Ethics and Elected Officials

This week I’ve had some time to reflect on ethics and public officials. I will be the first to admit that politics isn’t my thing. I am frustrated with the polarization that takes place in our contemporary political environment.  I don’t have cable TV and could not care less about most of the talking heads and the 24-hour a day news stations!

I think most of my apathy comes from frustration that nothing ever seems to get done when all of the time spent discussing politics and politicians is spent looking at the negative. I think individuals end up spending their time on the defense instead of working on anything. Politicians – especially presidents – have been defined by the unethical choices they make. I am in no way excusing this behavior or poor choices, but suggesting that a little more attention be paid to the good choices folks are making and the good things happening as a result of those choices. (I also recognize that having this attitude is sometimes used as an excuse for people to do nothing and not be involved in the process. I am involved – but choose to spend the majority of my time and energy elsewhere.)

I do think that an interesting statement was made in the reading about ethics and elected officials I did this week. The idea stated is that technically a broken promise is not the same thing as a lie but “promise keeping” is an important principle and breaking a promise suggests one is untrustworthy. The qualification made was that if the promise is broken because of something out of the promise-makers control, it is not a lie, but if is broken for no good reason, it is a lie.

Kind of reminds of the difference in the church’s understanding of sins of “omission” and sins of “commission.” Sometimes we do “wrong” by doing and sometimes we do “wrong” by not doing. 

Also reminds of a time when I was about 9 years old. My brother and I had been messing with each other while my grandmother was watching. He is two years younger than I am and was an easy target at the time. I took something from his room and ran to the end of the hall with it. He came running after me and as he got hear me I held up one leg and he ran directly into my foot at an inopportune place! He began crying and saying I had kicked him. I tried to reason with my grandmother and tell her that I had not kicked him – that he had run into my foot. My grandmother in her infinite wisdom helped me understand that in that moment, what technically happened did not matter. What mattered was that my brother was hurt and that it had happened because of a choice I made. If I remember correctly I spent the rest of the night in my room thinking about that choice alone with no one or nothing to play with!

I do understand the above statement and sentiment about the difference between breaking promises and directly lying – and I do understand that sometimes promises are made with the best intention of keeping them and aren’t kept by no fault of the promise-maker – so the distinction is necessary. I also understand that sometimes people use those “qualifications” and grey areas to get away with things that aren’t right.

It was interesting this week to also read about and consider the Rickertt v. Public Disclosure Commission case. Read more about the case here: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003924720_webfirstamendment04m.html and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickert_v._Public_Disclosure_Commission

Obviously I support the first amendment and our right to free speech. So on the surface I understand that yes, political candidates have the right to say whatever they like in the process of campaigning. I am disappointed in the fact that many times this includes small untruths and even blatant lies. This leaves the people not the government to be the final arbiters of truth – which ultimately I agree with – I just wish was not necessary.

As I have mentioned before, often ethics is not considered until after a blatant or very public violation. I did however appreciate the mention of moral criteria scholars have developed that can be considered reasonably expected from politicians. (This list is found in the chapter on Ethics and Elected Officials in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Public-Service-Individual-Institutional-Responsibilites/dp/1452274134 )

Integrity – having incorruptible honesty, playing by the rules, not being unduly influenced by friendship and family in conducting affairs of the government, leading by example

Civility – respecting one’s coworkers, displaying sportsmanlike conduct

Upholding principles – drawing on one’s religious or philosophical moral values, taking the high road, following one’s convictions, avoiding judgment of one’s opponents

Sincerity – being forthright, avoiding hypocrisy and cynicism, not having a hidden agenda

Political sensitivity – seeking the good of the nation as a whole, responding to the needs of all citizens, showing compassion to those in need, being concerned about issues and problems

Honor – acting to bring credit and worth to one’s work, profession, and institution

Conviction – having strong and consistent beliefs and the courage to stand by one’s values while being open to new information and change where warranted

Michael Josephson suggested “The Six Pillars of Character” to include:

• trustworthiness
• respect
• responsibility
• fairness
• caring
• citizenship. 

It is suggested that these core values – with those listed above – can be used as a yardstick for gauging the ethical behavior of elected and appointed officials.

