Well, “Corruption County” has spoken – 72% of the voters voted “yes” to the Ethics Amendment in my county, which means that “every city, town, and village” in Palm Beach County “will be under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Ethics and Independent Inspector General’s” Office. “All elected officials” and county and city employees “will have to abide by the new county ethics ordinance, which prohibits officials from using public offices to benefit themselves, their family members, and their businesses”.
This is cause for celebration! Certainly it is a good start for a county that has sent three county commissioners to prison and has another who has pleaded guilty to felony extortion. In the next step, a committee will recommend necessary ordinances. I particularly liked what Jamie Titcomb, executive director of the Palm Beach County League of Cities, in advocating for a uniform ethics policy for the entire county, said, “It’s kind of like why people go to church every Sunday. It’s not that they don’t know the stuff; they need to be reminded of the message and the agreed [upon] standards.” It seems that civic and business groups have been responsible for pushing hard for these initiatives. I will look forward to seeing the progress that these groups can make.
In particular, I look forward to seeing how ethical behavior is defined – How will the committees decide which ordinances should be included, what the policies should be? What process will they use to ensure that people in public service both get the message and carry out the public welfare with integrity? Will they reach beyond law (everyone, after all, should know the law and follow it) into challenging people to operate optimally from a place of values? To avoid grey areas? How will they decide what values should be included, and what it will look like to fully incorporate those values? What processes or structures will they urge municipalities to incorporate in order to ensure that everyone gets the message? How will they fund these new structures and processes?
Business research offers evidence that without changing corporate culture to one centered on values that are demonstrated from the top down and infused into every part of the company, ethical infractions will continue and dysfunctional workplaces will persist. It seems that merely making rules or hiring lawyers to inform on laws and regulations ensures only that people do the minimum to get by rather than aiming for what’s optimal. When employees observe their leaders doing the minimum, they do likewise, getting away with as much as they can.
Will government learn from this research and realize the need to change its culture so that the mandate has teeth and so that its employees will gain the public trust? Will they ensure that government leaders pursue an onward and upward journey to discovering and living out the values expressed in the county’s ethics code? Will they institute the opportunities for discussion and training that encourage employees to consider how best to live out these values in the workplace and to make ethical decisions when more difficult dilemmas occur? Ethics training is currently required in my city. However, the hour a year that is currently funded is unlikely to change people’s values or behavior. Passing the Amendment was a great first step. Educating and supporting people in living it to its fullest will require ongoing reflection, conversation, training, and incentives.
___________________
1 All information from Swan, R. The voters really got it. The Palm Beach Post, Thursday, November 11, 2010.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
I’m a Values Voter. Aren’t You?
In this election season, editorials seem to pound hard on the difference between “Values” voters (usually conservative Republicans) and others. But, really, are any of us willing to be considered “Valueless” voters? What happens when we allow only one group to claim such a name? And, in some situations, to usurp the name for values we don’t agree with? Can we reclaim our true heritage and call out for the values that we stand for and that we wish everyone would stand for? Can we, in the process, stand up for some values that we all can agree on, rather than focusing on those that polarize us? What might those values be? And after we identify them, can we challenge one another to think carefully about how to live them out, without imposing our choices on others?
For instance, “The Golden Rule” might be the first we could all agree to. Some rendition of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been around since Aristotle in every major religion and philosophy. It seems to me that it has pretty good credibility as a value that we all ought to stand squarely in the center of. What might it mean to seek fully live out the Golden Rule? Well, most of us want people to respect us – our words, our choices, our actions – and to behave with respect toward us in their words and action. So it stands to reason that we ought to respect others if we are to treat others as we wish to be treated. Most of us also want people to act kindly toward us, reaching out to us when we are in need, helping us when they can, and not treating us meanly. So, choosing to do the same for others would also fit within The Golden Rule.
Justice seems closely related to respect and kindness – that is, it doesn’t seem fair to treat some people kindly and respectfully without treating others the same way. We want to be treated fairly, and so we ought to also treat others fairly. We ought to figure out how to resolve justly the inevitable conflicts that arise. Understandably, if we have been mistreated, it may be harder to behave kindly and respectfully in response. But even if we eliminate those situations, that still leaves plenty of opportunity for being fair toward others.
Being kind and just also seems to include taking on our share of responsibilities. That is, we need to take care of ourselves, our family members, and our property. We need to keep our commitments, carrying out the jobs that we are responsible for when we are responsible to do so. We want others to keep their commitments to us, or to be responsible toward us, doing what they have promised. We don’t want to bear the whole load of family or workplace or community responsibilities. Responsibility means people working together to take on their fair share and to follow through. Without carrying out our responsibilities, other people will have to pick up them up or spend money to fix what we have failed to do; neither of which seems fair.
Further, if we fail in our responsibilities, others will not find us trustworthy – they may consider us undependable or childish. They will simply stop depending on us because we have shown that we do not consistently behave well or do the right thing. And, in addition, when we combine responsibility and kindness or caring, it seems relatively obvious that we will need to give back to our communities some of what we have received, will need to take care of our communities, and will, as a result, offer some of what we have to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in great need. And this we might call citizenship, or giving back.
The “Character Counts!” community considers some rendition of these five character traits to be the building blocks of their “values” agenda. But I find that it also takes wisdom to know when to do what to whom. And it takes courage to actually act on that wisdom, particularly in the face of opposition or when we might lose something that matters to us if we do act. I think it takes a strong sense of self and self control not to lash out at others when we are frustrated or angered by injustice or the lack of responsibility in others; as well as to have the backbone to act on what we believe.
And although there are some values that so-called conservative Republican “Values Voters” espouse that others will disagree strongly with, would anyone disagree with the need for these ten values? I am sure we can think of other important values; but as a minimum, can we stand up for these? Can we make a conscious effort to evaluate each of our actions each day on the basis of whether we are shooting for the optimal with respect to these values? Can we get out of a reactive mode into a more proactive stance, advocating that everyone in our families and workplaces and communities at least try to live out these values? Can we expect the others around us to commit to these values, and can we encourage them and ask them to encourage us to do the same? If we can, then I think we reclaim our positions as “Values Voters,” even if we are not Republican, conservative, or Christian. The question is, will we?
For instance, “The Golden Rule” might be the first we could all agree to. Some rendition of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been around since Aristotle in every major religion and philosophy. It seems to me that it has pretty good credibility as a value that we all ought to stand squarely in the center of. What might it mean to seek fully live out the Golden Rule? Well, most of us want people to respect us – our words, our choices, our actions – and to behave with respect toward us in their words and action. So it stands to reason that we ought to respect others if we are to treat others as we wish to be treated. Most of us also want people to act kindly toward us, reaching out to us when we are in need, helping us when they can, and not treating us meanly. So, choosing to do the same for others would also fit within The Golden Rule.
Justice seems closely related to respect and kindness – that is, it doesn’t seem fair to treat some people kindly and respectfully without treating others the same way. We want to be treated fairly, and so we ought to also treat others fairly. We ought to figure out how to resolve justly the inevitable conflicts that arise. Understandably, if we have been mistreated, it may be harder to behave kindly and respectfully in response. But even if we eliminate those situations, that still leaves plenty of opportunity for being fair toward others.
