for higher office? Are such thoughts even "democratic"?

^ go to top of page ^

(43) 09 July 2007

Trust in Political Exchanges

Trust in social and business exchanges is characterized by slow growth of reputation, which can quickly change to distrust. In politics, trust is also earned slowly and easily lost. But I would like to take a short overview of “politics” and its meaning.

We accept that democratic, political processes, namely the election of representation in local, State and Federal law-making bodies produces “good” governance. In this political process, elected representatives are entrusted with responsibilities for enacting legislation that accrues to the benefit of the electorate. Our Constitution set this into motion three hundred years ago. It is a great and proven process.

We trust governments (the Executive) to provide for the “public good”. They perform this by carrying out Legislation, enforced by an impartial Judiciary. But, today, especially among the young, there is a deep distrust of every form of government, often directly of law-enforcement, the judiciary and electoral processes.

There appears to be a disconnect today between good governance and current processes of politics. It is widely accepted that politicians today cannot be “trusted” – they are “elected” by the media, their main purpose in life is to be re-elected and they raise huge amounts of money for this, assuredly incurring indebtedness towards major donors. Is a politician, loaded with debt, truly able to legislate for the “public good”? Here in California, another aspect of distrust occurs when major legislation is laid by referendum onto the electorate -- don’t we pay our representative expressly to debate, conclude and enact legislation on complex matters that we, the electorate, have neither expertise nor time to consider?

Can “politics” be separated from legislative responsibilities? Can politicians become statesmen? It appears to me vital to democracy’s survival that the very best of our people are elected into legislative, executive and judicial positions if trust in governance is to be recovered. We are all responsible for “politics today”! If returning to basic democratic principles is what we need, then it is only “We the People” who can request and require change. If the will of the people, (namely me and you specifically) is fired up and implemented, then “politics” will die away and trust in democratic processes be re-established.

^ go to top of page ^

(42) 18 June 2007

Trust in Social Exchanges

We have just discussed the growth of wisdom, and I want to continue the role that ethical behavior and the consequent development of trust in business and social exchanges. In this arena reputation is very significant. When we are recognized to be reliable, others trust our products, our services and our friendship.

Trust in a product can only come about if the product is accepted, does what is expected and is reliable – the manufacturer’s reputation is a direct function of slow growth of public trust. It can be destroyed in an instant. It is such a precious asset that it can out-weigh financial statements. Business reputation among users of the product also is more valuable than advertising. Ethical work generates trust that in turn creates reputation.

Friendship is also founded on trust and develops as this initial trust grows into solid faith in this friend. Like business, it can take a very minor incident to sour a budding friendship: a whisper of gossip, a sarcastic comment, a faint odor of jealousy, money matters, children doing well or indifferently in school, just to pick a few painful possibilities. Respect for friends is not highly valued in today’s world. I sense a devaluation coming from the constantly increasing pressures on families to SUCCEED, almost at any cost. Competition in business may have some merit, though price-cutting or reducing product quality may often not enhance reputations. Certainly competition will damage friendship, with a possible exception for athletic or truly “friendly” competition that does not diminish mutual trust. Friendship also needs time to grow strong and here too the pressures of today’s life often eat away at long-term relationships, including marriage and family relations.

Truly ethical behavior requires each of us to consider carefully the needs and preferences of others, both in family, friends, and business relations. Giving a reasonably high priority to others’ needs also is not too frequently observed in today’s rushed living, mostly because our own needs and preferences are given such high priority. Does anyone really trust anybody else these days – look no further than politics, to be looked over in the next chapter!!

^ go to top of page ^

(41) 13 November 2006

Prudence and Trust

So at some early age, we have learned the basics of caution and prudence. These excellent virtues do not however contribute to TRUST of others, in fact rather the opposite. We learn to be suspicious of others if caution and prudence become too important in our value system. A child, secure in the love of parents, can become common-sense prudent, learning not to stick damp fingers into an electric power outlet. The key may lie in security derived from parental love.

Loving parents and friends cause caution to be tempered by the growth of trust, which now is no longer the blind trust of an infant, but a more intellectual form of trust. It starts growing in a supportive, loving environment and is a delicate seedling. It can easily be damaged or destroyed by thoughtless actions, like teasing or being neglected. As this growth is fostered, it creates a solid base for personal development of character and good judgment.

Stress is very common among teens. This can be tested and handled by an upbringing of parental love, respect and trust. But without this solid foundation, a teen will seek other styles of “trust” or standing and respect. Examples include seeking “status cliques” in high school such as elite sports and other “in-groups”, gangs on the streets, and too frequently, the euphoria found in drugs.

Low personal “self-esteem” underlies these sorts of adventures. Pressures today are on the parents; too often both are working; much too often from there being only a single parent; these pressures eat away at the precious few hours that we adults dedicate to “bringing up” our children in a secure home with lots of love!! This actually decreases the rate of growth of self-respect and independence in the child and teenager that are truly the principle responsibilities of parenting.

This brings us to considering the adult who may, in this way, have been short-changed: those who are unsure of themselves are unable to evoke trust just as much as those who throw caution to the winds. But realistic prudence promotes trust and our childhood is truly the best time for us to learn the sort of prudence that through experience eventually leads to WISDOM. Wisdom in turn provides each of us with the ideal ETHIC and the ability to attend to the needs of our social well-being. Let’s leave these thoughts about trust and its role in Society, especially here in California, for the next chapters.

^ go to top of page ^

(40) 30 October 2006

Trust after the loss of innocence

The childhood trauma of finding a mother or other loved one has “betrayed” us and “destroyed” the blind trust that we were hard-wired for, sets us up for maturing our judgment. Naiveté may be “sweet” in a very young person but is not usable in social exchanges, in fact it can be laughed at in a teen-ager or an adult. So it appears evident that there is a long process of learning that takes place as an infant matures.

From birth we associate “love” with this hard-wired, innocent, blind trust; so much so, that in a peculiar reversal we constantly and unconsciously seek to recover innocence in love!! Innocence is one of the purest states of mind, it satisfies a deep need inside of us, and is enjoyed when we observe innocence in a child.

Somehow we all tend to believe that love creates trust and this “trust” fools us into believing it is a recovery of “innocence” – this illusion is a factor in every relationship but is most evident in the first love between a boy and a girl. And the pain of rejection at that age is another traumatic experience. This loss of innocence can easily lead to paranoia or cynicism, but it MUST become only a painful but valuable experience. Because we cannot blindly trust everyone and everything without getting into trouble, there is a real benefit in becoming a little suspicious when things look too good to be true.

The loss of innocence, then, is not all bad, a small child learns not to trust the family cat too much, those claws hurt. Let us remember too that the origin of our word “innocence” ties back to the Latin “nil nocere”, so innocence and naiveté should not be taken advantage of by the worldly-wise, nor belittled, because real innocence calls for protection from harm. Parents have a serious responsibility to care for infants and small children to assure their innocence does not land the child in trouble. Sensitivity is essential to bringing the lesson of “loss of innocence” to a fruitful outcome.

A child quickly learns not to trust the family cat too much, those claws can hurt. These valuable lessons we learn from the “pains” of losing innocence constitute the gaining of experience. The purpose of “experience” is the cultivation of CAUTION, PRUDENCE and WISDOM, that in turn cause others to trust us. The Greeks maintained that a prudent and wise man is trusted. So however painful it may be to become cautious, prudent and wise, the valuable dividend is to develop an excellent reputation and to be trusted by others. This is one of the foundation stones of ETHICS!!!

^ go to top of page ^

(39) 16 October 2006

A new approach to TRUST

Trust is something that everyone treasures and we expect people to trust us! But we very often do not trust others. Trust is the foundation stone of reputation, our own and of others. What is TRUST?

There are a number of synonyms for trust such as: confidence, sureness, assurance, reliance, and faith, just to pick out a few. Just as there are innumerable examples of trust in our daily lives: we are “assured” that others will drive on the right hand side of the street; that stores will give us goods and services for pieces of rectangular green paper; that the lights will come on when we switch them on; that the sun will shine again after a rainstorm; that there is some purpose in our being alive….and so on, you see what I am getting at….there is a great deal of trust being given and received every day.

In fact social and business life depend on all sorts of “trusts” and I propose to examine these so that we can consider and review areas where trust may not be fully exercised, inadequate to responsibilities, damaging to our social and political structures, short-changing our children and consequently the next generation of adults.

Let us start with the prime form of trust that exists between baby and mother, we appear to be hard-wired from birth to depend on our mothers, but experience tempers this trust over time. The blind trust of an infant can grow into love only as the infant begins to perceive reciprocity. When infantile love and trust are minimally betrayed this loss is permanently recorded and suspicion starts that all actions may not be totally trustworthy. This is more realistic than blind trust and soon becomes a natural reaction. But in this process something infinitely precious is lost. We may call this a major step in “growing up” but from the child’s point of view, it is a disaster of huge significance – the start of the loss of innocence.