It would be nice to see this yardstick used more often and not only by political opponents trying to make others look bad! How could we as a people demand this kind of standard be used to judge ethical behavior? How can we reward ethical behavior? How can have more positive stories? How can we discourage the glamorization of the unethical when it comes to elected officials?

Just and Unjust Laws

This week I had the opportunity to read and consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” and engage if from an ethics perspective. I had read the letter before in school but not since a seminary education introduced me to the “father of the church” including Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Reading this letter with that background and considering the ethical ideas of just and unjust laws was like reading it through new lenses.

The works of Aquinas and Augustine are foundation to the understanding of Christian ethics and folks have been considering them for a long time. I found this article from the International Journal of Ethics that discussed Augustine’s ethics and was published in 1903! http://www.jstor.org/stable/2376453?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I also found a student’s writing on Augustine and ethics and she puts it nicely:

“Augustine was almost always doing ethics; his most basic questions concerned the nature of the good and how to seek it. Yet he was not an ethicist, insofar as it is construed as an autonomous inquiry. In asking what the good is, how it relates to us, and how we should relate to it Augustine’s thought was at once metaphysical, theological, psychological, ontological, - and given his reliance on scripture – exegetical.” (For more go to: http://www.academia.edu/2519976/Saint_Augustine_Augustine_of_Hippo_An_Introduction_to_his_Ethical_Thought_)

So Augustine didn’t set out to necessarily be an ethicist and yet we are considering his work as it relates to ethics. I think the same think is true with Martin Luther King Jr. He did not set out to be an ethicist – but has become a touchstone for those considering the ethical nature of nonviolent civil disobedience.

MLK cites Augustine (as well as Thomas Aquinas and Martin Buber) early in his response to the clergymen who sent him a letter asking him to slow down his work and stop breaking the law.

MLK admits the paradox and recognizes that it is strange to be asking people to follow some laws and then also asking them to directly disobey others. He makes a clear distinction between just and unjust laws. MLK describes a just law as a human-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of god and an unjust law is a code or law that does not. Laws that uplift humanity and human personality are just and laws that degrade humanity and personhood are unjust. In his Letter, MLK goes on to give several examples of how he sees just and unjust laws playing out in the fight against segregation.

In his Letter, he makes the argument that “segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful…So I can urge men to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong.”

King is making the argument against segregation from a variety of standpoints to appeal to his specific audience and the audience beyond.

Considering the premise that there are just and unjust laws has been interesting this week in my corner of the world. Just across the river – I can see it from my office – is the state of Alabama. Last month, a federal court ruling declared the state’s ban on same-sex unions was illegal and violated the U.S. Constitution. This move made same-sex marriage legal in Alabama. In response, Alabama’s chief justice Roy Moore told probate judges in all 67 counties in Alabama not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples essentially telling the federal government to stay out of it. This made some interesting and confusing things happen this week. Some counties in Alabama began issuing the licenses Monday while others refused. The decisions seemed to be made by individual judges and others in the county offices. Several county offices stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. So to avoid discriminating against some – no one is able to get married!

So what does this have to do with unjust and just laws?

I do admit that I have a dog in this fight and strong opinions. I am engaged to be married my partner and will be doing so in a few short days. We’re having to travel to another state to be legally wed and then will come back with a legal document that is not recognized in the state where we live. I could list the reasons why this is unfortunate and harms my family – but those are all spelled out somewhere else. And I think most of us recognize the world is changing. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on same-sex marriages at the federal level by the end of the year and most people think they will rule favorable to this cause.

So what about just and unjust laws?

We look back on the civil rights movement of the 60’s and are able to say “these people were ethically making good choices” and “these people ethically made poor choices.”  We can say even though these folks broke the law, ultimately they did the right thing. So what will history say about this movement happening right now? What will history tell us? Who is acting ethically? Who is not?