Being kind and just also seems to include taking on our share of responsibilities. That is, we need to take care of ourselves, our family members, and our property. We need to keep our commitments, carrying out the jobs that we are responsible for when we are responsible to do so. We want others to keep their commitments to us, or to be responsible toward us, doing what they have promised. We don’t want to bear the whole load of family or workplace or community responsibilities. Responsibility means people working together to take on their fair share and to follow through. Without carrying out our responsibilities, other people will have to pick up them up or spend money to fix what we have failed to do; neither of which seems fair.
Further, if we fail in our responsibilities, others will not find us trustworthy – they may consider us undependable or childish. They will simply stop depending on us because we have shown that we do not consistently behave well or do the right thing. And, in addition, when we combine responsibility and kindness or caring, it seems relatively obvious that we will need to give back to our communities some of what we have received, will need to take care of our communities, and will, as a result, offer some of what we have to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in great need. And this we might call citizenship, or giving back.
The “Character Counts!” community considers some rendition of these five character traits to be the building blocks of their “values” agenda. But I find that it also takes wisdom to know when to do what to whom. And it takes courage to actually act on that wisdom, particularly in the face of opposition or when we might lose something that matters to us if we do act. I think it takes a strong sense of self and self control not to lash out at others when we are frustrated or angered by injustice or the lack of responsibility in others; as well as to have the backbone to act on what we believe.
And although there are some values that so-called conservative Republican “Values Voters” espouse that others will disagree strongly with, would anyone disagree with the need for these ten values? I am sure we can think of other important values; but as a minimum, can we stand up for these? Can we make a conscious effort to evaluate each of our actions each day on the basis of whether we are shooting for the optimal with respect to these values? Can we get out of a reactive mode into a more proactive stance, advocating that everyone in our families and workplaces and communities at least try to live out these values? Can we expect the others around us to commit to these values, and can we encourage them and ask them to encourage us to do the same? If we can, then I think we reclaim our positions as “Values Voters,” even if we are not Republican, conservative, or Christian. The question is, will we?
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, July 20, 2010
Cheap and Happy?
In a recent article, Cheap, Jeff Yeager relates his cycling trip across country to visit self-proclaimed “cheapskates.” His conclusions and those of other cheapskates? “A true sign of wealth is free time.” And “spending less money creates more free time.” And we can invest our time in creating happiness if we spend less time making money and spending it and taking care of what we have spent it on. Given the challenges to ethics posed by financial decisions, it seems worthwhile to reconsider the notion that “more is always better” – more stuff, more money, more toys. After all, aren’t many of the ethical struggles that employees and company leaders face related to questions about whether the costs justify the results?
We have many current examples of attempts to get more money to spend to look at. For instance, isn’t the current BP Gulf crisis the result of decisions to cut corners and costs by not incorporating the optimal in safety and warning mechanisms, thus increasing profits? Isn’t the “profit at any cost” mentality of mortgage companies and financial institutions what resulted in our current economic meltdown and in the huge losses of people’s jobs and homes? In fact, might we see as evidence that such a mentality has permeated our society in the fact that we now have someone running for the U.S. Senate (Jeff Greene) who has made millions by betting during high mortgage times that people would become unable to pay their loans? If he is to be a leader in our country, shouldn’t he have helped people to make better decisions about what they could afford, rather that betting on their losses and failures? Although it may not be true that “money is the root of all evil,” certainly greed contributes substantially.
And yet, contrarily, we have many examples of companies (think Ben and Jerry’s, for instance) creating innovative and highly successful products while still maintaining optimal values – so clearly competition for greater and greater profits as the only value worth aiming for is not necessary to creativity and innovation.
So, what if we all got less greedy? What if we adopted frugality -- that has been necessary for many of us due to the economy – as a more permanent lifestyle? What if we invested in using only our share of the world’s resources, instead of using as much as we can get away with? What difference might it make? Might we be happier? Less stressed?
Can we all agree that from an ethical point of view, these are good ideas? For instance, can we agree that living within our means is responsible? Can we agree that living modestly and giving substantially is not only generous but compassionate, given that most of the world lives on less than $2 per day? Can we all agree that making decisions out of greed and unrestrained desire challenges the amount of time and energy that we might be spending in service or planning for the benefit of our children’s futures? I hope we can!
So, in the interest of taking my own medicine, I thought I would examine my “to do list” from this weekend to see if the cheapskates’ ideas bore consideration. Think about your own lists as you review mine.
1. Clean the pool filter, visit the pool store to have the chemicals in the water checked, buy and put in the chemicals, sweep the pool because the automatic cleaner doesn’t seem to be working right, figure out how and when I am going to get the automatic cleaner fixed. Of course, if I hadn’t spent the money on the pool, none of this would be necessary. And the joy, social events, and exercise that we get from the pool could be gotten from the pool right down the street in our development.
2. In the yard, pull weeds, trim the bushes, check and water the new grass that I had tried to put in due to drought conditions, haul weeds to the composter to make compost for plantings, call the yard service to find out when they are next coming because the grass is getting longer than usual. Make a note to talk with the homeowner’s association yard service about why they haven’t been trimming the bushes. Contact friend who’s been doing remodeling about giving her some of the plantings from my yard – partly a nice gift and partly that I have to keep trimming and reducing due to things growing so fast. If I didn’t have such a big yard, I wouldn’t have to do all of this. I can only think of one reason to have such a yard that contributes to my happiness: I live in a city, and I feel cramped and trapped without having a certain amount of space around me. However, my proposed move to Colorado aims to solve some of this: I will be able to have the space in the woods without having to do any yard care. (of course, a move costs money!)
3. Order health care supplies from health care provider. Probably a good idea, but still takes time and money.
4. Get medications for the dog. Take outside to potty regularly. Pick up poo. Take for a walk. Ahhh to not have a dog that I have to feed, pick up after, and arrange for care for when I travel! Of course, I love her and she does add to my happiness.
5. Clean up junk around the house and clean out the garage of excess junk. Clean the house. Obviously if I hadn’t bought so much stuff, it wouldn’t accumulate around the house and need picking up. And if the house was smaller and I had less stuff to dust, I wouldn’t need to spend as much time cleaning.
6. Make appointment to have mold cleaned off the roof (a Florida problem) – If the house wasn’t so big and two stories, it would not cost so much to have done, and I could do the roof myself. Or I could live somewhere where mold doesn’t accumulate, or where a homeowner’s association doesn’t require large monthly payments and require one to conform to appearance standards.
So, let’s consider the proposition – would I have been happier had I not had these things to do? What might I have done instead? What would you have done instead of your “to do” list? Would all of the things I would have chosen instead have cost less money?
Well, it definitely does not make me happy to do the things that I listed above. They fall under the “have to’s” that I would like to do less of. If I had not had these tasks to do, I can think of many activities that would have made me happier: I could have read a book, talked with friends, gotten together with friends, walked around the block and talked with neighbors, called my daughter to talk with her, done some crafts, cooked a gourmet meal, walked the beach in the evenings, gone dancing, watched a movie, or served a meal at the soup kitchen. Although there are some minimal costs to some of these, they don’t come anywhere near the costs of lawn services, mortgage payments, cleaning services, vet bills, and such. And while all of these alternative activities would have made me happier -- and I did do some of them -- I didn’t have much energy or time left to do many of them because of all of the house and pool and yard care that I felt obligated to do.
