Discourse On Discord

Also see this article posted online at its original source: http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2013/07/15/discourse-on-discord/

Late last Saturday night, the jury in the trial of George Zimmerman returned a not guilty verdict in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

I had ignored the coverage for most of the trial, though it became more difficult as the sides reached their closing arguments. Some radio and TV stations had live coverage at the courthouse and Twitter and blogs were alight with commentary. My daily walking companion, a dear neighbor whose views on most things political and social are diametrically opposed to mine, raised some aspect of the trial in conversation, and I swiftly changed the subject. A high-school classmate posted an inflammatory and factually incorrect note on Facebook and I chose not to engage.

It’s not as if I didn’t have a viewpoint. My opinion in the case was that Trayvon Martin had been grievously wronged — by endemic societal biases, by profiling, by loose gun laws. What that would mean for a verdict, I didn’t know, but I had a persistent feeling of dread throughout the week. I tried to write about the ethics of the case, but didn’t trust the objectivity of my analysis and I eventually cast the work aside. Even now that the verdict is in, I can scarcely bring myself to read about the case or listen to anyone’s reactions to it. This all leads me to ask myself, as I would a client in treatment, “So what is that avoidance about?”

At the risk of coining a new disorder for the mental health diagnostic manual, I think I am suffering from entrenchment fatigue. The causes are easy enough to understand. Local, state and federal governing bodies are mired in such animus that they can’t even agree to meet, much less to act. Around the globe, sectarian and gender violence is on the upswing. Nuanced views are lost in 140-character tweets and viral posts. Homogenized news programming presents the news with the slant its particular viewer demographic prefers.

The symptoms of entrenchment fatigue also are recognizable: ennui, social withdrawal, perceived helplessness, and a penchant for watching old TV reruns or YouTube videos of zany pets. Unfortunately, entrenchment fatigue has serious consequences for individuals, families, and communities. To retreat in the face of strongly held positions (mine or others) may be prudent, but it does not strike me as ethical. It drives us apart and enlarges our differences instead of creating common ground. It organizes our discourse around superficialities, sidelines facts in service of opinion, and marginalizes voices that should be heard.

The strategies for overcoming entrenchment fatigue, particularly around an issue as serious and polarizing as the killing of Trayvon Martin, led me to revisit the literature on moral courage and crucial conversations. I’ve distilled those resources into considerations I must use to get out of the trench and back into the dialogue. Relevant questions and conversations include:

1. Think about how I know what I know.

• What sources inform my view?
• Consider the ways they are biased.
• Acknowledge how my perceptions of my position and others’ are distorted by these sources.
• Determine and stick to facts

2. Decide what I want to accomplish and with whom.

• Do I want to create room for an exchange of views?
• Do I want to change another person’s position?
• Do I want to stake out my views for distant contacts in the Twittersphere?
• Different objectives will lead to different strategies. Clarity about what I want to accomplish will help me “keep my eyes on the prize” throughout these conversations. I want to have authentic relationships with my friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues. (Some relationships are more significant and enduring. Overcoming entrenchment with these people seems like it should take priority over doing so with strangers or acquaintances.)

3. What do I not want to have happen?

• I do not want to lie about my views in order to keep the peace.
• I do not want to make important relationships contentious.
• I do not want to be disagreeable in the process of disagreeing.

4. Use effective communications skills.

• Use active listening and appreciative inquiry.
• Regulate tone and other nonverbal measures.
• Avoid inflammatory tactics.
• Use questions to open the conversation, rather than close it.
• Beware of negative projections or attributions.
• Manage powerful emotions.

5.      Find common ground.

• What do we know about each other already?
• On what do we agree in general and in this instance?
• What things inform our differing perspectives?
• How can we create shared meaning?

Having thought through these steps, with my neighbor and the Trayvon Martin case in mind, I intend to put them into action the next time we take a walk. Admittedly, this is a relatively low-risk conversation. Neither of us has a personal stake in the case or in the outcome of our discussion. We are not required to come to agreement or a plan of action: I am striving for conversation not consensus. At worst it could disrupt a genial relationship; at best it could broaden our perspectives and deepen that friendship. The alternatives — silence or retreat — leave us both vulnerable to corrosive assumptions about the other’s position and motives, and that would seem to be the most troubling outcome of all.

