Thinking Ethics

Integrity in US Government - part II

More calls for reform ! In an editorial in today's New York Times entitled "Congress's Search for Courage" there is a list of dos and don'ts (mostly don'ts), as well as  a call for  an "independent, nonpartisan enforcement arm to police the intersecting behaviour of lawmaker and lobbyist ". Why limit it to only this intersecting behaviour ? Why not reform the ethics committee too !

Integrity in US Government

At last ! Two credible proposals to tighten the lobbying rules and improve enforcement in the US government. An editorial in Saturday's Washington Post describes a proposal by the Reps Christopher Shays and Marin Meehan to create an Office of Public Integrity. This  independent partisan entity would be a better system to police compliance. And Senator Barack Obama has proposed creating a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission which would be composed of former judges and former members of Congress. This should really fix people policing  themselves, which has been proven not to work in cases where money and particular interests are concerned. If the politicians are serious about cleaning up their act and regaining credibility with the public, then they should move in the direction of these two proposals and appoint respected independent members to these bodies. More discussion on the topic on the Liberal Walrus  blog.

Performance enhancing drugs

This is really a new case for ethics and performance. It seems that as soon as there is competition and measurement, people will cheat. Human nature perhaps ? In sports the two main thrust of cheating seem to be at the judging level, and at the athlete level, with the taking of performance enhancing drugs. Luckily, the Olympic games in Torino, Italy, seem to be free of judging scandals, but the case of the Austrian skiers is beginning to look bizarre. Details are in this article from the New York Times. The testing results came back negative, for the substances checked. But apparently a lot of incriminating material was found. So will the enforcement authorities always be one drug late in the testing ? Or will peer pressure be a factor with the athletes community excluding people who are suspected of cheating. Or can public opinion, through their purchasing power, influence the athletes by pressure on their sponsors ? And in this particular test, if they can prove blood transfusions - will other people beyond the athletes be charged ? If guilt is proven in this case, I sincerely hope so, because it is the only way of keeping the spirit of athletic competition pure.

More worrying, is the fact that so many amateur athletes, who do sports on weekends, like cycling, are taking performance enhancing drugs. And there is no control or testing in these cases. Somehow we need to educate people that participating in competitions or just practicing sports is not ethically compatible with taking drugs to enhance performance. It defeats the whole spirit of the exercise. It would be a good thing if some of the respected athletes came out publicly on these subjects, and helped set standards of acceptable behaviour.

Blogging about work

The jury is still out on blogging about work. Some companies encourage it (check out Microsoft blogs like Robert Scoble's Scobleizer), some people fire because of it, and many companies check out personal blogs before hiring. But the fact of the matter is that there are no firm rules about it yet. An article in the Washington Post by Amy Joyce entitled "Blogged out of a job" gives some stats: 85% of companies do not have a written policy describing what is acceptable to write about in personal blogs. 3% of HR personnel claim that they have disciplined workers for what they have written in their blogs. Apparently, about 5% of all employees have a personal blog. Usually, reprimands follow warnings and are based on not following clear guidelines. So it is understandable that people feel unfairly treated when sanctioned for something that has not explicitely been forbidden by clear rules. The general opinion among employees is that posting confidential information is not acceptable, but humorous situations can be posted. Given the range of sensibilities, and after all the debate on the cultural differences with cartoons, this might not be enough of a rule.

Ethics in the US government

An article in the Washington Post by Jeffrey Bimbaum entitled "Promise to shore up ethics loses speed" announces that following the Jack Abramoff prolitical corruption scandal progress on altering the rules between lawmakers and lobbyists has slowed down. In fact, in the end we might end up with very little reform - mostly a bit more transparency, and no new rules. Plus ça change... What is it with politicians, that they must curry favour to get elected, and then the whole circus continues... If politicians have forgotten how people think of all this deal making and horse trading, then I suggest mandatory ethics refresher courses at regular intervals ! Not only basic rules, but sensitization programs to identify ethical issues during decision making process. Companies are hiring ethics officers - what about the US government ! How about getting some professional independent people to look into wrong doing and take the partisan politics out of the equation.

Are Some Truths More Equal than Others?

A propos the growing furor regarding freedom of speech, & specifically the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed: glaring inconsistencies in the application of this principle are appearing in western countries which give rise to (well grounded) accusations of double standards. Since equality before the law – irrespective of religion, race, gender or citizenship - is another fundamental principle of democracies, it is time that we re-assessed the situation to ensure at least a minimum level of consistency.

1. Apparently freedom of information is not desirable when it comes to showing new images of torture and abuse in Abu Ghraib.  The US State Department is concerned that these may "fan the flames around the world and cause potentially further violence". In line with this, according to the BBC, only one of three US network news bulletins broadcast any information at all about the new images.

