Thinking Ethics

Can we hope?

Change has come to America, and the new president has promised that government will also change. Is this one of those campaign promises that will never be fulfilled, or are we going to see some traction on this issue? Well, President Obama has signed bills on his first day in office to improve transparency of the government by demanding that it disclose more information, by mandating new limits on lobbyists, and by freezing salaries of the top echelons. A real signal. So can we hope?  Yes we can.

Plant Rights - a step too far!

The brouhaha in scientific circles started beginning of May, and I don't know why I have not gotten around to posting this.

Anyway, the Swiss government has in the Swiss constitution an article on the dignity of living things. So by extension, a plant is alive and thus should be treated "morally". I can't do better than this great article by Wesley Smith in the weeklystandard.com called "the silent scream of the asparagus". Also, on treehugger.com there is a link to the official text in pdf format.

Non-financial reporting: Denmark leading the pack

Denmark has just passed a new law on non-financial reporting. It is an amendment to the Danish Financial Statement Act and goes in force on January 1, 2009 and requires all large companies to have mandatory corporate social responsibility reporting on their policies and practices in their annual financial reports.

Under the new "Social responsibility for large business" law, 1'100 of the largest companies will have to include their considerations for human rights, societal, environmental and climate conditions as well as anti-corruption measures. Full article in Ethical Corporation  here.

Social Skills

The term "manners" seems to be passé - but the concept of "social skills" is hot. Why wait to be coached - manners are taught by parents, even if they seem out of favor. Nearly everyone is complaining about the lack of civility and rise of violence. It starts at home: children are naturally selfish and the center of the family universe. They need to be taught that not everything is about their needs, but that other people have feelings too. Let's bring back manners!

Article on the subject in the New York Times by Perri Klass MD "Making Room for Miss Manners is a Parenting Basic".

Museum exhibits - stolen artifacts?

The debate about the ownership of artifacts in museums continue. Very rarely do the museums give the history of the acquisition of pieces. The issue is that by buying stolen objects, they encourage the looting of cultural heritage. Some museums are now trying to be more transparent and have strict purchasing guidelines. Others believe the objects would be better cared for in a museum. Good op ed piece in The New York Times by Sharon Waxman "How did that vase wind up in the Metropolitan".

Transparency will help but maybe countries could consider some form of barter so their citizens could enjoy cross cultural exhibitions.

The purpose of rankings

Besides informing the public about a given sector, the positioning also serves to name and shame laggards. So are they effective ?

Well, the Geneva-based ethical reputation research firm Covalence has just published its annual report on the retail industry. Last year Wal-Mart was last, in the 27th position. This year it has jumped into third position, behin Marks & Spencer and Home Depot. So obviously the ranking made them pull up their socks, and all the good things they are now doing are getting positive coverage in the press. But does it matter ? The report does not tell us how consumers are reacting, but Covalence does say that Wal-Mart is still the company with the most critical articles, so the press is not letting up.

Oh, and for those interested, the main issues in the retail industry are working conditions in supply chains, environmental impact of production, waste management and climate change. See Covalence's press report here.

First step on a slippery slope

Seven scientists have published a call for legalizing the use of attention disorder drugs for the healthy. The full article in Nature entitled "Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy" can be found here. A summarized shorter version can be found on Wired here.

The authors claim that these drugs are already being used by about 7% of US students, and at some campuses, the use might be up to 25%. I know cocaine is being used by a portion of the population, but this is not a compelling case to legalize it. Trying to be objective, I still see several problems: are these drugs safe ? Is it fair ? Will it separate the over-achievers in those who take drugs and those who do not? Will it force everybody to take them to compete? How is this different from performance enhancing drugs in sports? Basically, is this cheating, unatural or dangerous??? The authors are calling for the implementation of an evidence-based approach to the risks and evidence of cognitive enhancement. Also for work to be done on policy of use and education (of doctors and potential users no doubt).

I have an uneasy feeling about this as it probably goes against my protestant work ethic upbringing, which might be cultural. The legal availability of such drugs will be a first step in the disconnecting of the effort of learning from the acquisition of knowledge. Besides the accumulation of facts, learning also helps us to forge our personalities and gives us a framework for decision making. If each of our individual brains are modified by each encounter, each experience that we make (brain plasticity), then will this enhancement of the uptake of knowledge affect our development? By extrapolation (OK I realize this is a stretch)- are we ready to have knowledge on demand - why not experience ? Take a pill and you have instant fluent chinese; or you will know instantly how to react in a complex management situation without having put in the years of experience? And how will this affect how we treat older people if their experience is no longer valued because accessible by all on demand?