Ambiguity About Heroes

See original posting at:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2013/06/24/ambiguity-about-heroes/

Are whistle-blowers heroes or rats? Traitors or patriots? Brave or naïve? Exemplars of moral courage or attention-seeking media hounds?

In the past two weeks, Edward Snowden has come forward to acknowledge his role in releasing top secret documents concerning surveillance of U.S. and foreign citizens by the U.S. government. The case has served as a Rorschach test for observers’ projections of what constitutes heroism in our society. A quick Google search or scan of Twitter feeds reads like a series of playground taunts.

“He’s a hero!”
“Is not!”
“Is so!”
“Is not!”

What accounts for the ambiguity about heroism and the intensity of disagreement? On the surface, Snowden’s actions fit with common definitions of moral courage:

• Accepting challenges that put one’s “reputation, emotional well-being, self-esteem or other characteristics” in jeopardy (Moral Courage by Rushworth Kidder)
• Having “the capacity to overcome the fear of shame and humiliation in order to admit one’s mistakes, to confess a wrong, to reject evil conformity, to renounce injustice, and also to defy immoral or imprudent orders” (The Mystery of Courage by William Ian Miller)

No less notable a whistle-blower than Daniel Ellsberg has gone on record to endorse Snowden’s actions and note the parallels between their respective revelations and the government’s response to them.
Snowden’s decision to reveal the surveillance program represents a classic truth-vs.-loyalty dilemma in which promises of confidentiality are challenged by the gravity of certain secrets and the pressure to reveal them. If Snowden’s case is emblematic of moral courage in the face of a right-vs.-right dilemma, why is this situation so controversial?

Let’s examine Snowden in light of common whistle-blower critiques.

The Whistle-blower’s Motivations Are Suspect
Whistle-blowers whose actions seem driven by personal animus (e.g., “the disgruntled employee”) often are discredited on the basis of impure motives. Bradley Manning, now on trial for disclosing war footage and diplomatic cables through WikiLeaks, has been derided as unstable and embittered by his treatment in the Army. To date, Snowden’s work history reveals no suggestions that he fits these categories or was driven by animus against the government or the employer.

Is he a spy? Former vice president Dick Cheney has questioned Snowden’s decision to flee to Hong Kong and implied that his acts might be the result of an affiliation with a foreign government such as China. Is it not clear if Cheney’s insinuation is based on data about nefarious motives or whether it represents a campaign to discredit Snowden’s act by casting it as immoral and illegal.

Whistle-blowers also can be marginalized when they are believed to acting in self-interest. These “benefits” might include monetary rewards, special dispensation, or plea agreements for informants in criminal cases. News reports indicate no apparent rewards for Snowden’s leak. In fact, the punishments are manifest. In the time that I have been writing this column, Edward Snowden has been charged by federal prosecutors with espionage and theft of government property.

For his part, Snowden denies altruism. “What I’m doing is self-interested: I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.”

The Whistle-Blower Went About It The Wrong Way

In his critique of Snowden’s heroism, CBS newsman Bob Schieffer compared Snowden to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr., but criticized his flight to Hong Kong as unwillingness to face the consequences of his actions. A contrasting view might suggest that his openness to public identification, jeopardizing his relationships, and turning his back on his career and country are in fact consequences that he has accepted freely, not acts of cowardice.

Others would suggest that widespread distribution of classified data is irresponsible and risky. If concerns exist, this reasoning goes, would-be whistle-blowers should use their chains of command to seek change. Unfortunately, the literature on scandals is replete with examples of earnest change agents whose efforts to work within the system were stymied, mocked, punished, or white-washed. As Ellsberg notes, “the information about unconstitutional activity that he put out could only be reversed or stopped if the public knows about it, and there was absolutely no way for them or most members of Congress to learn about it without him putting it out.”

The Whistle-Blower Created Greater Harms Than He Prevented
This argument would submit that openness is acceptable for some issues (e.g., shoddy products, bigoted TV hosts, manipulation of financial markets) but not for matters of national security. Similar complaints are tied to the Manning/WikiLeaks case. Specifically:

• The release of classified documents assists enemies of the United States by informing them of governmental activities.
• Surveillance programs and military campaigns are approved and monitored by elected officials. These checks and balances will ensure that they are conducted properly.
• Secret programs keep the United States safe. Leaks jeopardize those programs and put the country at risk of terrorist attacks.