2. Apparently also freedom of speech is not paramount in certain historical contexts. The holocaust-denying British historian David Irving faces up to 10 years imprisonment when he goes on trial next week in Austria where, like Germany, Holocaust denial is against the law.

3. Finally, freedom of information (or even freedom to an equitable trial) is absolutely bottom of the list when it comes to the rights of non-persons – the 500 or so prisoners in Guantanamo Bay who have been held without due process for up to 4 years in some cases.  The US has dismissed the recent UN report on Guantanamo as highly inadequate since the 5 investigators never visited the prison and did not quote first sources. However, they were not granted unrestricted and private access to prisoners. The Pentagon has said only the International Committee of the Red Cross needs free access to prisoners – which is convenient since, in exchange for unrestricted access, the Red Cross has undertaken the tough decision never to divulge details of abuses of any government.

Freedom of speech, or even equality of right to speech?  There is a long way to go.

Trends in Trust

It is a known fact that trust in organisations is diminishing, with politics being at an all time low. This lack of trust in established institutions is worrying, and people are now reverting to trusting their peers for information about corporations. Sort of back to the greek agora - asking if the fish from that stall is fresh type of thing. The Edelman Annual Trust Barometer has just been published. They survey 2000 opinion leaders around the world. Apparently this year the "people like me" are the most trusted, as well as NGO's. In the business sector, technology companies  are the most trusted, with Microsoft leading the pack. The least trusted are energy and media & entertainment. TV seems to be losing out to the internet. This is not good news for the future of media... I don't see many people continuing to subscribe to sources they don't trust.

The Unpatriotic Act

US senators have finally agreed to back an extension to the Patriot Act, which the Bush administration has spent months struggling to have renewed. The Patriot Act gave the government extensive new powers to investigate terror suspects after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Civil libertarians in both parties have objected to some measures, which were due to expire at the end of 2005. The White House has now agreed to limited changes making renewal almost certain. The changes alter the conditions of the National Security Letter, a type of order for a person to appear in secret court. Recipients of a National Security Letter will have at least the right to challenge the automatic "gag order" which prevents them from saying they have received one – but only after one year after receiving the order. It would also limit the government's power to demand that libraries hand over information about what books people have borrowed. This last demand was akin to that of the US government to Google, on requiring the company to provide records of searches made on the website, which currently is not implemented

The secret record search powers of the Patriot Act will remain and do not require that there be any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing by Americans before their financial, medical, library or other records can be searched. Common sense reforms could have required that records sought be connected to a suspected terrorist or terrorist organization. In addition, non citizens may still be jailed for 6 month increments without meaningful judicial review.

The erosion of civil liberties in the name of the struggle against terror is not a choice which needs to be made.  The majority of the articles are inconsistent with the US constitution, including those on freedom from unreasonable seizes and searches, freedom against deprivation of liberty without due process, and the right of all citizens and non-citizens to equal rights before the law.  The efficiency of the law can be improved by coordinated dealings between different branches of the vast and bureaucratic law enforcement arms, and by better computerised analysis of the information. It was not absence of information which led to the disasters of 9/11 and the fact that these were not prevented – it was the inability of law enforcement agencies to connect the dots & use the information on hand in any meaningful way.

Ethical fashion

After the second ethical fashion show last October, it seems that these alternative clothing lines are becoming more mainstream. At the Paris ready-to-wear fashion show, they invited about 20 designers to  participate this year. Other world- other fashion ? The designers come in three main categories: recycled clothes (to preserve natural resources), bio cotton (to limit the impact on the environment), and fair trade (to respect fundamental human rights). The main brands are Ethos, Ideo, Veja, Seyes, Machjy, Tudo Bom, Cool Mum's, Altheane, Peau éthique, Junkystyling, Rachacuti, Ekyog. In fair trade the main brands are Eco, Malongo and Switcher. more

Flexibility of moral codes

An article in the New York Times by Benedict Carey entitled "When death is on the docks, the moral compass waivers" relates a study by psychologists at Stanford on prison staff members who carry out executions. They were looking at people who do unpalatable things by choice, or for reasons of duty or economic necessity. The adjustment of moral judgement given the circumstances is called moral disengagement or moral distancy, and shows that flexibility of moral codes is greater than first thought. Most people make exceptions for cases of survival, but this study showed how people justified carrying out executions, and can be used to explain why a person can be cruel in one moment and compassionate in the next. The basis seems to be adherence to a higher moral order (good for society, etc...). The subjects did need to justify their actions. Sort of like the case of ethics and disobedience - where the higher moral order takes precedence over the law.