A great picture of the contrasts between my obligations and my happiness is my love of camping. There is nothing I like better than camping with my family and friends out in the woods, with nothing but the bare necessities. I immediately feel the stress lifting and the joy starting when I am away from my task-filled home, exploring the beauty of nature, with people that I like only a tent away, and the opportunity to sing and make s’mores around the campfire.
What about you? What is your picture of happiness? Is it hampered by lack of time and having so many “things” that you have bought and are responsible for? Ready to try spending less or divesting yourself of the material possessions that take up your time? How about trying a week without spending money on anything but absolute necessities or without taking care of those things that you have spent money on? How much empty time would you find? What would you really like to fill it with? What would make you truly happy? (Note: You might have to write a list of the things that make you happy so that you intentionally do these things rather than falling into habitual patterns).
Our current economy faces many of us with less money to spend. We may have found ourselves underwater in many ways, which may be creating great stress. In the interest of preserving our sanity and our family lives and keeping our children from feeling overly deprived, some of us have gotten very creative in coming up with cost-free or inexpensive fun and ways to create happiness – we have spent family dinners together, gotten out the cook books and enjoyed the fun of cooking something fancy together, dusted off the games that have been hiding away in our closets for years, pulled out the craft supplies to make gifts for birthdays and holidays, hung out with the neighbors on the front stoop, taken walks or bike rides through the woods, visited the beach, invited friends over to sit out on the patio to enjoy happy hour, visited the library or the local museum. We have shared resources with our friends and traded our services for those that others have to offer.
Sounds like great ways to create our own happiness without money!! Also sounds like great ways to build community and teach our children the value of time together playing and talking and creating. So, how ‘bout it – will you take the plunge? Will you take the challenge with me of spending less, saving more, and as a result, freeing up more time for creating happiness? Or will you at least think about the possibilities? Take a few steps and see how it works?
We have many current examples of attempts to get more money to spend to look at. For instance, isn’t the current BP Gulf crisis the result of decisions to cut corners and costs by not incorporating the optimal in safety and warning mechanisms, thus increasing profits? Isn’t the “profit at any cost” mentality of mortgage companies and financial institutions what resulted in our current economic meltdown and in the huge losses of people’s jobs and homes? In fact, might we see as evidence that such a mentality has permeated our society in the fact that we now have someone running for the U.S. Senate (Jeff Greene) who has made millions by betting during high mortgage times that people would become unable to pay their loans? If he is to be a leader in our country, shouldn’t he have helped people to make better decisions about what they could afford, rather that betting on their losses and failures? Although it may not be true that “money is the root of all evil,” certainly greed contributes substantially.
And yet, contrarily, we have many examples of companies (think Ben and Jerry’s, for instance) creating innovative and highly successful products while still maintaining optimal values – so clearly competition for greater and greater profits as the only value worth aiming for is not necessary to creativity and innovation.
So, what if we all got less greedy? What if we adopted frugality -- that has been necessary for many of us due to the economy – as a more permanent lifestyle? What if we invested in using only our share of the world’s resources, instead of using as much as we can get away with? What difference might it make? Might we be happier? Less stressed?
Can we all agree that from an ethical point of view, these are good ideas? For instance, can we agree that living within our means is responsible? Can we agree that living modestly and giving substantially is not only generous but compassionate, given that most of the world lives on less than $2 per day? Can we all agree that making decisions out of greed and unrestrained desire challenges the amount of time and energy that we might be spending in service or planning for the benefit of our children’s futures? I hope we can!
So, in the interest of taking my own medicine, I thought I would examine my “to do list” from this weekend to see if the cheapskates’ ideas bore consideration. Think about your own lists as you review mine.
1. Clean the pool filter, visit the pool store to have the chemicals in the water checked, buy and put in the chemicals, sweep the pool because the automatic cleaner doesn’t seem to be working right, figure out how and when I am going to get the automatic cleaner fixed. Of course, if I hadn’t spent the money on the pool, none of this would be necessary. And the joy, social events, and exercise that we get from the pool could be gotten from the pool right down the street in our development.
2. In the yard, pull weeds, trim the bushes, check and water the new grass that I had tried to put in due to drought conditions, haul weeds to the composter to make compost for plantings, call the yard service to find out when they are next coming because the grass is getting longer than usual. Make a note to talk with the homeowner’s association yard service about why they haven’t been trimming the bushes. Contact friend who’s been doing remodeling about giving her some of the plantings from my yard – partly a nice gift and partly that I have to keep trimming and reducing due to things growing so fast. If I didn’t have such a big yard, I wouldn’t have to do all of this. I can only think of one reason to have such a yard that contributes to my happiness: I live in a city, and I feel cramped and trapped without having a certain amount of space around me. However, my proposed move to Colorado aims to solve some of this: I will be able to have the space in the woods without having to do any yard care. (of course, a move costs money!)
3. Order health care supplies from health care provider. Probably a good idea, but still takes time and money.
4. Get medications for the dog. Take outside to potty regularly. Pick up poo. Take for a walk. Ahhh to not have a dog that I have to feed, pick up after, and arrange for care for when I travel! Of course, I love her and she does add to my happiness.
5. Clean up junk around the house and clean out the garage of excess junk. Clean the house. Obviously if I hadn’t bought so much stuff, it wouldn’t accumulate around the house and need picking up. And if the house was smaller and I had less stuff to dust, I wouldn’t need to spend as much time cleaning.
6. Make appointment to have mold cleaned off the roof (a Florida problem) – If the house wasn’t so big and two stories, it would not cost so much to have done, and I could do the roof myself. Or I could live somewhere where mold doesn’t accumulate, or where a homeowner’s association doesn’t require large monthly payments and require one to conform to appearance standards.
So, let’s consider the proposition – would I have been happier had I not had these things to do? What might I have done instead? What would you have done instead of your “to do” list? Would all of the things I would have chosen instead have cost less money?
Well, it definitely does not make me happy to do the things that I listed above. They fall under the “have to’s” that I would like to do less of. If I had not had these tasks to do, I can think of many activities that would have made me happier: I could have read a book, talked with friends, gotten together with friends, walked around the block and talked with neighbors, called my daughter to talk with her, done some crafts, cooked a gourmet meal, walked the beach in the evenings, gone dancing, watched a movie, or served a meal at the soup kitchen. Although there are some minimal costs to some of these, they don’t come anywhere near the costs of lawn services, mortgage payments, cleaning services, vet bills, and such. And while all of these alternative activities would have made me happier -- and I did do some of them -- I didn’t have much energy or time left to do many of them because of all of the house and pool and yard care that I felt obligated to do.
A great picture of the contrasts between my obligations and my happiness is my love of camping. There is nothing I like better than camping with my family and friends out in the woods, with nothing but the bare necessities. I immediately feel the stress lifting and the joy starting when I am away from my task-filled home, exploring the beauty of nature, with people that I like only a tent away, and the opportunity to sing and make s’mores around the campfire.