The merits of these arguments and the relative risks and benefits are under avid discussion. Snowden maintains that he was discerning in the information that he shared, offering the least amount necessary to achieve his objectives. Whether his actions will have unintended consequences and how those effects should be weighed constitute important short-term-vs.-long-term dilemmas, worthy of broad discussion.

We Don’t Like Whistle-blowers

Snitches get stitches. Don’t be a tattle tale. Go along to get along. These and other aphorisms capture the cultural ambivalence about whistle-blowing. Polls on the Snowden case indicate that most citizens oppose government phone monitoring, but a majority also favors prosecution of Snowden. There are differences in these numbers depending on the demographic sub-group polled and the way poll questions were framed, but they reveal the duality of reactions to acts of moral courage: People are glad for the act of courage though they may not rush to support the actor.

How Loud Should The Whistle-Blower Be?

Also see this article posted online at its original source:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2013/04/29/how-loud/

Sally is the business manager at a nonprofit agency. She detected financial irregularities and reported them to her immediate supervisor, the vice president for Finance and Operations, Jack. With the help of the agency’s external accountants, the team determined that Belinda, the company’s president, had been misusing agency funds, in part to conceal an extramarital affair with another staff member. Preliminary estimates placed the embezzlement at $50,000. The board of directors’ executive committee met with Belinda and gave her the opportunity to resign “for personal reasons” instead of being terminated. She accepted the offer and remains in the community, interviewing for other leadership positions. Belinda holds a state license in her profession. She also serves as the president-elect of the state consortium of nonprofit organizations.

Sally is dismayed that the board gave Belinda the option to select a gracious exit. She does not know the terms of the departure, but wonders if the theft should be reported to the police, the accrediting agency, or the licensure board? In raising these concerns with Jack, Sally was told that the board felt that negative publicity would compound the damage to the agency and that it was “best to do things quietly. If other organizations want to hire Belinda,” they said, “it will be up to them to do their own due diligence in screening her for a job.”

The characters and the organization are fictitious, but the dilemma is all too real. A company experiences a data breach. A student is caught drinking beer against team rules. A search committee member asks a job candidate questions that violate nondiscrimination laws. All of us have encountered scenarios in which we had to address infractions in policies, rules, or laws.

Even in cases of egregious behavior, it can take courage to call attention to the problem and to speak truth to power. But is speaking up sufficient? Is it enough to educate, castigate, or terminate the individual involved? Is it enough to report it up the chain of command, even if the hierarchy does nothing?

My musings last year on the pedophilia scandal and cover-up at Penn State keep coming back to these questions. Assistant coach Mike McQueary observed a sexual assault in the Penn State locker room and reported it to his superiors; although the allegations made their way to the administration, no change was forthcoming and McQueary has been excoriated for his failure to do more. On at least two occasions (in 1998 and 2001) Jerry Sandusky was confronted about inappropriate contact with young boys. Promises were extracted that he would cease his behavior, his locker room keys were taken away, and he was prohibited from bringing youth to campus. Still, more than a decade would pass before he was brought to justice.

Sandusky’s accusers, like Sally and Jack in the vignette, likely were deterred by considerations of justice versus mercy, truth versus loyalty, individual versus other, and short-term versus long-term implications. Let’s look at the vignette through the lens of these tensions.

Belinda’s behaviors were clearly inappropriate and illegal. Action had to be taken to right the financial wrongs and discipline her misdeeds. But how much “justice” is required? Sally, Jack, and the board are clearly at odds over the sufficiency of the punishment rendered. Those who want to keep the scandal “in house” may reason that Belinda was an excellent leader in other respects and conclude that the fraud was an atypical lapse in judgment for which she has paid a price. Sally may contend that Belinda violated standards (legal and professional) that are bigger than just the organization.

Personnel matters, including separation agreements, are typically confidential. Sally is in a bind between her desire to make the facts of Belinda’s case more widely known and her obligations of loyalty to her employer and the law. Does it make a difference if her motives are honorable (to protect other organizations from malfeasance) or malicious (to shame Belinda for her behavior and the trouble she caused the business office)? Does it make a difference if the Board fails to recoup the misspent funds?

There are many stakeholders in the case. Allowing Belinda to resign is sensitive to her as an individual, but does the secrecy of the process jeopardize the organization by failing to report a crime and thus allowing the behavior to continue elsewhere? Sally may decide to speak up on her own, but it will be at her own peril if she is countermanding the board and her supervisor in doing so.