^ go to top of page ^

(38) 18 September 2006

Conclusions

I believe that the previous thirty seven chapters cover most of my thoughts on ethical matters. So what conclusions can be drawn from these thoughts?

First and most fundamental to living in this world is the fact that we are not able to exist in a capsule separate from the rest of humanity. Somehow we each need to find a way to interact with others so that we can realize the goals and purposes that we wish to achieve in this life. Ethics appears to me to provide us with a way to get along with the rest of humanity.

Next, our concepts of good and bad, profitable and wasteful, quality and shoddiness, excellence and baseness, all call for experience and testing, unless we seek guidance from others. Ethics may represent an essence of humanity’s testing and experience and thus offer guidance. This cannot relieve each of us from the responsibility of gaining experience of our own but may lessen the need for each of us to explore in detail every issue and action. Ethics can offer a framework for us each to develop our own unique value system.

Values and ethics are intimately linked. Values motivate each of us and ethics guides us on the impact our values may have on others.

Finally, ethics offers a challenge to each of us to think and act responsibly. We all respect responsible people because their being responsible assures us that we can trust them. Engendering trust is probably fundamental to every social relationship and therefore to the survival of civil society.

^ go to top of page ^

(37) 04 September 2006

Ethics and Politics

Giving our treasure, talent and time to charities can and must be related to ethical values and behavior as we discussed in chapter 36, but what is there in politics that relates to ethics? Politics is today the process that leads to and provides us with a government of our choice and, because every choice has ethical considerations, politics includes ethical choices by the governing as well as by the governed. In fact, a major social consideration for “doing good” is our participation in “politics”!

The existence of our State and our Nation is founded on one of Maslow’s most basic “needs’, namely the provision by the state of the essentials for civil social life: SAFETY and SECURITY. For this prime reason we pay our taxes and the state gives us police, firemen, the military, the judiciary and laws, etc. in return (as well as many other services we have come to depend on). There is a similar need for us to contribute to the state as to charities – we really need a right-minded and effective state (much though it may be difficult for many members of our society to be honest enough with themselves to recognize this!!),

How do we meet our ethical obligation to support the state? Mostly by grumbling about taxes (and the price of gas!!). But do we individually owe more to the state than we currently give? I believe we do and I see this mostly in the deplorable condition of our political processes – none of us is happy with politics today, in fact no loving father counsels his son to select “politics” for a satisfying career!!!! I believe we have a moral obligation, each one of us, to do something to help the state concentrate upon those fundamentals that directly provide us with a civil society. This must include the process that elects or appoints officials to legislate in our best interests, to execute to the best of their ability such legislation, and to provide a judiciary competent to determine that the people’s interests are in fact being met.

I believe that concerned individuals (which should of course include all of us!) can help persuade our legislators to get back to basics – just as we expect to support an honest charity, so also we all need to seek honesty in politics. Ethics requires each of us to contribute to the well-being of our community = civil society. If we do not, the fabric of civil life will waste away as it appears to me may be beginning to happen now.

^ go to top of page ^

(36) 21 August 2006

Ethics in Society

At the end of the last chapter (#35) we touched on the ethics of charity – while our everyday ethic attends to our own choices and their possible impact on others, the “others” we think of are people around us, probably people we know. In this chapter I feel we need to discuss impacts on larger groups.

Even here in “wealthy” California, there are communities in need of material help: just consider the Salvation Army, United Crusade, churches and temples, the homeless and drug-burdened, AIDS and many other vital service groups. Hospitals, homes for the elderly and handicapped and others all need volunteers, etc., so it is not only money that helps but all of Time, Talent and Treasure also are needed,

How can we weigh these social demands against family and workplace priorities? Each of us recognizes to some extent that needy causes should be supported but when it comes down to making a monetary or personal contribution, there is no easy answer to “when?” or “how much?”. Mormons really give a 10% before taxes contribution to their Church and most of us just gape at this “generosity”!! We each could perhaps do likewise but it is never the right time. Family customs and social pressures help each of us to decide that we really should GIVE! But I believe we are naturally generous so that a genuine ethical dilemma occurs as we try to decide “when and how much?”.

Another dilemma is “to whom?”: which charity or cause is worthy of our donation – United Way has had problems and scandals, questions were raised about the Red Cross during the Katrina/Rita crisis, as well as others with high “overheads”! So that selecting a specific cause or charity can cause hesitation which almost invariably lets the steam out of our desire to give!! A solution may be to taking a look at websites that rate charities, for example the American Institute of Philanthropy offers a “watch-dog” service and Charity Navigator may be reliable.

Get your confidence solid in institutions you prefer as a separate process so that when you are ready to give, you should not find that sneaky excuse of “to whom?” but only the basic question of ”how much?”. I have found that as donor and also as fund-raiser, that making a pledge is an excellent discipline and not only makes giving easier but also generally increases the amount donated.

^ go to top of page ^

(35) 07 August 2006

What Do We Really Want?

With all the wisdom of thinkers in the past, of our Founding Fathers and of our constitutional right to “seek happiness”, WHAT do we REALLY want??? Can we distinguish what we need from what we want? Needs seem to take priority over wants, yet it may be difficult to see the difference on any specific occasion.

I believe we act as a consequence of the accumulated body of experience we have formed till now. This starts with “good” and “bad” built into our childhood relationships with parents, mentors, companions, teachers, and others. These values should be re-examined from time to time in order to check on their validity in the new circumstances of our life and our increasing maturity.

This process of rechecking our values can occur subconsciously and/or in an orderly process of rethinking and studying, comparing our values with others. Distinguishing needs from wants must be included in these considerations and, obviously, change according to circumstances.

Addressing the question in the heading and with all our accumulated experience being consciously available, every time we face “what do we really want?”, we need to clear up first whether this is a “need” or a “want”. This takes some really cold analysis, because “wants” very frequently masquerade as “needs”, and only really cold analysis will clear this up. Needs should be attended to according to our priorities and this is not generally too difficult. Wants really require us to consider our values, which are the only real scale we can use to “evaluate“ a want.

Finally before deciding on any action to satisfying a need or a want, we need to give serious consideration to all consequences that may occur, to the responsibility that we can take for such consequences, and especially any harmful effects upon others. Only thusly can we be sure that we are acting in our own best interests without causing ethically damaging impact on other people.

“Other people” brings up another aspect of what we may “want” and our social obligation to “help others”. Consideration, especially in deciding to satisfy a “want”, should be given to contributing money and effort to deserving causes. Charities should be given some weight in deciding whether to satisfy a want, since other peoples’ needs can be very high in some circumstances: eg. the extraordinary outpouring of generosity for people affected by Hurricane Katrina. Refraining to donate may be unethical, so this also needs some consideration in processing our values and priorities. I do not wish to set your standards but only to remind each of us that we live in an interdependent society and world. This means that some of us should be helpful to others and that this too should enter into our values and priorities.

^ go to top of page ^

(34) 24 July 2006

Maslow and Others

Ever since primitive civilizations formed, people have always thought deeply about needs and values, about right and wrong and about rights and responsibilities. All these thoughts are connected to the fact that we are inevitably in constant contact with others and we MUST make these contacts work smoothly.

Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs starts with the fundamental necessity for us to SURVIVE: we must be able to breathe; we need fear to avoid adversaries and we need anger to confront them; we need sex to reproduce; sleep, food, water and health are also basic physiological survival needs. SAFETY AND SECURITY for ourselves and our dear ones is the next level of need and includes a place to call home as well as some freedom from fear and chaos; SOCIAL STANDING in, and BELONGING to, a tribe or other social group is next in importance. SELF-ESTEEM and SELF-ACTUALIZATION form Maslow’s highest needs, but remember that any threat to a lower level NEED seems automatically to take priority.

Our Founding Fathers also had pretty clear ideas about right and wrong, as a dip into the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution will show, values as liberty, security, seeking happiness, rights and responsibilities, all involve considering the well-being of others. British thinkers of the mid-1700s influenced our Founders, especially Adam Smith whose Utilitarian thoughts of the greatest benefit to the greatest number/the least harm to the smallest number of people, would be a practical approach. Thinkers of the 1500-1600 Renaissance shrugged off the power of Church to giving us Rules of behavior and instructed us to think for ourselves what right and wrong are, with emphasis on consideration for others. The purest Christian message really started something big by requiring us to “love one another”. The Greeks always discussed the well-being of their community, city and later, State. Even as far back as Confucius, he was preaching the need for considerate human interaction.