What about you? What is your picture of happiness? Is it hampered by lack of time and having so many “things” that you have bought and are responsible for? Ready to try spending less or divesting yourself of the material possessions that take up your time? How about trying a week without spending money on anything but absolute necessities or without taking care of those things that you have spent money on? How much empty time would you find? What would you really like to fill it with? What would make you truly happy? (Note: You might have to write a list of the things that make you happy so that you intentionally do these things rather than falling into habitual patterns).
Our current economy faces many of us with less money to spend. We may have found ourselves underwater in many ways, which may be creating great stress. In the interest of preserving our sanity and our family lives and keeping our children from feeling overly deprived, some of us have gotten very creative in coming up with cost-free or inexpensive fun and ways to create happiness – we have spent family dinners together, gotten out the cook books and enjoyed the fun of cooking something fancy together, dusted off the games that have been hiding away in our closets for years, pulled out the craft supplies to make gifts for birthdays and holidays, hung out with the neighbors on the front stoop, taken walks or bike rides through the woods, visited the beach, invited friends over to sit out on the patio to enjoy happy hour, visited the library or the local museum. We have shared resources with our friends and traded our services for those that others have to offer.
Sounds like great ways to create our own happiness without money!! Also sounds like great ways to build community and teach our children the value of time together playing and talking and creating. So, how ‘bout it – will you take the plunge? Will you take the challenge with me of spending less, saving more, and as a result, freeing up more time for creating happiness? Or will you at least think about the possibilities? Take a few steps and see how it works?
Friday, June 4, 2010
Winning or Growing
Two newspaper articles struck me this week as illustrations of the lack of respect in our society (Cerebino; Pitts, Palm Beach Post), rather than an acknowledgement of tremendous opportunities to teach respect in the face of values differences. One article described a situation in which students expressed the very strong religious opinion that the earthquake in Haiti was God’s punishment for the Haitian people’s pact with the devil. Their teacher, a non-Christian, called their perspective “a bunch of fairy-tale nonsense.” The conflict escalated into other teachers spraying “holy water” on the first teacher, who, in turn, filed a bullying complaint. It further escalated when a community preacher joined the fray with his lawyers to support the students and the holy water sprayers.
In the second article, some Mexican-American teenagers celebrated Cinco de Mayo by wearing the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag; and their principal called the shirts “incendiary” (because emotions are running high about public policies related to illegal immigration), and asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.
In each case, people with power who disagreed with an expressed opinion tried to force their opinion on those with lesser power. And when they did so, they were met with an attempt to take back power in response. The power approaches were the attempt of one side of a values dispute to “win” over the other, to say, “You are wrong, and I have more power, so I get to say that you are wrong and keep your perspective from being heard or valued.” And this approach means, generally, that the person(s) with the most power win, even if their perspectives harm others. Clearly, women and people of color’s experiences illustrate the damage that can be done to those without power if their perspectives are not heard and honored.
Is winning always best when there is a dispute? Doesn’t winning always imply that there is a loser who will want to fight back? Might such power approaches actually create dangerous escalation? What might be an alternative approach?
But just as important as these questions is asking ourselves, didn’t these teachers and principals miss tremendous opportunities for teaching their students about character and about making difficult ethical decisions, based on critical thinking, rather than on merely following the crowd? Didn’t they miss the chance to help the students to learn how to respect others, even when they find themselves in a conflict? Didn’t they miss a phenomenal chance to help their students to develop into independent thinkers, instead of merely followers of the loudest or most popular speaker? Isn’t this what we want for our children—to develop into people with the capacity to make quality decisions in the face of difficult circumstances, so that they won’t get sucked into following a dangerous and destructive leader or crowd?
It takes a great deal of respect to really listen and understand another’s perspective. And we have to be open to the fact that if we really listen, we might actually learn something and, in turn, change in some way. The teens in each of these situations might have been able to face the developmental challenges posed by such conflicts with the help of older, wiser souls capable of shepherding them through an experience of carefully weighing differing perspectives, of considering what to do about these differing perspectives, of using the conflict to become clearer on the higher values or virtues that we ought to aspire to, and on what to do when these higher values conflict.
For instance, what might have happened in the Haitian earthquake situation if the teacher, instead of using his power to insist that the students were wrong, respected the students enough to try to understand their perspective. He might have asked, “How did you come to believe this?” And if they said, “Our pastor told us,” the teacher might further have asked, “And what do you think about your pastor’s opinion?” or “How have you decided that your pastor is right?” He could pursue the questioning with a spirit of trying to understand their perspective, while at the same time asking them to develop the skills necessary for carefully weighing what they hear against some internal standard, and further, to decide what that standard might actually be.
The teacher might also have shown respect for other students’ opinions by asking about other class members’ perspectives; and he could have pursued the same line of inquiry with respect to their alternative perspectives. Further, after demonstrating respect, concern for all of the students’ perspectives, and a commitment to developing the students’ commitments to a set of higher values or standards, the teacher could ask students to research the issue and to hold a respectful debate during the next class. And he might have upped the stakes by indicating that people’s lives (or their grades) might depend on the diligence with which they researched the issues, the ways that they conducted the debate, and their abilities to find a solution to the conflict that did not conflict with the higher values that they were committing to.
The teacher might even have asked the students to grade themselves on the results of the debate, asking them to evaluate their feelings, the degree to which they stayed respectful of others with different perspectives, the degree to which they were able to contribute to possible solutions to the differences, and the higher values that they were willing to commit to in order to determine whether to live with the differences, create a better solution than either of the perspectives, or eliminate one perspective because of the damage it was doing to other people. Because, after all, some perspectives are far too dangerous to far too many people to support merely because they are different. In fact, believing that Haitian people should not be helped, should be left to starve and die because of their beliefs or choices, might very well be one of these dangerous perspectives. Immigration policies that result in hatred or discrimination against people of color would also be dangerous.
The students might, as a class or school, have talked openly about what they learned about conflict, values, and respect during such a process; or about how participating in the process changed them. The teacher might have evaluated their ability to be respectful, to think carefully about the issues and perspectives, and to commit to and demonstrate higher principles.
As Mr. Pitts pointed out, the students might then have learned the very valuable lesson that “reasonable people reason their way through disagreements,” that it might be important for people to be able to express their opinions, but it is just as important to give others the chance to do the same. Some of those opinions will lead to needed changes and improvements in our society, and some opinions will lead to actions that harm our society. Students of all ages need to learn how to carefully evaluate these opinions for themselves, rather than merely following along with the most charismatic or well-marketed or well-funded opinion stater. But, of course, that would require teachers and principals (and the rest of us) to be reasonable and to have developed enough them(our)selves to see the value in going through such a process. Perhaps we are not always there yet – as the newspaper examples illustrated.
In the second article, some Mexican-American teenagers celebrated Cinco de Mayo by wearing the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag; and their principal called the shirts “incendiary” (because emotions are running high about public policies related to illegal immigration), and asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.