Scandals often give rise to short-term thinking. How can an incident be handled swiftly with minimal cost to the organization? In this case, as in others, silence in the short term is intended to spare the organization bad PR, circumvent scrutiny about its use of funds or governance practices, and avoid protracted proceedings to terminate a problem employee. Negotiating to “make the problem go away” can be driven also by the fear of rebound litigation. All of these consequences have long-term financial and reputational costs for the organization.

Unfortunately, negative long-term costs can accrue also from short-term compromises and cover-ups. The recent public outcry about the enraged Rutgers basketball coach aptly demonstrates how personnel actions may seem reasonable until viewed with fresh perspectives. In Belinda’s case, news accounts that the organization just “passed along” a problematic employee will have reputational costs. Funders who feel doubly defrauded by the stolen money and the concealment may create grave financial consequences.

When is enough, enough? And who gets to decide? Ethical considerations abound on both sides. A sound decision at Sally’s agency requires thorough deliberation of the options and alignment with the “principle of publicity” to appreciate the view that stakeholders may take on the decision. A knee-jerk effort at self-preservation is neither ethical nor sufficient, because even if Belinda is no longer the agency’s employee, she could still be their problem.

A Personal Take On Global Ethics

Also see this article posted online at its original source:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2013/03/25/personal-take/

I have just returned from a vacation in Spain. It was my first time in that country, but one of two trips I typically take overseas each year for work and pleasure. I love the opportunity to observe new customs, visit historic sites, meet new people, and try new foods.

In order to take in the scenery and mitigate stress, my companions and I get around on public transportation. This year, that meant cabs, planes, trains, subways, and buses. The experiences of the last two weeks in queuing up, paying, and seeking assistance brought to mind other such encounters in China and a number of U.S. and European cities.

I am cautious about generalizing from a single American viewpoint based on snapshot experiences, but over the years, I’ve observed significant differences in respect for space, orderliness, helpfulness, patience, and trustworthiness, even within our own country. As I reflected on my common daily interactions in Spain, I was reminded of the dilemma of ethical relativism and the challenges that it presents in ethics training and decision making.

At its essence, relativism suggests that there are no absolute standards of proper behavior and that the decision of what is ethical or acceptable is relative to individual or societal norms. By extension, relativism can become a constraint on action — “Who am I to judge that behavior? It may not be right for me, but who am I to say it is not okay for someone else to act that way?”

These questions always arise in some form during ethical discussions or ethics workshops. Sometimes they serve as a way to dodge the imperative of moral courage (e.g., “Well, I wouldn’t treat my child that way, but who am I to say that mother shouldn’t spank her misbehaving child?”). At other times, concerns about the risks of ethnocentrism or paternalism are offered in support of relativist approaches (e.g., “Why do we think we know best? What is ‘right’ depends on the culture.”). A third rationale questions the feasibility of achieving common moral standards (e.g., “How can I know the circumstances that affect others? Only those with intimate knowledge of another can say what is right.”)

When these discussions arise, I lean on the work of the Institute for Global Ethics and others in trying to articulate the risks posed by relativism, while acknowledging the legitimate concerns of tolerance, context, and respect for differences.

The work of the Institute suggests that there are, in fact, common values across cultures, including honesty, fairness, respect, responsibility, and compassion. While there are exceptions to these values and differences in the ways that they are operationalized, that doesn’t diminish the very presence of underlying shared principles upon which the diversions are based. Authors such as those cited in the “For further information” listing below carefully deconstruct the arguments for pure relativism (and pure absolutism), pointing out commonly held values on the rights to property and prohibitions against murder, even in the midst of wide global variations in the circumstances in which theft or homicide may be justified.

Clearly the customs associated with public transportation are less vital concerns than life and death, but they offer an opportunity to test the merits of culture in weighing right and wrong.

How then does one explain the differences in the way that an 18-inch space between people in a ticket line are handled in different countries or regions? Are these differing definitions of fairness and respect? Or do some groups or individuals simply reject the value of fairness altogether?

When an older adult with a cane or a youngster with crutches gets on board a bus, do other passengers offer seats to them or do they avert their eyes? Do they vacate special handicapped-reserved seats for those with obvious disabilities? What then is the definition of responsibility or compassion in these circumstances?

My subway musings on relativism suggest that cultural norms are neither irrelevant nor deterministic of ethical behavior. Instead, individuals internalize shared values but act on them in ways that are congruent with the people around them, based on culture, customs, and other norms.