My conclusion to all this proven wisdom, is to measure values, needs, rights and responsibilities in the impact each act and decision has upon others – our self-interest is so powerful that it is unlikely we will act in a manner that benefits others but harms ourselves - altruism is not unknown but appears to me to be uncommon!!

^ go to top of page ^

(33) 10 July 2006

Doing the Right Thing

Doing the wrong thing is often obvious and uncomfortable, so we usually can recognize “the wrong thing”! The “right thing” should also be “obvious” to us and, if we are clear of deep emotions and uncomfortable pressures, should not be too difficult for us to do.

A good deal of our sense of “right” and “wrong” is formed in our early up-bringing and is reliable and stable. It is the principal function of parenting to assure our children grow up to be independent and responsible adults, with a sound sense of right and wrong. But the values of childhood are fairly “black and white” and easy to recognize. As adults, the basics are still valid but there is a growing sense that “black” and “white” are no longer easily applied to “real life”. One of the simpler processes for resolving this is to consider how I would feel if such an action were to be done to me by someone else – this may often serve at least to putting a new perspective on things.

But simply “doing as you would be done by” may still not resolve problems facing us in the workplace where values can be in conflict or in various “shades of gray”. As previously suggested, weighting all possible alternatives in preparing for a decision is a practical way to go. Now the question arises: how do I give the appropriate weight to the many factors involved? And also difficult is HOW to put a fair weighting on intangibles such as reputation, family considerations, work performance and promotion, let alone issues of social and moral importance relating to civic, political, racial, environmental and religious matters.

In chapters 30 and 31, we discussed the relative importance of values in determining comparative advantages, which is another way of raising the question of HOW in the preceding paragraph. I suggested in chapter 32 some ways for measuring comparative advantages but I do believe we need to explore more deeply how general values and human needs have been “measured” by serious thinkers in the past and this will be outlined in the next chapter.

^ go to top of page ^

(32) 26 June 2006

Measuring Comparative Advantages

The first step in measuring comparative advantages is to study your own reactions to various dilemmas you may face in your own life along the lines of examples given in the last chapter. These exercises should explore possible dilemmas that may occur and realistic ways in resolving them. Discussing each with a close colleague, a trusted friend, your spouse, your children or anyone that may be experienced or able to share your concerns will help in the analysis and in arriving at a satisfactory, realistic resolution.

Such exercises should include lightweight matters as well as truly disruptive dilemmas. The point of these exercises is to try out a dry run and to discover how satisfactory your decision-making processes really are.

When you are satisfied with results on many, various topics, you have completed a first step in training yourself to evaluate comparative advantages under many circumstances. You will have discovered that advantages cannot be given hard and fast values but that each judgment depends very much on the circumstances surrounding the event,

Thus “measuring” comparative advantages in absolute terms is impractical. Even traditional virtues are not in practice able to be scaled one over the other. Honesty has a very high value but I should not tell a competitor in bidding for a contract, what my price is!!

Studying consequences of exercises helps form a sense of proportion such that issues, people, circumstances and outcomes are all ready for consideration when life throws a curve-ball at you and you have little time for deep analysis of pros and cons – a well-trained and experienced “gut” will give each of us a sound feeling for the decision/action called for.

When I was a “good Catholic kid”, I was taught to form a good conscience even though no one was able to tell me how (maybe by reading my Catechism?). Forming “a well-trained and experienced gut” appears to me to be similar – no one knows exactly how!! Experience in doing the RIGHT THING is necessary. Let us see in the next chapter how it may be practical to accomplish this task.

^ go to top of page ^

(31) 12 June 2006

Relative Importance

I suggested exercises at the end of the last chapter based on real life situations because, as we will explore in this chapter, absolute values are very difficult to prioritize. Is truth more important than justice? Are rights more important than survival? Etc., etc..

The comparative advantage of Rights over Survival, like all these weightings, depends very frequently upon the circumstances around the event or decision being weighed or evaluated. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, he puts Survival in the base tier, because when survival is truly threatened, all other values drop practically to zero. But there are occasions when another value may exceed the need to survive – an example may be when a loved one is threatened and the lover sacrifices life for the beloved’s survival.

Even under Utilitarian principles, there is always a judgment to be made about what precisely is “the greater good”. Go back to my first example in the last chapter (30) and consider differing circumstances: the kids are happy in High School, our family has a wide circle of friends here, this is a relatively small community in which we are deeply involved. The question may then become: should we tear up our roots to move to “the big city” to get a “promotion”? Varying the circumstances can change our comparative advantages: we have been struggling to survive in the costly Bay Area and a major opportunity comes along to head up operations in Eugene OR, offering a family friendly environment, better pay and security – this different circumstance may result in a different choice, but our decision is still is based upon “ the greater good”!!

Let us explore a last example of an illicit sexual relationship which I have hidden from my spouse. If we have deeply held moral principles, we feel bad and guilty, yet cannot let go of the illicit relationship, the circumstances may be telling us that our marriage needs repairing or dissolution. If our moral guilt is minimum, we should be reviewing utilitarian considerations such as can we survive if our spouse's income is no longer accessible, is our lover ready for a permanent commitment, are alternative solutions practical, etc., etc.. The “circumstances” in these issues are internal to the three participants, and probably, too, to family members.

Comparative advantages depend essentially upon circumstances impacting values and priorities held by participants, direct and indirect, affected by our choices. So how can we possibly take all these variables into consideration – let me try to help in the next chapter.

^ go to top of page ^

(30) 29 May 2006

Comparing Values

The four major sectors of ethics consisting of MORALITY, RIGHTS, JUSTICE and UTILITY (which I summarized at the end of the last chapter) should provide each of us a framework for evaluating “comparative advantages” in all our decision-making processes. Very satisfactory in theory, but difficult to do under everyday pressures.

In this chapter, we will review ways of taking account of ethical values by developing some sense of priorities in weighing one against the other. First of all, we each need to review and compare the weight we give to each of our values. Not an easy task as you will find, try taking the list at the end of the last chapter and comparing my right to peace and quiet against the kids “right” to play their music at full blast. Some common examples follow:

--- I have two kids in high school who are really making it in every way, just when a major promotion and opportunity is offered to me, but requires us to relocate to a large city in another State;

--- I observe a colleague putting in expenses for reimbursement which were much greater than I know were actually incurred;

--- I am developing software experience in my employment that could become a boon to my employer but it could also be a boon to me if I take these developments to a venture capitalist;

--- I have a difficult relationship with my mother-in-law and she calls me for deciding about long-term care – the most attractive place is a very long way away but an acceptable place is just three blocks away from my home;

--- I have a close/ amorous relationship with another that my spouse is not aware of;

--- I supervise a small group and one member is in difficult personal straits and not able to perform up to expectations – to what degree can I modify the periodic evaluations to assure this person not being fired? And should I?

Exercises of this nature should be studied at intervals so that when real-life dilemmas come up, we are somewhat prepared for such events. Self-study should also be made to check that our responses to possible contingencies conform with our personal value system. This would require us to have a scale allowing us to figure whether and when, for example, respect for truth overcomes caring for another; whether and when peace of mind overcomes desire for money; whether and when sexual drive defeats morality; whether or when the good of family supercedes ambition, etc., etc..

^ go to top of page ^

(29) 15 May 2006

Impact of Culture on Values

Unless one is well-traveled, it is not easy to understand the extraordinary impact that nation and culture have upon our human values. The upset resulting from terrorist activities has of course sharpened our current awareness that terrorists have unusual values, by our US standards. But so do the French, the Japanese, the Indians, the Nigerians and so on.

Closer to home, Californian values may differ noticeably from Northeastern values; still closer, are differences between “comparative advantages” in the home and in the workplace, which we ourselves change as we move from home to workplace and back. The relative importance of values in the home are adjusted to the workplace as we move from one to the other. I mentioned in a much earlier chapter that unless these differing values are more or less reconcilable, we can subject ourselves to intolerable internal tensions.

For this reason, it is vital to take a look at values that we hold in each environment to see that there are no irreconcilable differences. This too means that we should be able to understand our own basic values sufficiently clearly so that each time we make a choice, we can see the comparative advantages of all alternatives available and then are able to exercise good judgment to select the best (or often, the least “bad”!!) choice.

An effort to prioritize our basic values is really worth spending time on. As a start I am listing here some areas that we all should focus on from time to time, such as moral principles and basic virtues, rights and responsibilities, justice and fairness, utility, social and environmental issues.

- Morality and virtue are based on childhood instruction and religious upbringing, and, as an adult sometimes need to be reviewed in the light of experience.

- Rights and responsibilities are two sides of questions relating to freedom for me while respecting the freedom of others – this can get tough when survival is threatened.

- Justice and fairness enter into every transaction with others in the workplace, as well as the huge area of law and the legal system and our personal respect for the police, the IRS, etc., etc..