In each case, people with power who disagreed with an expressed opinion tried to force their opinion on those with lesser power. And when they did so, they were met with an attempt to take back power in response. The power approaches were the attempt of one side of a values dispute to “win” over the other, to say, “You are wrong, and I have more power, so I get to say that you are wrong and keep your perspective from being heard or valued.” And this approach means, generally, that the person(s) with the most power win, even if their perspectives harm others. Clearly, women and people of color’s experiences illustrate the damage that can be done to those without power if their perspectives are not heard and honored.
Is winning always best when there is a dispute? Doesn’t winning always imply that there is a loser who will want to fight back? Might such power approaches actually create dangerous escalation? What might be an alternative approach?
But just as important as these questions is asking ourselves, didn’t these teachers and principals miss tremendous opportunities for teaching their students about character and about making difficult ethical decisions, based on critical thinking, rather than on merely following the crowd? Didn’t they miss the chance to help the students to learn how to respect others, even when they find themselves in a conflict? Didn’t they miss a phenomenal chance to help their students to develop into independent thinkers, instead of merely followers of the loudest or most popular speaker? Isn’t this what we want for our children—to develop into people with the capacity to make quality decisions in the face of difficult circumstances, so that they won’t get sucked into following a dangerous and destructive leader or crowd?
It takes a great deal of respect to really listen and understand another’s perspective. And we have to be open to the fact that if we really listen, we might actually learn something and, in turn, change in some way. The teens in each of these situations might have been able to face the developmental challenges posed by such conflicts with the help of older, wiser souls capable of shepherding them through an experience of carefully weighing differing perspectives, of considering what to do about these differing perspectives, of using the conflict to become clearer on the higher values or virtues that we ought to aspire to, and on what to do when these higher values conflict.
For instance, what might have happened in the Haitian earthquake situation if the teacher, instead of using his power to insist that the students were wrong, respected the students enough to try to understand their perspective. He might have asked, “How did you come to believe this?” And if they said, “Our pastor told us,” the teacher might further have asked, “And what do you think about your pastor’s opinion?” or “How have you decided that your pastor is right?” He could pursue the questioning with a spirit of trying to understand their perspective, while at the same time asking them to develop the skills necessary for carefully weighing what they hear against some internal standard, and further, to decide what that standard might actually be.
The teacher might also have shown respect for other students’ opinions by asking about other class members’ perspectives; and he could have pursued the same line of inquiry with respect to their alternative perspectives. Further, after demonstrating respect, concern for all of the students’ perspectives, and a commitment to developing the students’ commitments to a set of higher values or standards, the teacher could ask students to research the issue and to hold a respectful debate during the next class. And he might have upped the stakes by indicating that people’s lives (or their grades) might depend on the diligence with which they researched the issues, the ways that they conducted the debate, and their abilities to find a solution to the conflict that did not conflict with the higher values that they were committing to.
The teacher might even have asked the students to grade themselves on the results of the debate, asking them to evaluate their feelings, the degree to which they stayed respectful of others with different perspectives, the degree to which they were able to contribute to possible solutions to the differences, and the higher values that they were willing to commit to in order to determine whether to live with the differences, create a better solution than either of the perspectives, or eliminate one perspective because of the damage it was doing to other people. Because, after all, some perspectives are far too dangerous to far too many people to support merely because they are different. In fact, believing that Haitian people should not be helped, should be left to starve and die because of their beliefs or choices, might very well be one of these dangerous perspectives. Immigration policies that result in hatred or discrimination against people of color would also be dangerous.
The students might, as a class or school, have talked openly about what they learned about conflict, values, and respect during such a process; or about how participating in the process changed them. The teacher might have evaluated their ability to be respectful, to think carefully about the issues and perspectives, and to commit to and demonstrate higher principles.
As Mr. Pitts pointed out, the students might then have learned the very valuable lesson that “reasonable people reason their way through disagreements,” that it might be important for people to be able to express their opinions, but it is just as important to give others the chance to do the same. Some of those opinions will lead to needed changes and improvements in our society, and some opinions will lead to actions that harm our society. Students of all ages need to learn how to carefully evaluate these opinions for themselves, rather than merely following along with the most charismatic or well-marketed or well-funded opinion stater. But, of course, that would require teachers and principals (and the rest of us) to be reasonable and to have developed enough them(our)selves to see the value in going through such a process. Perhaps we are not always there yet – as the newspaper examples illustrated.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Oil and Ethics
Is there really anyway an ethics expert can justifiably avoid discussing the Gulf oil spill? I think not. Perhaps our inclinations are always to focus on the evils of big corporations. But then, perhaps the historical evils of big corporations are what lead us to suspect that this time also they have not done the right thing. So, what about it? Eleven men have lost their lives. We have certainly been hearing about the $500,000 that was not spent on a backup system in case of an oil spill. In Florida, there is a great deal of talk about cancelling any approved or proposed drilling programs off of our coast – programs that were voted on by politicians who favored the oil company’s desires.
So, where do the ethical questions lie? I think there are a number of ethical questions for politicians, oil company executives, and the public to ask themselves:
Some questions relate to taking care of the environment so that it can sustain us long term – for instance,
• Are we paying attention to what it takes to live sustainably, using only our share of the earth’s resources, the resources that we actually need, rather than far more than we need or that the earth can bear over time?
• Have we reduced our consumption of non-renewable energy – like oil – by driving smaller cars, riding bikes and walking, and investing in renewable energy, environmentally friendly appliances and supplies (e.g., online newspapers and products, eliminating plastic bags and water bottles)
• Or are we, in our ever expanding greed, taking whatever we can get away with, for as long as we can get away with it, somewhat in competition with others who are doing the same thing?
• Are we staying aware of what will damage the environment and thinking about how we might leave a useable world for our children and grandchildren?
• When the environment is unavoidably damaged, do we “give back” by cleaning up the messes, cleaning up the spills, cleaning up the animals and their habitats?
• Or do we have only the present tense attitude of “getting while the getting is good?”
• Or are we simply uninformed, unaware, and uneducated about what it takes to sustain a healthy and functioning environment?
Some questions relate to carefully weighing the potential harm to other industries and stakeholders should oil companies’ assurances about safety not be upheld by realities – for instance,
• Do we, our politicians, or other decision makers fully inform ourselves so as to be able to evaluate the claims of those who make the news, of companies who want to use our natural or other resources?
• Do we hire, if necessary, independent experts or scholars to evaluate the claims if we are not able to do so ourselves? Do we listen to them?
• Are we taking every precaution or insisting that companies take every precaution to ensure that people and environments and economies are not hurt?
• Or do we swallow, hook, line, and sinker the company’s claims – because they are authority figures who we want, need, or hope we can trust; or because they have big, profitable companies?
Some questions relate to doing the right thing in a profit-driven environment – for instance,
• Do we expect companies, company leaders, and politicians to act ethically, investigating their character before we select/elect them or purchase their products, expecting them to demonstrate to us that they do their best to always do the right thing?
• Do we expect these folks to have restitution and recovery plans in place in case the unavoidable happens and people, property, or the environment are harmed?
• If the unavoidable happens, do we behave ethically, by insisting firmly but respectfully, assertively, but in ways that value relationships, that companies, company leaders, and politicians do the right thing?