In considering this, I saw a very interesting article from TIME about how the battle for civil rights related to same-sex marriage is not the same as the civil rights movement in the 60’s. It is worth the read. Here is an excerpt:

"The comparison is an easy one to make, and numerous outlets drew the connection on Monday, in the aftermath of Moore’s attempt to halt same-sex marriages in his state. Facing integration of the University of Alabama in 1963, which had been mandated years earlier by Brown v. Board of Education, Wallace tried to block the change and was met by National Guard troops. This week, Moore defied a federal District Court ruling by ordering local probate judges not to license same-sex marriages, a bold challenge to the established principle of federal supremacy over state courts. In short, both Wallace and Moore relied on states’ rights claims to defy the federal government’s demand for social change."

(For the whole article see: http://time.com/3703155/george-wallace-roy-moore/)

Engaging Ethics in the Workplace

This week I have had the opportunity to consider how I engage ethics in the workplace. It is clear that ethical behavior is not just based on individual choice. Ethical behavior is also social and collective. I understand that some people have a hard time accepting organizational factors because of the emphasis it takes away from personal moral responsibility, but the organizational factors cannot be denied. The idea that we have to have one or the other – organization or individual – is a false dichotomy. Identifying that there are organizational factors does not negate the importance of individual choice and behavior. This is a both/and situation.

Organizations are made up of people and those people are put in environments as representatives of those organizations where they have to make decisions. At times it may be hard for individuals to discern what the most appropriate behavior or choice might be. Employers and leaders of organizations are responsible for the conduct of their employees and the choices that are made and therefore have a responsibility at the front-end to create an environment where ethical behavior is the expectation and the norm. Creating this environment is challenging – no doubt – but so is directly affecting individual behavior.

As I considered organizational ethics, I decided to ask around the non-profit where I work about a code of ethics. It turns out, we have a code of ethics we sign when we start our employment. We sign it at the same time that we sign the employee handbook. In my six years here I have never heard it mentioned again. I asked other co-workers if they knew anything about it and none did! Some remembered signing it – but no one could remember anything about it. Of course our HR person knew and the director knew- but no one else. I did get a copy of the code and used it to consider some information on organizational ethics.

Some background: The organization where I work is a non-profit community center that has been serving the same community for nearly 80 years. We have 8 program areas serving mainly women and children of all ages – literally from 5 to 105! We have around 30 employees with a mostly flat organizational structure. There is a very active Board of Directors and an Executive Director who answers to the board. Then there are four of us who are considered supervisors. We all supervise a different number of people who range from 4 hour a week employees to full-time. We all have a variety of educational and ministry background depending on our positions. We are located in west Georgia in a city of nearly 200,000.

Our Code of Ethics is made up of twenty bullet points mostly beginning with the words “I will…” or “I will not…”  Most of the points have to do with virtue ethics - personal rectitude and being a person of integrity. Examples of those statements include: “I will act in accordance with standards of professional integrity” and “I will accurately represent my education, training, experience and competencies as they relate to my profession.”

A few of the statements could be based in duty ethics including: “I will abide by Open Door Community House, Inc. policies related to public statements” and  “I will not engage in or condone any form of harassment or discrimination.” And there were a couple of statements that could be evaluated by a results-based approach.  One of those statements reads: “If I know that a colleague has violated ethical standards, I will bring this to my colleague’s attention. If this fails, I will report that activity to the director.”

I can think of several things that might make it easier to consider ethics in my workplace. The first suggestion would be for employees to be reminded of this code! If this is something we’re intended to follow and pay attention to, it is important we know it exists! There are several practical ways I can imagine using to remind employees of the code and why it is important.

I also think there are some points that seem vague and some that seem very specific. The vague ideas need to be clarified and made relevant to the work employees are doing. I think it would be helpful to spend time talking about how the points mentioned in the code of ethics could directly relate to the choices made and work done by employees. It might even be helpful to guide employees in some sort of case study analyses considering ethics in a variety of situations. The very specific items make me wonder if some of the things were added because of specific circumstances that either happened here at this organization or at another local or similar place. It would be helpful to know the history of our code of ethics – where it came from and when changes have been made.

It is clear that organizations have culture and ethics are a part of that culture. It is the responsibility of leadership to model and cultivate that culture, but the responsibility of everyone to participate in making ethical choices that contribute to an ethical organization. 

I thought this was an interesting info-graphic. 

Source: http://www.ocregister.com/jannorman/strong-413335-ocregister-http.html