- Utility is a word covering costs and benefits in many currencies, not only $ but in reputation, relative standing, contentment and satisfaction, etc., etc..

- Social and environmental issues are also covered by “utilitarian” analysis, but are so often discussed in an emotional context that they are worthy of separate consideration, even though each involves balancing some form of cost vs benefits that are not easy to define.

The above do not even include such fundamental values as joy, beauty, art, learning (in its broadest sense) and Maslow’s ultimate goal: self-realization.

^ go to top of page ^

(28) 01 May 2006

Values and Other Pressures

We have reviewed three major groups of “desires”: infantile, instant gratification; stressful and emotional satisfactions; and overwhelming addictions. I would like to emphasize how each of these focuses on self and this alone raises a major ethical issue. Ethical values require consideration of the consequences of our decisions, not so much on our own well-being but on others.

It appears obvious that instant gratification, being infantile, does not consider the well-being of any one but the self and is consequently a non-ethical matter. But if such act involves depriving or harming some one else, it does become unethical. Too often this instant gratification fails to take account of timeliness, others direct interests and possible later consequences that could be harmful to others and even to the self. For example, impulse shopping can upset the family budget.

Overwhelming addictions are not really “ethical” problems but psychological and medical problems, even if the first steps show that the person’s value system is impaired. Comparative advantage was not given a chance under peer pressure or other drives that may cloud an individual’s judgment.

An individual’s judgment is what comparative advantage is all about and it is founded upon our personal value system. Every choice and action we take is a function of comparative values. My purpose in this chapter is to start discussing values in relation to pressures of time, politics and money.

We often think our values are fixed and consistent but in practice are neither. Values vary for each of us depending upon circumstances, and the pressures of time, politics and money. When we are comfortably at home, values focus on family affairs, relations with spouse and children often are very high, maybe a show, fixing something in the house, discussing the next major purchase or repairs to the car, etc., etc.. As soon as we get to the workplace, values become different: and we are concerned with work-related priorities, office politics and advancement, etc., etc.. If we belong to a church, club, discussion group, or coach a kids’ ball-game, the priorities of our values get modified by the environment, the culture, even the “politically correct” attitudes of others.

The next chapters will open discussion on comparative advantages in various environments and cultures, and under different pressures and concerns.

^ go to top of page ^

(27) 17 April 2006

Moderating the Power of Desire

The power of desire can overwhelm even basic, traditional, ingrained ethics and morality that our parents pounded into us as kids and in this chapter I want to consider how to moderate this. For a mature adult, processes of comparative advantage are normally part of our decision-making processes. But how many of us are “mature adults” under stressful conditions?

A mature adult under ideal circumstances gives weighted consideration to as many alternatives as appear available to us and decides in a rational (rather than in an emotional or political) manner upon a course of action. None of us are “mature” all of the time but we do recognize when we respond to irrational and/or political pressures. We generally accept that decisions involve responsibility towards others as well as for our own well-being. For those of us, especially for younger people, subject to desires of the power and strength outlined in the previous chapter, rational decision processes go out the window.

What can be done to moderate the power of “desire”? For all of us, the first step is to recognize that our judgment may be being influenced by emotions and “desires” and especially by stress. Stress at work, in the family, in money matters and in many, many other ways, most frequently clouds analysis and careful decision-making. How much more powerful is stress from “addictions”!!

The first and easiest “desire” for us to subject to analysis is “instant gratification”. This is definitely a consequence of being “spoiled” as an infant and child. A little patience, thought and a modicum of self-control should do the trick, because it really is very seldom that a desire cannot be put into the perspective of our value system. A stronger desire can be related by a reasonably mature adult to our value system and given a priority that assures an appropriate choice is made. How many of us are in fact “mature adults” is an issue each of us is facing when making any decision.

For those unfortunate enough to be saddled with desires so strong they must be labeled as “addictions”, more is needed. First and vital is recognition that this “desire” is out of control. Then outside assistance is generally a practical route: family, friends, minister, psychologist, recovery teams, etc., etc. But recognition is truly the vital first step – if you cannot recognize you have a problem, it cannot be resolved.

The next chapters will explore our values in relation to “instant gratification”, as measured in dollars or other tangibles and, finally, in intangibles.

^ go to top of page ^

(26) 03 April 2006

The Strength Of Desire

Seeking “well-being” takes many and varied forms and for our consideration in this chapter I would like to focus on those strong impulses that appear to be irresistible and probably originate in infancy.

Smoking will serve as an example. The desire to suck is infantile and the satisfaction from smoking probably meets this need. In the process of sucking on a cigarette we ingest nicotine that also satisfies some physical or mental need. Then we are hooked. Then it is extremely difficult to quit. The desire to smoke is then no longer an option, it becomes a must. Addictions all appear to have this quality of a desire becoming a vital, overwhelming necessity. Such power of desire can woefully distort a person’s value system and I wish to consider other desires that, too, may distort our values.

A smoker addict may not have much option, an alcoholic is pretty well committed and a drug addict has even less choice in what to do next – this appears to me obvious. What may be less obvious are strong “desires” that we do not consider to be “addictions” but which also can impact our values and limit our choices. Remember that limits to choices are in fact limits on our “freedom”, a value that we hold very dear, in theory. What are these other “addictions” that may limit freedom of choice? In today’s culture, there is an addiction to money – making it, spending it, going into debt to get it, envying those who have much of it, etc., etc.. Another “addiction” to consider is sex in all its various manifestations. Our culture may be flooded with sexual overtones but I am thinking of the drive for sexual experiences – for the individual, especially for the youthful, it can be overwhelming and can just as surely diminish the weight of other values. Another strong desire for most of us is ambition: to excel, to beat our competitors, to be more powerful, even to be more feared!! Other desires may involve taking risks, gambling, (or the opposite of never taking any risk); being beautiful or physically fit; being fashionable, absolutely the latest thing, etc., etc..

These examples of “addictions” can have very much strength so that “comparative advantage” is never even considered, the “addicted” has so little ability to choose or give weight to other values which may, in the longer run, prove to have greater real advantage. When discussing comparative advantage in the last chapter, we considered the role of parents in raising children with solid values. Even solid values can quite easily be overcome by the strength of desire. Moderating the strength of desire calls for an ability to balance long-term benefits against instant gratification.

^ go to top of page ^

(25) 13 March 2006

Comparative Advantage

Introduction

I am starting a different approach to ethics based on selecting a specific benefit over other considerations. We have discussed ethics from the moral, theoretical and metaphysical aspects and I wish to turn now to an analysis of “self-interest” as a corollary to “moral ethics” and deal with “comparative advantage” as a basis for behavior. When we make a choice, we generally have some purpose, satisfaction or benefit in mind and the process of deciding upon a specific choice is most frequently made by comparing the advantage of this decision over alternatives, even when the choice is made instantly on the “spur of the moment”.

An example of comparative advantage is whether to sink or to swim – to sink would be to put an end to our problems – to swim would mean we fight for survival. This raises an issue of much significance, namely, is the easy way out the best solution to a situation or should we give thought to alternatives which may not at the instant appear attractive but in the longer term may prove beneficial to our well-being? And perhaps of still greater importance is: how can we develop skills and experience that may help us perceive and understand the alternatives available and then help us make these critically important choices? And still significant is what we perceive our “well-being” to be – as a child we choose candy, as an adult we may consider what the dentist said about tooth decay, or calories, or a risk of diabetes, or etc., etc., etc.. What we actually do do depends on a degree of maturity and understanding of possible consequences to choosing candy.

Comparative advantage is a function of mental and social maturity and of an always-increasing sensitivity to what our “well-being” really means to each of us in each situation that our daily life puts us.

It appears to me that comparative advantage by definition is never fixed. An infant, a child and a teen-ager have obvious and different ideas about “well-being”, (including a characteristic that often continues into the adulthood: “instant gratification”). What I “want” needs to be attended to at the instant, don’t let’s worry about “consequences” – that’s for my parents to worry about!!

This is the key to my thinking on comparative advantage. It is a prime function of parents to engender in their children some deep-felt values that will help them increasingly be able to make “good” choices, choices that satisfy our well-being. Experience will add to this base and assure our society and nation being able to count on a competent “next generation”.

^ go to top of page ^

(24) 27 February 2006

Purpose

Our discussion around concepts of growth touched briefly on the purpose of human existence with its concomitant process of learning and mental growth. The question immediately arises: Why?

What are the benefits deriving from mental growth? An increasing sense of personal responsibility generally comes along with thoughtful development and we have already given much weight to this. But this Darwinian development of constantly increasing mental capabilities can give us a good reason for asking WHY? It is satisfactorily proven that evolution required a vehicle for mind to come into being and that increasing complexity of the body-mind combination was a next phase. Are there grounds for postulating an “ultimate” purpose for each of us and perhaps be awarded “grades” for our personal success in nurturing our capacity for mental growth? Now that the human mind is increasing its capacity for handling complexity, is “mind” the next vehicle for further growth?