• Or do we fall prey to advertising gimmicks that tell us what we want to hear?
• Or buy into the notion that companies have the right to do anything they want to in order to make profit for the stockholders?
• Or accept their premise that whatever the market will bear, they can do, without understanding that WE are the market and thus can say, “No.”
Some questions relate to encouraging workplace health, so that everyone is working at the top of their game, in jobs that they feel very committed to because they have a sense of calling or “vocation” associated with the work – for instance,
• Do we accept what Dennis Bakke, former CEO of AES, calls “having fun” at work – which means not being or feeling like a cog in a machine; choosing what we want to do at work, what gives us the most fulfillment, what fits best with our interests and needs and talents?
• Or do we just accept that work is work, and that it isn’t supposed to be fun and enriching? That whatever the boss says goes? That we aren’t supposed to have a voice? That our jobs may be at risk if we say what we really want to say?
• Do we aspire to treat everyone as gifted in some way, as deserving of respect and kindness, as worthy of being listened to?
• As a result, do we create the kinds of environments where people speak about their concerns, the best answers are found, and there is the least likelihood that crises like this oil spill will happen?
• Or do we only grant such privileges to those in power, those making the most money?
Some questions relate to whether we expect everyone in a company to do their best at their job and to do what’s optimal ethically;
• Do we really try our best to create the best products possible and have optimal working relationships with our colleagues and others?
• Or do we just go along, waiting until the work day is over so we can have fun, saying and doing as little as possible, keeping our head down and our nose to the grindstone?
• Do we try always to do the right thing, reflecting carefully on our and our company’s values when making decisions, and always aim for what is optimal ethically?
• Or do we get while the getting is good, get what we can before anyone notices, or do the minimum we have to in order to meet legal requirements -- without considering the bigger picture?
Some questions relate to whether we, as members of the public, balance our lives in ways that allow us to invest energy in ensuring that our communities are strong and that we are all working together for what is optimal – including informing our politicians of what matters to us – rather than having a fire truck mentality in which we only react in a crisis.
• Do we take the responsibility to be intentional about how we live day-to-day in our communities, how we raise our children, how we treat our neighbors, and what we expect of those who do business or run organizations in our communities?
• Or are we on automatic, struggling to get by, and figuring that whenever we can get a break, we will take it?
• Do we wisely decide what to invest our time and money in, so that we will have time and money left over to improve our society, to consider what is optimal ethically, to inform our politicians and decision makers so as to help them to make good choices, and to intervene in whatever ways are necessary to stop illegal, unethical, or simply unwise behavior?
• Or do we cram as much activity and fun as we can into every hour of the day because life is short, and if we don’t, we might “lose,” although it is sometimes unclear what the prize might be for winning the race.
These are all ethical questions, about responsibility, kindness, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, citizenship, wisdom, courage, and about living thoughtfully or intentionally, rather than on automatic. They are questions that we need to think carefully about if we are to do the right thing, if we are to make the best choices, if we and our companies are to become healthy, are to be around for the long term, and are to create communities that we all want to work and live in.
Should we point the finger at the oil companies because of the “crisis” that faces many people, companies, and states at the present moment? We could.
Should we ask the companies the above questions and expect answers? We should!
But more importantly, should we ask ourselves and our friends and neighbors and coworkers these very same questions? And ask them and ask them and ask them – so that we intentionally create the kinds of communities where oil companies and others will not succeed or exist unless they too comply with what is right? Absolutely! And let’s start right away!
/
/
So, where do the ethical questions lie? I think there are a number of ethical questions for politicians, oil company executives, and the public to ask themselves:
Some questions relate to taking care of the environment so that it can sustain us long term – for instance,
• Are we paying attention to what it takes to live sustainably, using only our share of the earth’s resources, the resources that we actually need, rather than far more than we need or that the earth can bear over time?
• Have we reduced our consumption of non-renewable energy – like oil – by driving smaller cars, riding bikes and walking, and investing in renewable energy, environmentally friendly appliances and supplies (e.g., online newspapers and products, eliminating plastic bags and water bottles)
• Or are we, in our ever expanding greed, taking whatever we can get away with, for as long as we can get away with it, somewhat in competition with others who are doing the same thing?
• Are we staying aware of what will damage the environment and thinking about how we might leave a useable world for our children and grandchildren?
• When the environment is unavoidably damaged, do we “give back” by cleaning up the messes, cleaning up the spills, cleaning up the animals and their habitats?
• Or do we have only the present tense attitude of “getting while the getting is good?”
• Or are we simply uninformed, unaware, and uneducated about what it takes to sustain a healthy and functioning environment?
Some questions relate to carefully weighing the potential harm to other industries and stakeholders should oil companies’ assurances about safety not be upheld by realities – for instance,
• Do we, our politicians, or other decision makers fully inform ourselves so as to be able to evaluate the claims of those who make the news, of companies who want to use our natural or other resources?
• Do we hire, if necessary, independent experts or scholars to evaluate the claims if we are not able to do so ourselves? Do we listen to them?
• Are we taking every precaution or insisting that companies take every precaution to ensure that people and environments and economies are not hurt?
• Or do we swallow, hook, line, and sinker the company’s claims – because they are authority figures who we want, need, or hope we can trust; or because they have big, profitable companies?
Some questions relate to doing the right thing in a profit-driven environment – for instance,
• Do we expect companies, company leaders, and politicians to act ethically, investigating their character before we select/elect them or purchase their products, expecting them to demonstrate to us that they do their best to always do the right thing?
• Do we expect these folks to have restitution and recovery plans in place in case the unavoidable happens and people, property, or the environment are harmed?
• If the unavoidable happens, do we behave ethically, by insisting firmly but respectfully, assertively, but in ways that value relationships, that companies, company leaders, and politicians do the right thing?
• Or do we fall prey to advertising gimmicks that tell us what we want to hear?
• Or buy into the notion that companies have the right to do anything they want to in order to make profit for the stockholders?
• Or accept their premise that whatever the market will bear, they can do, without understanding that WE are the market and thus can say, “No.”
Some questions relate to encouraging workplace health, so that everyone is working at the top of their game, in jobs that they feel very committed to because they have a sense of calling or “vocation” associated with the work – for instance,
• Do we accept what Dennis Bakke, former CEO of AES, calls “having fun” at work – which means not being or feeling like a cog in a machine; choosing what we want to do at work, what gives us the most fulfillment, what fits best with our interests and needs and talents?
• Or do we just accept that work is work, and that it isn’t supposed to be fun and enriching? That whatever the boss says goes? That we aren’t supposed to have a voice? That our jobs may be at risk if we say what we really want to say?
• Do we aspire to treat everyone as gifted in some way, as deserving of respect and kindness, as worthy of being listened to?
• As a result, do we create the kinds of environments where people speak about their concerns, the best answers are found, and there is the least likelihood that crises like this oil spill will happen?
• Or do we only grant such privileges to those in power, those making the most money?
Some questions relate to whether we expect everyone in a company to do their best at their job and to do what’s optimal ethically;
• Do we really try our best to create the best products possible and have optimal working relationships with our colleagues and others?
• Or do we just go along, waiting until the work day is over so we can have fun, saying and doing as little as possible, keeping our head down and our nose to the grindstone?
