David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Showing posts with label virtue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtue. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Lower Case or Upper Case Morality
In his article, “The moral naturalists” (explanations for lower case letters to come), David Brooks points to research that points to a sense of right and wrong that we are born with and learn very early. Even “lower” animals such as rats and monkeys learn to cooperate. It seems that we have “natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty,” and we show preferences for goodness and fairness from infancy. Social norms, evidently, “fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.” Those who behave morally seem to do it because they are “more sensitive to other people’s points of view” and better at “anticipating and reading other people’s pain.” What researchers seem to be identifying as a moral sense is one that values such virtues as cohesion, cooperation, and empathy. However, Brooks complains that researchers’ perspective on morality seems to be “lower case” and that it might not satisfy “those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.”
I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?
Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?
If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.
And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”
I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?
Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?
If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.
And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
From Science to Humanity
Isn’t it interesting that in these days of doing with less, we seem to be reevaluating what really matters? Isn’t it amazing that at a time when we wonder if we will have houses to live in, or when the next paycheck will arrive, we are giving more to those in need? It seems that, in response to the unethical, and, in some cases, outright illegal behavior of our leaders, we are focusing more on ethics, on doing the right thing, on how our society has declined morally, and on what’s needed to turn things around. We seem to be emphasizing community more, and in doing so, emulating our European and Latino neighbors -- that is, relatives and friends are moving in together. Children are living at home for longer. Bartering is seen more frequently.
But perhaps the greatest shock is that the field to which we attribute the greatest fault in this financial crisis – economics – is, according to David Brooks of the New York Times, retreating from its rational, scientific base, and “taking baby steps into the world of emotion, social relationships, imagination, love and virtue.” The old notion that economics and business and such are about making as much money as possible by any means possible, the commitment to putting the almighty dollar first, above all else, may actually be dying a slow death. As Brooks points out, Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. Keynes saw economics as a moral science, dealing with “motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties.” So much for taking the emotion and humanity out of the economic world!
Of course, those in the religious, spiritual, and psychological worlds have always advocated for keeping humanity and spirituality in our daily life and workings. Anyone who has participated in a spiritual or religious community has at least heard about virtue and “the good” and optimal ways to live life -- usually life with God or life empowered by God. Of course, people in these communities reflect on these words or live them out to different degrees. In some of these communities, sin or hell or lack of God is emphasized as a means of getting people to choose something better.
In the psychological or mental health world, virtue or the development of mental health is rarely the focus – although “wellness” in the counseling field and “positive psychology” in psychology are currently getting more airtime. Instead, people who involve themselves with mental health professionals are usually motivated to get help or to “fix” something in their lives by emotional pain or relationship struggle. And mental health professionals themselves are, for the most part, also primarily focused on reducing pain and struggle – after all, insurance companies don’t pay for developing joy or gratitude or other virtues. Occasionally, in this world, people pursue or offer parenting groups or some form of positive mental health education in order to promote life skills or to get better in doing life or relationships.
But it seems that most of the time we are motivated by pain or crises or “fires” that need to be put out. Is that all that is happening now? Are the observations listed above reflective of true transformation or will we merely resume our lives of “automaticity” once the financial crisis is over? Will we use the crisis as the impetus to shift to a whole new way of viewing the world and our society? Or will we return to plugging away at whatever is in front of us, believing the “money first” aspirations of our boss or business colleagues? Will we rise to the challenge and become more reflective and intentional about the way we live our lives, more aware of the larger, longer term picture, more concerned with how we can live together in peace, ensure that everyone has enough, and preserve our environment for our children and grandchildren? Or not – it seems that there is a fork in the road before us. Will we take “the one less traveled on?”
But perhaps the greatest shock is that the field to which we attribute the greatest fault in this financial crisis – economics – is, according to David Brooks of the New York Times, retreating from its rational, scientific base, and “taking baby steps into the world of emotion, social relationships, imagination, love and virtue.” The old notion that economics and business and such are about making as much money as possible by any means possible, the commitment to putting the almighty dollar first, above all else, may actually be dying a slow death. As Brooks points out, Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. Keynes saw economics as a moral science, dealing with “motives, expectations, psychological uncertainties.” So much for taking the emotion and humanity out of the economic world!
Of course, those in the religious, spiritual, and psychological worlds have always advocated for keeping humanity and spirituality in our daily life and workings. Anyone who has participated in a spiritual or religious community has at least heard about virtue and “the good” and optimal ways to live life -- usually life with God or life empowered by God. Of course, people in these communities reflect on these words or live them out to different degrees. In some of these communities, sin or hell or lack of God is emphasized as a means of getting people to choose something better.
In the psychological or mental health world, virtue or the development of mental health is rarely the focus – although “wellness” in the counseling field and “positive psychology” in psychology are currently getting more airtime. Instead, people who involve themselves with mental health professionals are usually motivated to get help or to “fix” something in their lives by emotional pain or relationship struggle. And mental health professionals themselves are, for the most part, also primarily focused on reducing pain and struggle – after all, insurance companies don’t pay for developing joy or gratitude or other virtues. Occasionally, in this world, people pursue or offer parenting groups or some form of positive mental health education in order to promote life skills or to get better in doing life or relationships.
But it seems that most of the time we are motivated by pain or crises or “fires” that need to be put out. Is that all that is happening now? Are the observations listed above reflective of true transformation or will we merely resume our lives of “automaticity” once the financial crisis is over? Will we use the crisis as the impetus to shift to a whole new way of viewing the world and our society? Or will we return to plugging away at whatever is in front of us, believing the “money first” aspirations of our boss or business colleagues? Will we rise to the challenge and become more reflective and intentional about the way we live our lives, more aware of the larger, longer term picture, more concerned with how we can live together in peace, ensure that everyone has enough, and preserve our environment for our children and grandchildren? Or not – it seems that there is a fork in the road before us. Will we take “the one less traveled on?”
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Power of Posterity (August 2009)
David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Remaking America (March 2009)
Perhaps I am a little late with this blog about the inaugural address. But it still rings through my heart, and is resuscitated each time I receive an email or video from the Obama machine. I can only hope that you too were encouraged and enlivened and inspired by Obama's call to "remake America." And did you notice his call to character as central to this effort, that he rejected the false "choice between our safety and our ideals." Did you notice his call for justice, hope, virtue, humility, restraint, and depending on the "force of our example." He urged us to return to the truths upon which our success has always depended: honesty, courage, fair play, tolerance, curiosity, loyalty, patriotism, faith, determination, selflessness. I have rarely heard values and ideals ring so centrally in a politician's speech.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Loving and Doing "The Good" (January 2009)
I applaud the efforts that have recently been cited in my local news to encourage public officials (and all of the rest of us) toward more ethical behavior. It is time for us to take the gloves off, to move beyond complacency, and to realize that unless all of us act on behalf of character and ethics, we all suffer. There is no way in our society to separate ourselves from the effects of other people's unethical behavior; we have seen this in the devastation caused to our neighbors and friends and non-profit organizations by the unethical behavior of securities and investment professionals, realtors and mortgage brokers, and Bernie Madoff. We see it regularly in crime statistics and in the 15% more we pay at the cash register as a result of theft.
However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.
Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.
However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.
Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