To put it bluntly, is there life after death? Is our mental growth such that death of the body gives the mind freedom to grow still more? Simple answers appear in most religions and may have helped human society to reach a level of such reasonable well-being that deep questions can be asked by most of us – in fact the history of “philosophy” or wisdom shows that freedom from fear and a degree of physical ease leads to “philosophical” reasoning, like the Greeks, Old Testament prophets and even older thinkers like Confucius. Between 700 and 1000AD, prosperity in the Arab world spread math and science throughout the Mediterranean. The 1400-1600 period saw an intellectual explosion in Europe, followed by the Age of Reason, and, in the 1800s, the industrial revolution and the spread of entrepreneurship and “capitalism”.

Increasing freedom from fear, and satisfying the higher needs proposed by Maslow, now give much of humankind the opportunity to “philosophize” and to further develop our mental capacities. And consequently to ask ourselves what the purpose of this incredible growth of mental capacity is – might death open up new fields for mental challenges? As consequence of this, should we rethink our priorities while we still have time here, to better achieve mental (spiritual?) goals in the Hereafter?

^ go to top of page ^

(23) 13 February 2006

Growth

Confidence does not appear to be inborn or instinctive, in fact there is a negative of confidence, namely fear, that is built into our need and desire to “survive”. Confidence needs to be learned. Kids walk before they run, ride bikes before they drive, and as adults we learn to address a group or a meeting in a gradual process of learning and we succeed in business as we gain self-confidence.

All processes of learning contribute to GROWTH, in fact every single experience that we have during our lives, contributes in some way to our growth. To encourage growth is “good”, to restrain growth is “bad”!!! This ethical judgment can be a basis and a guide to ethical behavior. If people around you are “learning” from their contacts with you, you are on the right track and will be seen to being ethical. This is an expansion of the concept of empathy. On the other hand, if people are resenting the contacts they have with you, they may learn only to avoid you and even seek to act “unethically” towards you.

It appears to me that growth may underlie the purpose of our existence. From the Big Bang to our planet, from the atom to quantum physics, from the simplest forms of life to our Founding Fathers (and maybe till today!!), increasing complexity appears to be a rule. Increasing complexity appears to mean “growth” and if we all as people are expected also to become increasingly complex, we fulfill our functions and responsibilities best if we are constantly learning.

It is widely accepted that people should “realize their full potential” which, I believe, means to learn to the utmost extent of our capability. Learning constantly to “achieve our potential” is a life-long growth process and as a direct consequence of “continuing learning” we are becoming mentally more complex and growing. I am no longer young, and I am finding that as my physical strengths decrease I derive more and more satisfaction from mental growth. This partly explains my efforts to give expression here to my thoughts on ethics.

^ go to top of page ^

(22) 30 January 2006

Lack of Confidence

Wherever confidence may come from there is no doubt that, at times, many of us can feel and recognize a lack of confidence. This feeling reflects an underlying fear that the stakes are high, that we are unsure of the outcome, that we are shy of exposing our real opinion, that we are not in full possession of all the facts, and very frequently that we are opposing an opinion of a group or of a more senior or older person.

Each of the examples above has a specific remedy but I should like to address the “underlying fear”. Fear can take very many forms ranging from prudence and caution, to outright terror; even in the workplace it can become overwhelming, as well as a factor in diminishing our competence.

Looking at our animal origins, fear is the one emotion that has been fundamental to survival and is therefore very deeply seated in our nature. The most basic fear is that of being killed, which serves as the alarm for getting out of circumstances that threaten our survival. Maslow (again!!) puts survival as the most basic “need” for all biological beings including us humans; as a result any perceived threat to our “survival” gets our pretty full attention. This is the purpose of fear!

This may be the original and basic purpose for fear, but it can creep up on us at times when survival is not at stake. For example, fear of flying appears to put our survival in jeopardy but statistics assure us that our survival is much more in jeopardy as we get into the car. Tell that to someone who hates to fly but loves to drive at high speed and it is possible to demonstrate that this fear of flying is irrational. It does not help, we’re dealing with a more complex matter that includes anything from simple misperception to outright phobia.

But because fear is so powerful an emotion and can eat away at self-confidence, it needs to be considered when reviewing ethics. Fear puts us first, ethics like empathy puts others first (or at least, not last!!

^ go to top of page ^

(21) 16 January 2006

Confidence

Empathy and freedom are related in some very profound way to confidence. It is difficult to empathize with some one unless you are thoroughly confident in yourself. A lack of confidence seems to restrict our freedom to choose. Why must we feel sure of ourselves just to be in sympathy with some one else?

Confidence cannot be phonied up for use on a specific occasion mostly because everyone present will be able to see through the acting out; it is done deliberately on some occasions, an example is a pushy salesperson, but it generally does not quite come across and certainly does not contribute to empathy. Empathy calls for a genuine concern on the part of one person towards another to start the flow that then becomes mutual and results in confidence in each other becoming established.

In this process, faith in each other flows into a true form of empathy; it IS a two-way process in my understanding. Empathy as a one-way flow is not “empathy” but sympathy, related to empathy, certainly, but not the real thing.

What is it that starts this process? I believe that an interior strength and integrity in the person starting this growth is needed for success. This interior strength is the certainty and assurance that comes from knowing you are doing the “right thing”….we call this self-assurance and self-confidence, and we all aspire to this.

Freedom likewise requires us to make choices with the best choices also resulting from our knowing we are in fact doing the “right thing”. It never means that we always will or should be right but it does mean that at the moment of decision we are confident that this is the “right” decision or action.

Where does CONFIDENCE come from? This is a question that has a million answers, as any psychologist will tell you, but I will venture into this hazardous area and propose that experience leads to confidence. I keep on referring to parenting, mostly because we all have been children. Confidence can be gifted to children by their experiencing “success” through recognition and congratulations given them by parents. Likewise in the workplace, confidence is generated by “success” in work recognized and commented upon by a superior.

It is the confident person who can most successfully be ethical.

^ go to top of page ^

(20) 02 January 2006

Freedom

Choices are an expression of the LIBERTY that we prize so highly in our US culture, built into us in the basics of our Constitution.

Our “liberty” is choice. But our choices need to respect the liberty or freedom of choice of others in the same way as THEIR choices should respect OUR liberty.

Another restraint on our choice is generally measured in “good” or “bad”, better or worse. Much thought and introspection is needed for each of us to determine what we truly believe is good and bad. Good and bad have in the past been considered absolutes and often are treated thusly today. This is probably necessary for parents to inculcate decent behavior in their kids. But, as adults, we need to reflect carefully whether absolutes are appropriate to the real problems of life in the 21^st century. Are we ever able to decide irrevocably that such and such action is BAD? We recognize that “dishonesty” is “bad”, and mostly we are correct, but there are occasions when we are not completely honest and we feel justified in telling a “white lie” or two!! Consider again the Ten Commandments and each may, under special circumstances, be disobeyed depending upon circumstances and other pressures. Jeremy Bentham summarized utilitarian ethics in the early 1800s, as the greatest benefit to the greatest number and the minimum cost/pain to others.

Making choices that do not hurt or restrain the freedom of others and, at the same time, are not “bad”, requires us to be sensitive to possible consequences upon others of each choice, leading inevitably back a vital need for responsibility and ……… EMPATHY!!

Ethical behavior appears to result from a process of thoughtful and empathetic consideration of alternative choices and the selection of the most appropriate one……not an easy or quick process!! And then, acceptance of responsibility for the consequences, as was discussed earlier in writings 8,9 and 10, also not a quick or easy process, especially if anger and blame are to be kept to a minimum.

This great gift of LIBERTY may not be that easy to exercise when we bear in mind this brief listing of processes for selecting an alternative and our readiness to accept responsibility for some or all of the consequences

^ go to top of page ^

(19) 19 December 2005

Good and Bad

In previous writings (see #17 &18) it becomes quite obvious that a connection exists between EMPATHY and ETHICAL BEHAVIOR. Let us examine this a little more in depth.

Ethical behavior requires there be at least two or more people involved because ethical behavior presupposes an action and a reaction – someone must do something and someone else must react or at least observe the consequences of this action and then make a judgment regarding its worth. Was it “good” or “bad” in absolute terms, or more often, better or worse than some alternative.

“Judge not lest thou be judged” thunders the Old Testament. Yet we are constantly bombarded with choices and we generally desire to choose the best of among a variety of available choices. Therefore we are obliged to make judgments each time we make a choice.