• Do we try always to do the right thing, reflecting carefully on our and our company’s values when making decisions, and always aim for what is optimal ethically?
• Or do we get while the getting is good, get what we can before anyone notices, or do the minimum we have to in order to meet legal requirements -- without considering the bigger picture?
Some questions relate to whether we, as members of the public, balance our lives in ways that allow us to invest energy in ensuring that our communities are strong and that we are all working together for what is optimal – including informing our politicians of what matters to us – rather than having a fire truck mentality in which we only react in a crisis.
• Do we take the responsibility to be intentional about how we live day-to-day in our communities, how we raise our children, how we treat our neighbors, and what we expect of those who do business or run organizations in our communities?
• Or are we on automatic, struggling to get by, and figuring that whenever we can get a break, we will take it?
• Do we wisely decide what to invest our time and money in, so that we will have time and money left over to improve our society, to consider what is optimal ethically, to inform our politicians and decision makers so as to help them to make good choices, and to intervene in whatever ways are necessary to stop illegal, unethical, or simply unwise behavior?
• Or do we cram as much activity and fun as we can into every hour of the day because life is short, and if we don’t, we might “lose,” although it is sometimes unclear what the prize might be for winning the race.
These are all ethical questions, about responsibility, kindness, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, citizenship, wisdom, courage, and about living thoughtfully or intentionally, rather than on automatic. They are questions that we need to think carefully about if we are to do the right thing, if we are to make the best choices, if we and our companies are to become healthy, are to be around for the long term, and are to create communities that we all want to work and live in.
Should we point the finger at the oil companies because of the “crisis” that faces many people, companies, and states at the present moment? We could.
Should we ask the companies the above questions and expect answers? We should!
But more importantly, should we ask ourselves and our friends and neighbors and coworkers these very same questions? And ask them and ask them and ask them – so that we intentionally create the kinds of communities where oil companies and others will not succeed or exist unless they too comply with what is right? Absolutely! And let’s start right away!
/
/
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?”
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Obama Care and Ethics
The big news, or the lack of it, last week was the Health Care Summit. The big news because it was discussed ad infinitum in every news or opinion venue. The lack of big news because it seems that, despite our tentative hopes, no miracles emerged from the summit. I began thinking about the ethical issues related to health care, why this has become such a big issue, why it is and promises to affect so many people. Here are my thoughts.
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Ultimate Challenge to a Father’s Love
Many of us will do “the right thing” when it is easy or pleasurable for us. The real test is when the right thing challenges us or may hurt us. The “hurt” might be the loss of a relationship, the loss of a job, the loss of money. And therein lay the ethical dilemmas that face us on a regular basis. If ethical behavior was easy, we would have a very different world. If ethical behavior was easy, we wouldn’t need newsletters and blogs and trainings and continuing education requirements related to ethics. And if our country’s leaders thought that ethical behavior was easy, they wouldn’t have passed Sarbanes-Oxley and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in their attempts to motivate companies to behave ethically. They wouldn’t be fining financial institutions whose ethical behavior had challenged the very economic security of our country.
But few of us will encounter the ethical challenge faced by Alhaji Umaru Mutallab. Alhaji is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father. Umar is the son who boarded the Northwest airliner on Christmas Day with bombs strapped to his body. And as Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times commented, behind all of the fracas of questioning how Umar was able to get through security to board the plane, behind the questioning of our security systems, behind trying to figure out who to blame for the security failure, is a powerful story of fatherly sacrifice, of a father who made a very hard decision.
When Alhaji became worried about the potential danger of his son’s fervent, radical version of Islam, about his son’s newfound fundamentalist commitments, Alhaji went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn the authorities. Can you imagine doing that? Turning in your own child? This father recognized and confessed a breakdown; his confession was in the service of a greater good. In his case, the breakdown might have been in the family or the community or the religious institution in which the son was raised. In other situations, breakdowns may occur in our assumptions, our schools, our companies or organizations. But the key is that we don’t always get it right. Even if we are trying to do it right, we may blow it. We are not perfect creatures – never will be. And some of us aren’t even trying.
But someone needs to keep in mind “the greater good,” the larger community that may be negatively affected by our imperfections or poor choices or outright evil. Someone needs to step up to the plate, take responsibility, and commit to making it right. Is it easy? No. Do we need to do it? Yes. If we don’t, people get hurt, our environment gets hurt, future generations get hurt. We can say all we like, “But everyone does it.” Or “I’m just one person – what I do doesn’t count.” Or “What one person does won’t make that much difference.” Or “I did the best I could.”
Even if these statements are true, even if our souls or hearts have become so calloused that we really believe the excuses, the reality is that if one person’s bad behavior touches three others, then that can multiply and escalate exponentially in a very short time. In particular, the message gets passed along that “This is the way we operate in our society,” and others believe it and emulate it.
Fortunately, the opposite is also true. The Pay It Forward foundation has a wonderful video clip on their website that shows the exponential impact of spreading good deeds or behaving with good character (payitforward.com). What would happen if we each decided to do what the young boy does in the movie? What would happen if we did a good deed for three people each day, and asked them to do the same? What if we resisted all temptations to do the wrong thing, knowing that its impact would spread just as exponentially. Does the picture of exponential spreading of harm or good motivate you in any way? It does me. Suddenly, I am not “an island” anymore. Suddenly, I am connected in meaningful ways to everything and everyone around me. And, suddenly, I have the great responsibility of paying close attention to even the smallest of my deeds, of not brushing anything off by considering it unimportant, of aiming for what’s optimal. Umar’s father made a sacrifice that is probably larger than any of us will ever have to make. Surely we can get on board to make the small ones.
But few of us will encounter the ethical challenge faced by Alhaji Umaru Mutallab. Alhaji is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father. Umar is the son who boarded the Northwest airliner on Christmas Day with bombs strapped to his body. And as Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times commented, behind all of the fracas of questioning how Umar was able to get through security to board the plane, behind the questioning of our security systems, behind trying to figure out who to blame for the security failure, is a powerful story of fatherly sacrifice, of a father who made a very hard decision.
When Alhaji became worried about the potential danger of his son’s fervent, radical version of Islam, about his son’s newfound fundamentalist commitments, Alhaji went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to warn the authorities. Can you imagine doing that? Turning in your own child? This father recognized and confessed a breakdown; his confession was in the service of a greater good. In his case, the breakdown might have been in the family or the community or the religious institution in which the son was raised. In other situations, breakdowns may occur in our assumptions, our schools, our companies or organizations. But the key is that we don’t always get it right. Even if we are trying to do it right, we may blow it. We are not perfect creatures – never will be. And some of us aren’t even trying.
But someone needs to keep in mind “the greater good,” the larger community that may be negatively affected by our imperfections or poor choices or outright evil. Someone needs to step up to the plate, take responsibility, and commit to making it right. Is it easy? No. Do we need to do it? Yes. If we don’t, people get hurt, our environment gets hurt, future generations get hurt. We can say all we like, “But everyone does it.” Or “I’m just one person – what I do doesn’t count.” Or “What one person does won’t make that much difference.” Or “I did the best I could.”