Earlier writings discussed “responsibility” and this implies not only the consequences of our decisions in the abstract, but the consequences these decisions have on other people. The ability to act responsibly calls upon each of us therefore to empathize with people who may suffer or enjoy the consequences of our actions. This may mean that in business it may not be only “the bottom line” that guides a responsible decision but empathy too with the individuals who may be impacted by this decision.

The foundation for making responsible choices must involve our VALUES.

Clarity about differences between good and bad should involve us in some thoughtful introspection – just having a “gut feeling” may not always be good enough. Each choice we make includes a decision about better and worse, benefit and detriment, greater or lesser cost/effort etc..., and should also consider impacts on others. This last is when empathy comes into play.

^ go to top of page ^

(18) 05 December 2005

Empathy

Success in translating from one language to another is a function of the degree of understanding an interpreter has of the two cultures that are being translated. Interpreting acts as a bridge between two cultures.

Communication among people who speak the same language would appear not to need an interpreter, yet as discussed in #17, very frequently there is misunderstanding between people speaking the same language but with different backgrounds. The current discussions in the US about evolution per Darwin and per Creationism appear to have no bridge, either you believe one or the other.

If there is no bridge, communication fails, so it is vital for a bridge or an interpreter to be there. What is it in regular monolingual communication that acts as bridge or interpreter? I believe it is EMPATHY.

Is it sufficient for only one person to empathize in order to communicate successfully? Possibly, particularly in the case of parent trying to communicate with children. But in general, a listener needs to empathize with a speaker as much as vice-versa.

A very frequent barrier to empathic communication is stress and/or emotion. If we agree that communication provides a process leading to ethical behavior, empathy may be the bridge and interpreter, but stress and emotion may become the barriers or serve to justify unethical behavior. In the case of Darwin vs Creationism, strong emotions are raised by underlying beliefs which differ so profoundly that the gap may be unbridgeable. But in more run-of-the-mill value differences, simply the discussion of right and wrong may still raise emotions so high that communication and empathy become very difficult.

Discussions of right and wrong are at the heart of ethics. Values are tested and transmitted by discussing what appears to be right and what appears to be wrong. If emotion-free talk is developing criteria for appropriate action, such as in the workplace, ethically sound actions should result. If discussion becomes heated, communication becomes foggy and ethically sound results may be jeopardized. Empathy goes out the window.

^ go to top of page ^

(17) 21 November 2005

Translating

It is easy to see the necessity of care in translating from say English to German or still more to Chinese. Sometimes it is almost impossible to convey precisely the significance of a concept, especially a more abstract concept, from one culture (or language) to another. Cultural values are embedded in the language we normally use.

But don’t let us think this is limited to “foreign” languages, just look at the difficulty a New Englander may have in Texas!! Here in California, we have plenty of differences in language and values (concepts); Silicon Valley to the Valley farmers; fishermen to office workers; parents and their teen-agers really can be most difficult; and the underlying problem is that a specific “culture” such as Silicon Valley specializes in technology and concepts that are unique.

So also do parents and teen agers have unique words, concepts and values that may differ from generation to generation, even from year to year! The bridge is respect, affection and patience over which concepts of right and wrong and related values can travel. Each of us has experienced this bridge. Only too often this bridge may not be fully open, a barrier gets set up that may block off communication, even when we most need it.

Barriers to communication are not limited to cultural and generational “gaps” but can be experienced in day-to-day living at home and at work. From an anonymous source, some one has expressed these barriers as follows:

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard may not be what I meant.

We all need to remember that what we think we are saying may not have precisely the same meaning for the listener. Dealing with facts, figures scientific and technical matters may be really precise. But dealing with concepts, values and especially emotional and abstract matters can result in a quagmire of misunderstanding – parents and teen agers, for example!!

The process of “translation” is not a remote problem for “foreigners” but is truly a problem we all encounter continuously in our daily lives and is directly tied into our concepts, values and consequently our ethics – the more precisely we define and understand our own concepts, values and ethics (like technology and science requires us to do), the more likely we will be able to understand why our message is not getting through to others – but like what we strive to do in the family, a supply of respect, affection and patience will help!!!

^ go to top of page ^

(16) 07 November 2005

Meaning

We discussed, in the previous writing, the relationship between ethics and communication but we may need to discuss the relationship between communication and ethics. When two people meet they need to communicate and our human solution is language. Signs and grunts may be sufficient for very elementary communication but language is needed for more complex ideas and needs.

Go back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and try relating these to communication:

Physiological Needs: signs and grunts may suffice;
Safety and Security Needs: these call for a minimum of a secure home and a supportive community or extended family, organized food supplies, and a degree of freedom from fear; some better communication is needed;
Belonging Needs: These call for structured social communities in which we not only “belong” but feel respected and responsible; we have a “position” that gives us respect but derives from our responsible contributions to the family, the community and to our society; a shared language is now becoming essential to communication in a social environment and significant sharing of values is established;
Esteem and Self-actualization are higher human needs that Maslow describes as being essential to our psychological well-being and cannot be even defined without sophisticated language skills and extensive shared values (ethics!!).

It appears that communication and a shared language are predecessors to values and ethics. As a vital consequence, the language we speak affects the values we esteem. When we speak different languages, we need to watch out for differences in values and priorities – do parents really understand the languages of teen agers – do even fluent interpreters really understand the values of a foreign language (of a different culture)???

^ go to top of page ^

(15) 24 October 2005

Communication

The relationship between ethics and communication is the focus of this writing. My reasoning is that for ethics to exist there must be at least two people involved and as soon as one person meets another they engage in communicating.

These two people communicate about what is important to each and a value system is established. If a shared value system is not established, the ability to communicate will be inhibited or lost.

What is important for people depends on their social environment – just look at the differences in what is important for church, a street gang, for national and ethnic groups, for work and for home. This is easiest to see when we try to translate between two languages. Seldom does a word in the first language precisely correspond to a single word in the second language. Bread and milk may have direct translations but the products themselves may differ. Addressing more abstract topics and precision in translation decreases rapidly, until discussing “good” and “bad” can become quite hazardous.

A few examples may be helpful: we may believe that tips are deserved for good service in a restaurant, what about a “insider tip” on an investment, or a “tip” for tax avoidance. What about “commission” for a sales person, what if the sale is “helped” by a City official and when does this become criminal bribery?

In some places, a cash-filled envelope is widely accepted as the only way to get a “deal” settled and is not prosecuted even if it is illegal. Some countries recognize that “commissions” are normal for almost any transaction. Who is right, if getting the sale is the prime goal?? If the value system is shared, does it become “right”?

^ go to top of page ^

(14) 10 October 2005

Cultural Values

Ethics is the value system of a culture. This is a challenge to the hard concept of morality, which religions require believers to adhere to. However the morals of one religion may differ significantly from another. It appears that each religion is a separate culture?

Social groups, from religions to sports franchises to street gangs, from Arabs to Japanese to Americans, from the work environment to the home, have codes of behavior that members are required to adhere to. Should we define such codes of behavior as “ethics”? These may be systems of ethics within the group but is “ethics” a wider and more basic human responsibility? Does this term “ethics” have a wider and more basic definition?

The answer to each of these questions is a strong “maybe”!!

The reason for this “maybe” is that each social group, religion, street gang, football teams, Arabs, Japanese, Americans, the work-place, the home ,,,,, etc. has strong expectations for conformance. This expectation by any social group for its members to conform to “the rules of the game” may be so high that a member may be thrown out for non-conformance. This may be very important to conforming members but what I wish to emphasize in this writing is that communication between different “social groups” frequently becomes complex and exceedingly difficult when the “rules” of one group are not fully understood or accepted by a second group.

An example of a very significant difference in value systems, that is current and extremely worrying, is why young people can blow themselves up in terror attacks on others who they never really meet or know.

^ go to top of page ^

(13) 26 September 2005

Cultures

Ethics is related in quite a direct way to CULTURES – ethics in California are different from ethics in Japan, for example – but ethics are different also between the work-place and the home. Different religions have different ethical priorities, not only extremes such as Christianity and Buddhism but Anglican and Presbyterian. In sports, football players differ from poker players in their values.

I do want to discuss ethical values in various cultures, but cultures themselves need to be explored first.

Obviously, different ethnic groups and countries have their own cultures and differing values, so do different languages and groups of languages. We’ll get into these complexities later. Now let’s look at a definition of culture.

A culture is a SOCIAL environment – a church or a temple, religious beliefs notwithstanding, is in fact also a strong social environment. Let us try to define a CULTURE: any social environment or gathering of people that has a continuing existence may become a “culture” if the people involved generally accept that their values and behavior need to conform to some stated or unstated norm in order to be members.

As an example, talking out loud in a library is frowned upon – it disturbs others. Is a culture just a set of rules for conforming to a norm? Let’s take another example from the office: much of an employee’s time may be at a computer and most see nothing wrong with accessing the internet or emailing personal messages – management goes along with silent assent – it keeps people happy while performing routine tasks, BUT it is against stated policy – some value judgments are involved now – if this privilege is not abused, all benefit from this permissive “cultural” climate – does an individual who abuses this, commit an “ethical” error?

Is ethical behavior simply conforming to majority “usage” or custom? In some places, a cash-filled envelope can get the “impossible” done quickly!! But is this ethically sound just because everyone in this “culture” does it??? Is bribery bad or is it just a convenient form of “commission”??

^ go to top of page ^

(12) 12 September 2005

Accepting Responsibility

One more thought on RESPONSIBILITY: in the final analysis we each need to look at our own lives in the light of accepting responsibility for the shape we are in.

We should not blame our family, our circumstances, our health…..etc. for the shape we are in. When we each reach adulthood, we are in charge. We are responsible for the shape we are in. We choose how we act and react, We cannot avoid making each choice for good or for ill, even no choice is still a choice. No matter how much we try to excuse ourselves by blaming family, circumstances, health, physical handicaps, influences of friends, habits and addictions, or even poverty or excessive wealth… it’s the hand we have been dealt and, like the poker player, we are irresponsible (and lazy!) if we do not make the best of the deal.

Therefore it seems that to be responsible simply boils down to accepting the “deal” and then making the best of it.

And I feel this true of our personal lives, our work/careers, our social lives as well as our recognition that all others have been dealt a “hand” that each is trying to make the best of.

Ethical behavior is recognizing, accepting and carrying out these hourly responsibilities to the best of our ability.

^ go to top of page ^

(11) 29 August 2005

Consequences

Continuing our discussion of responsibility, we need to look at the consequences of our actions and decisions. This need arises because we CHOOSE to act or decide. Consequences of how we have performed as parents, are evident in the qualities our children display as they grow into being adults. Consequences of business actions and decisions are evident too. Whether we are ready to ACCEPT these consequences as our own responsibility is frequently a matter of much discussion.

Excuses and blaming others is too often tried out as ways to escape from responsibility. But how can any of us avoid recognizing that we CHOSE to act or to decide thusly? We may well be ill-informed, insensitive, obstinate, procedure-bound, or even just plain foolish or lazy – but we make the CHOICE and the consequences truly belong to us.

Consequences of our actions and decisions are the reality we have to deal with and in this sense responsibility CANNOT be evaded. The fundamental question then becomes: are we well enough equipped to MAKE the choice that lies ahead?

In both parenting and in business we are unable to give measured weight to ALL the factors that enter into making each individual choice – we are most often under time pressures, we lack perfect insight into all factors involved, we cannot foresee the reactions of people (including our children!) to our choices and frequently circumstances have changed between when a choice was made and when the consequences became apparent – also some consequences may be beneficial and some may not – how can we foresee the future?

We, fortunately, cannot foresee the future nor all the consequences of our actions but we cannot sit there and do nothing – even this has consequences! So a solution is to do the best we are able to, whether we are raising kids or making big business deals – or even providing a menial service. We are responsible and our ONLY strength lies in being as well-informed as we are able, sensitive and respectful to others, open to suggestions, ready to do the “right thing” even when the “book” is rigid, using our best intelligence, being patient, and keeping from “foolishness”.

A tough assignment, but ultimately unavoidable!!

^ go to top of page ^

(10) 15 August 2005

Delegation

Freedom is directly related to responsibility in any community, whether family, business or other organization or group. We teach our young people “to play by the rules” otherwise the game becomes chaotic. Freedom is impossible in any state of chaos. Responsibility may be seen to be simply as formulating, promulgating and then adhering to the “rules”, or policies, or procedures, or laws of the land or religious morality, or , or, or, or…

But responsibility, while it may require adherence to such “rules”, is more fundamental. To be truly responsible requires us to engender trust in those we are associated with because although “rules” serve a real need, they must be implemented effectively. Every team game is played by members who understand the “rules” and trust each other to react effectively to the events that occur during the game. Sports fans widely recognize that team-work is the key characteristic of a winning team.

In making business decisions, responsibility is delegated to associates in the team with specific limits, policies, etc.. Even so we cannot escape from responsibility for consequences to our own decisions and actions. Unfortunately, a “blame game” can result, This always develops from two causes: either limits were misunderstood by the associate, or the “blamer” seeks to escape from his/her personal responsibilities. The process of “blaming” destroys trust and needs therefore to be avoided.

When an associate exceeds the authority delegated and causes a disaster, this should be an opportunity to learn. Business is always a team effort. The supervisor may have misjudged the capacity of an associate, in which case the responsibility must be accepted by the senior person, or the associate acted improperly, in which case the responsibility must devolve onto the associate and a reevaluation made of the degree of trust put in that associate (including firing).

Because business is a team effort, all the players are involved. From initial customer contact to ultimate user satisfaction, every member from high to low carries responsibility for contributing to the goals of the business. Each performs a different function and is free to act within set restraints, nevertheless each is, in his/her own way, responsible for the success of the whole business. When things go well, team trust is established; when things go wrong, truly responsible action learns from the event and avoids repeating it, maintaining trust in the team-organization and its management.

^ go to top of page ^

(09) 01 August 2005

Responsibility and Blame

Let’s discuss “responsibility” a little more. Responsibility is most clearly defined by the results of parenting upon children. We have children mostly without realizing the very serious responsibilities we are taking on, but as the years go by we find that our relationship with our children has very real consequences. The citizens that our children grow up to be are primarily consequence of the upbringing we parents have provided.

In business, an owner, chairman or CEO is a leader in the same way as parents “lead” their children - examples set by the boss are reflected in the behavior of subordinates. But as responsibility is delegated to associates, they in turn become “leaders” to lower subordinates. So actions and decisions taken at lower levels in an organization always reflect the values and examples set by superiors. A good supervisor checks to see this is true (internal auditing!!). Others may never check and a subordinate may take irresponsible actions.

Responsibility can be entrusted to associates only to the degree that the associate is disciplined enough to accept the consequences for power and authority delegated. An ethical approach to delegating should clearly define limits to authority and clearly instruct when to refer back to the supervisor or the boss. All consequences resulting from decisions or actions taken by associates may reflect on their personal capability but their errors in judgment ultimately revert to the boss.

The negative of responsibility is “blame” but good business ethics demands the boss recognize that an associate’s failure reflects on the bosses’ judgment. Blame is a natural and negative response to an associate’s error. Blame is often a reflection of anger for a business consequence that loses an opportunity or diminishes the company’s reputation. An error may instead be a vital opportunity for learning that a different approach might be better.

If trust is to be validated, errors need to be thoughtfully reviewed in order for the “better approach” to be discovered and the trust reestablished. This is what true delegation of responsibility is all about.

^ go to top of page ^

(08) 18 July 2005

Reputation and Responsibility

Business success is a direct function of reputation. When the business is small, reputation is generated by the founder or leader who has something new or a service of value to offer to customers/clients. Growth requires the leader to inspire associates with his/her vision, so that they also can offer this new idea to others. Delegating such responsibility to associates is our topic for this writing.

What is “responsibility”? We use this word frequently and yet it is difficult to define exactly what is meant by responsibility. Instructing an associate to take some action may include delegating some responsibility. If every single step of the action is spelled out (eg: by some very detailed procedure, or activating some fully developed software), very little responsibility is delegated since the action could well have been performed by a machine or robot. Responsible action calls for some use of judgment, some freedom to make an error, some consequence that indicates success or failure by the person this is delegated to.

Freedom to use some experience or judgment is at the heart of “delegating responsibility”. This requires us to understand how intimately linked are freedom and responsibility.

A simple example of this intimate linkage can be seen in the use we make of our highways. Highway driving gives us a freedom that was out of reach only 100 years ago. But it depends totally upon our using highways with responsibility. Irresponsible driving is not only frowned upon by the CHP but can have serious consequences for us all. Disciplined driving allows freedom on the highway – disciplined action makes delegation a success.

The leader delegates only to people who can be trusted – they are trusted because they have demonstrated that they can be depended upon to act in a disciplined way – people who are not disciplined cannot be trusted. As parents we see this with our kids – the more disciplined (=responsible) they are, the more we can trust them with the keys of the car. The more responsible our associates prove to be, the more easy and successful it is to delegate responsibilities to them.

^ go to top of page ^

(07) 05 July 2005

Priorities

In the previous writing, we discussed difficulties in weighing tangible against intangible values, in personal matters. In business, tangibles often outweigh intangibles in making business choices and this is what I would like to explore in this writing.

Business is measured in financial statements – cash flows, profit and losses, balance sheets – all obviously essential to carrying on a successful business and to satisfying shareholders. But there are many other essentials to business success such as reputation, client relations, competent and enterprising staff, quality products and services, efficiency and productivity, competitiveness, and so on.