Even if these statements are true, even if our souls or hearts have become so calloused that we really believe the excuses, the reality is that if one person’s bad behavior touches three others, then that can multiply and escalate exponentially in a very short time. In particular, the message gets passed along that “This is the way we operate in our society,” and others believe it and emulate it.
Fortunately, the opposite is also true. The Pay It Forward foundation has a wonderful video clip on their website that shows the exponential impact of spreading good deeds or behaving with good character (payitforward.com). What would happen if we each decided to do what the young boy does in the movie? What would happen if we did a good deed for three people each day, and asked them to do the same? What if we resisted all temptations to do the wrong thing, knowing that its impact would spread just as exponentially. Does the picture of exponential spreading of harm or good motivate you in any way? It does me. Suddenly, I am not “an island” anymore. Suddenly, I am connected in meaningful ways to everything and everyone around me. And, suddenly, I have the great responsibility of paying close attention to even the smallest of my deeds, of not brushing anything off by considering it unimportant, of aiming for what’s optimal. Umar’s father made a sacrifice that is probably larger than any of us will ever have to make. Surely we can get on board to make the small ones.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Virtue vs. Vanity
Here we are in the New Year, a new decade, a time that most of us hope will be better than the last couple of years. If you are like me, you have either thought about New Year’s resolutions, are avoiding thinking about them, or are wondering when you will find the time to carefully consider what you want your life to look like in the New Year.
But whatever state your resolutions are in, what are your thoughts about how to decide what you will aim for? Will you decide on “fixing” areas of your life that are in disarray? Will you decide to become something that you are not? Will you let vanity overwhelm values? Or do you have other strategies?
I ask these questions because of what our resolutions typically look like. I have heard many people aspire to lose 20 pounds; to get in shape; to buy the new car they’ve dreamt about; to get the mess in their house cleaned up; to make $1,000,000; to change jobs; to get the big promotion. . . . Well, you get my drift. Is it any wonder that we hear over and over again how few people actualize their resolutions?
Could it be that whatever needs fixing can’t be fixed with just a decision, that some depth work, some digging is needed to recover from past experiences? Could it be that we are aiming for something that has little real worth, something that won’t really fix our lives or bring us joy? Could it be that we are trying to reach our goals by ourselves, without asking for help from others or from a Higher Power? Could it be that we have set our goals without consulting the people who really matter to us, and had we consulted, we would have discovered the need for some compromising in order to ensure that we weren’t impinging on another’s dreams and hopes and resolutions? Could it be that our resolutions are really just responses to external pressures, rather than drawn from our innermost selves, and that as a result, a healthy part of ourselves rebels against merely doing what others seem to want?
What would it look like to do New Year’s resolutions differently? What would happen if we considered making Resolutions to be an opportunity to get our lives in order, to become clear about who we want to be, how we want to live and work, and how we want to do relationships – at home, in the neighborhood, and at work? What would happen if we used this opportunity to set aside regular time for reflecting, for talking seriously with the people who matter to us? Might our resolutions turn out differently if we made them more an exercise in discovering our values than in feeding our vanity (you know, the car, the figure, the body, the money)?
For instance, if we chose several character traits to aim for (e.g. integrity, trust, courage, wisdom, caring, respect), reflected on them each morning with our coffee, and decided to do just one thing of character each day – what might happen? If we chose several areas of our lives (e.g., our relationships, our work, our commitments to “giving back”) or only one to focus these character traits on – might we actually make our resolutions a reality? Consider how your world might change if you decided. . .
• to smile at everyone whom you encountered;
• to look into the eyes of people who were talking with you so as to really
hear them and understand them;
• to take on one new thing each day that you’ve never done before;
• to approach every conflict or disappointment with peacefulness in your heart;
• to get rid of the impatience in your voice as you spoke with your children
or employees;
• to always tell the truth, even it is hard;
• to see the people around you as people, rather than as instruments to help
you to reach your aims
• to ask yourself, as you approach each relationship or conversation, what you
might offer to the other person?
Well, these are some of my ideas about living with character. But no one can decide for you. You have to decide what being wise means, how to be caring, where you need to be courageous. You get to decide what your life will look like this year. Make it a good, well-considered choice – and remember, you get to decide what “good,” or “better,” or “best” is. May you make it the best year yet in very important and meaningful ways!
But whatever state your resolutions are in, what are your thoughts about how to decide what you will aim for? Will you decide on “fixing” areas of your life that are in disarray? Will you decide to become something that you are not? Will you let vanity overwhelm values? Or do you have other strategies?
I ask these questions because of what our resolutions typically look like. I have heard many people aspire to lose 20 pounds; to get in shape; to buy the new car they’ve dreamt about; to get the mess in their house cleaned up; to make $1,000,000; to change jobs; to get the big promotion. . . . Well, you get my drift. Is it any wonder that we hear over and over again how few people actualize their resolutions?
Could it be that whatever needs fixing can’t be fixed with just a decision, that some depth work, some digging is needed to recover from past experiences? Could it be that we are aiming for something that has little real worth, something that won’t really fix our lives or bring us joy? Could it be that we are trying to reach our goals by ourselves, without asking for help from others or from a Higher Power? Could it be that we have set our goals without consulting the people who really matter to us, and had we consulted, we would have discovered the need for some compromising in order to ensure that we weren’t impinging on another’s dreams and hopes and resolutions? Could it be that our resolutions are really just responses to external pressures, rather than drawn from our innermost selves, and that as a result, a healthy part of ourselves rebels against merely doing what others seem to want?
What would it look like to do New Year’s resolutions differently? What would happen if we considered making Resolutions to be an opportunity to get our lives in order, to become clear about who we want to be, how we want to live and work, and how we want to do relationships – at home, in the neighborhood, and at work? What would happen if we used this opportunity to set aside regular time for reflecting, for talking seriously with the people who matter to us? Might our resolutions turn out differently if we made them more an exercise in discovering our values than in feeding our vanity (you know, the car, the figure, the body, the money)?
For instance, if we chose several character traits to aim for (e.g. integrity, trust, courage, wisdom, caring, respect), reflected on them each morning with our coffee, and decided to do just one thing of character each day – what might happen? If we chose several areas of our lives (e.g., our relationships, our work, our commitments to “giving back”) or only one to focus these character traits on – might we actually make our resolutions a reality? Consider how your world might change if you decided. . .
• to smile at everyone whom you encountered;
• to look into the eyes of people who were talking with you so as to really
hear them and understand them;
• to take on one new thing each day that you’ve never done before;
• to approach every conflict or disappointment with peacefulness in your heart;
• to get rid of the impatience in your voice as you spoke with your children
or employees;
• to always tell the truth, even it is hard;
• to see the people around you as people, rather than as instruments to help
you to reach your aims
• to ask yourself, as you approach each relationship or conversation, what you
might offer to the other person?
Well, these are some of my ideas about living with character. But no one can decide for you. You have to decide what being wise means, how to be caring, where you need to be courageous. You get to decide what your life will look like this year. Make it a good, well-considered choice – and remember, you get to decide what “good,” or “better,” or “best” is. May you make it the best year yet in very important and meaningful ways!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