There is a utilitarian tendency in business to measure tangibles in the short term to be able to report improvements in financial data. Intangibles are a “management” problem!! But many times the intangibles can give a more accurate sense of the future of a specific business, whether seen as investment potential or for strategic planning.

How can an intangible as important as, say, reputation be measured and compared to a capital asset on the balance sheet? Let’s take measuring intangibles first – without a specific scale to measure reputation, it is relatively simple to determine from year to year whether our reputation is improving by consulting discreetly with customers, clients and competitors. Business reputation is such a valuable asset, it deserves a place alongside of financial assets, frequently this is recognized at time of sale of a business and given a dollar value as “goodwill”.

But it is not only at time of sale that reputation is a serious matter for every business, it is vital to continuing in business – our reputation is the essence of repeat business with existing customers and a prime condition for adding new sales and business.

It may not be possible to put a numerical value or a statistic on reputation but it is vital to be aware of whether our reputation is improving or diminishing – this can be done regularly and could well be reported alongside financial trends as an indicator of the health of our business.

^ go to top of page ^

(06) 20 June 2005

Utility Theory

Ethics as a source of social well-being, the base for healthy relationships and family solidarity is discussed in earlier chapters.

John Locke, Adam Smith and others offered a very different approach to us in the 1700s, which for the first time discussed and developed the science of Economics. Out of this, a theory of Utilitarianism as an ethic was developed and was summarized as follows:

“Achieving the greatest good for the greatest number”

“Good” was generally measured in money and “number” in working men. Locke developed clearer thinking about property, and rights that derive from possessing property. Adam Smith analyzed property and the creation of capital as a function of work. Later, Jeremy Bentham restated the Utilitarian Principle this way:

“An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities (= good and/or goods) produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place”

Although the authors did not intend a monetary interpretation, it is frequently assumed that “utilities” are measured in money, which creates difficulties when comparing tangible benefits with intangibles. Students have struggled with this when they complain to me that if a “utility” or a “good” cannot be evaluated in dollars, how can we possibly weigh a sixty-hour week against the good of spending more time with our family.

Intangibles like family, reputation, satisfaction, beauty and contentment obviously are important; they have real value but cannot be measured in dollars. Nonetheless, like money, we easily see when these intangibles are increasing or decreasing. This is a first step to putting value on intangible utilities since we can sense and observe an improvement in contentment or reputation. In fact we can sense, for example, whether more income may generate an increase or a decrease in contentment. Consequently we do have resources for making these judgments.

Please remember that summarizing concepts as fundamental as these is to diminish the deep thought put out by the originators but is offered here to start thoughts flowing, not to provide concrete answers to life’s conundrums.

^ go to top of page ^

(05) 06 June 2005

Reputation and Respect

Reputation may be defined by accountants as “goodwill” for business but isn’t reputation really a reflection of ethical behavior – both good and bad? It certainly appears that way among ordinary people, and to me appears to apply in the same way to businesses.

Both people and businesses can conceal unethical behavior. But reputation is not simply “appearance”, it is a consequence of action, both good and bad. A good reputation must be earned by individuals, businesses and other institutions.

Earning a good reputation takes time, consistent ethical behavior and gaining the respect of peers, clients, users, customers and all other stakeholders.

I would like to explore this concept of “respect” a little further. RESPECT is a little word with profound significance that reaches into the foundations of social well-being.

Our Founding Fathers clearly sensed the significance of respect: Above all, they respected rights, law, human life, liberty and the “pursuit of happiness”; in separating legislative from executive and from judicial, they respected the benefits of constitutional limits to power; in prioritizing federal over states’ power they respected their autonomy; even in their Declaration of Independence, they respected the Monarch, though his treatment of the Colonies was declared to be intolerable. This respect is founded in turn upon the innate “dignity” of the individual.

Dignity of the individual (and maybe of all living things?) is most fully recognized in the injunction to “love our neighbor as ourselves”. We each need to respect our own innate dignity in order to enable us to appreciate the dignity of others. It appears to me that all ethics may derive from this injunction. Can GOOD and BAD exist for a Robinson Crusoe alone on a desert island? Introduce Man Friday, and ethics become a vital part of their relationship and mutual respect.

^ go to top of page ^

(04) 23 May 2005

Responsibility

Values in the abstract are difficult to define, but on any day in the office or job-site, quick and effective decisions and actions are our daily concern. And each is selected out of several alternatives – and often so quickly, we do not even give it much thought because we “know” the right thing to do!!

Once in a while, this “know” was not the best thing to do after all.

Business priorities are often stated as Policy, more often are found unstated in corporate or department “culture”, still more often left to individual decisions on a case by case basis.

This brings us back again to RESPONSIBILITY!!

What does it really mean for a business, a charity or a government department to accept responsibility? Is the entity responsible or is it the person representing the entity? Inevitably it is the individual, even though many of us seek refuge in blaming the entity.

There is no entity without people – Enron did nothing wrong, the people that constituted Enron were the Baddies. Individuals carry responsibilities, not entities!! Delegating is the essence of running a business – and, to quote an earlier comment, delegating needs to be done with extreme prudence, etc... And only to people that you can TRUST.

Trust is at the heart of good business, not only in delegating, but in quality products and services, trade and client relations, and is the essence of that old favorite of accountants, good will. Good will is the major intangible asset of every business entity and is only an accountant’s term for REPUTATION.

Responsibility is chain-linked to reputation.

^ go to top of page ^

(03) 09 May 2005

Basic Needs

Values and their degree of importance to each of us seem obvious, and appear almost automatically to be prioritized when needed. Should we review our priorities? Are they always the same? Or at least consistent? Can we give weightings to such values as good health compared to sixty-hour weeks?

What values do we hold dear? Good health and advancement in the workplace are “competitors” and may require us to “measure” one against the other - how can we do this?

First, let us try to list out some basic values: Maslow condensed human needs into a pyramid based on SURVIVAL including air, water, food and sex; SECURITY including shelter, clothing and safety; SOCIAL including family, belonging and a stable environment; ESTEEM including self respect and respect from peers; and SELF-ACTUALIZATION.

Lower level needs can overwhelm the higher needs quite easily, as, for example, thirst can over-ride creativity. Maslow provides a rough scale as a start on evaluating priorities - but needs are not values precisely, though certainly close.

Values are less tangible than needs; comparing good health against workplace advancement may make use of Maslow’s pyramid, if health is considered SECURITY and advancement as ESTEEM. Yet in real life many of us put advancement way ahead of good health – this raises another question – is this really good judgment in the long term?

And there are other values that are recognized to be important, such as honesty and beauty that do not appear directly on Maslow’s pyramid -- let’s give this some thought!!

^ go to top of page ^

(02) 25 April 2005

Values

Responsibility means taking care of the consequences of our actions and decisions; responsibility comes with entering a social group (the work-place, for example) where my actions may impact you.

The original social group was a family unit and a tribe; even in this simple community, conflict between tribal and family interests can occur. Choosing the “right” action means accepting priorities that form a base for making a “responsible” decision.

Whose priorities or values should we accept as a sound base for our decision-making?

Values that we may develop through childhood, youth and adult experiences color all our decision-making and need to be reflected upon.

When values are widely shared or are laid down by law, religion, tribal taboo, and traditional or closely-knit social groups, responsibility is easily recognized. Irresponsibility is treated promptly and vigorously.

Here in California, we are proud of our independence and our “diversity” - and rightly so - but doing the “right” thing is not made easier because we have diverse, and often conflicting, values. Not infrequently the pressures and priorities of the work-place may be given more weight than family needs - competing may over-ride friendliness - money may become more important than honesty - and so on.

Should we devote a little time to thinking about what values are really important to us and how we may be able to consider relative weightings for values among our many “diverse” cultures, religions, work-places, social and home environments?

^ go to top of page ^

(01) 04 April 2005

Virtue

Ethical behavior can be defined as the practice of VIRTUE.

The four traditional cardinal virtues are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance; these are reinforced in Christian records by faith, hope and charity.

Temperance is defined now as “moderation” and there is evident virtue in practicing moderation in all things (even in moderation itself!!).

Fortitude is the practice of “strength in adversity” and most of us have ample adversity.

In our personal lives, justice generally calls us to act “fairly”, frequently calling for a focus on others in preference to ourselves.

Prudence has a significance beyond “caution”, and calls us to act constructively when the common good may be in jeopardy.

In our “business world” the exercise of all these virtues may best be achieved through deciding and acting to our best ability in being responsible for the consequences of each of our decisions and actions; this can help at home and elsewhere!!

Corporate responsibility is never a disembodied “pious hope” but a decision or action taken by a specific individual which can be delegated only with extreme prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance!!!

^ go to top of page ^