The Ethics of Exits

Also see this article posted online at its original source:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2013/02/18/the-ethics-of-exits/

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI became the first pontiff in six centuries to resign his office. In the midst of the Lenten season, his departure, with scarcely two weeks’ notice, gives rise to interesting questions about the timing and circumstances of workplace exits. The transition of retirement is a developmental, economic, organizational, social, and psychological phenomenon. It is also an ethical dilemma when examined through the paradigm of competing goods.

First and foremost, the decision to retire involves individual-versus-other issues and short-term vs. long-term considerations. Employees, acting in their own interests, weigh the financial and social advantages of retirement against the benefits of continued employment. Some, for reasons of identity, ego, or passion for the job, will not retire even though they could well afford to do so. Others, driven by financial pressures, depleted pensions, or the need for health benefits, will refuse retirement even though their passion or capacity for the work has diminished. As of 2010, 16 percent of the labor force consisted of people over age 65, a four point increase since 1990 and a trend that is destined to continue.

Pope Benedict was 78 when he was selected for the position. He will be 85 at the time of his retirement. In certain positions where norms and policies place no upper limit on the age of the worker, the presumption is that only illness, incapacity, or death would trigger resignation. Indeed, despite his age, the pope’s resignation stunned the world. For university professors, Supreme Court justices and yes, pontiffs, keen self-understanding and humility are required to make the determination of the right time to make an exit.

In this light, Pope Benedict’s decision to retire, ostensibly because he is too weary (and perhaps ailing) to do the job, is a commendable subordination of personal interest to organizational needs. The timing and timeline of his departure, however, have created an organizational crisis as hurried steps are taken to replace the pontiff by Easter. It also will create nearly unprecedented circumstances for the Vatican as the new pope assumes leadership in proximity to his predecessor. As most other organizations already know well, strong boundaries and clear intentions will be necessary for the smooth transition. The retiree who can make a clean and positive break with his or her job will put organizational needs ahead of ego and self-interest and, in doing so, support the successor.
Is retiring always the selfless act in the competing goods of individual versus other? A contrary perspective casts retirement as the self-centered, short-term choice, citing the prior pope’s decision to continue on in the job despite suffering the ravages of Parkinson’s disease and serving until his death in office. These, too, constitute competing goods: It is good to retain the skill and wisdom of the elder for the benefit of the faith, organization, or corporation. In Pope John Paul’s case, his suffering constituted an inspirational, living model of martyrdom. On the other hand, it is also good to ensure competent leadership for the organization and, in most professions, support a worker’s decision to dedicate remaining time attending to health, family, or other personal interests rather than continue employment.

Organizations that incentivize or force retirements to bring in “fresh perspectives” or reduce payroll costs by hiring younger workers, without regard to the interests, abilities, and needs of the older employee also are making tradeoffs among competing goods. The immediate benefits for the organizational bottom line may come at the expense of workforce diversity, institutional memory, and senior expertise. Aggressive efforts to force retirements or downsize older employees also may result in claims of age discrimination, leading to the organization’s and the workers’ long-term harm.

Some workers’ resignation decisions are more nakedly self-interested and short term. In this category, consider the corporate titan or politician, ensconced in scandal, who suddenly elects to “spend more time with my family” rather than stay and face accountability in correcting their alleged misdeeds. (Some have suggested that Vatican scandals have played a larger role in Pope Benedict’s decision than the publicly offered rationale for resigning admits.) Resignations with excessively long lead times may complicate the replacement process if the incumbent lingers on, contaminating or delaying the selection and transition process.

The ethics of exits also affect those who surround the prospective retiree. In this case, Pope Benedict’s case diverges from typical retirements in that it appears he had little human consultation or influence in making his decision. More commonly, employees observe colleagues overstaying their welcome in the workplace and make them the subject of gossip or criticism, shared with co-workers but withheld from the colleague in question. Absent ageism or animus, it is clear to co-workers when an individual has lost interest or enthusiasm for the job, yet directly broaching such a topic is fraught with hazard. Superiors are advised to scrupulously avoid such conversations, as they could constitute age discrimination. Concerned peers must consider their own motivations and interests. Are they in a position to benefit from the colleague’s departure, or is the conversation truly in the other’s interest? If the latter is the case, the greater good is likely in a caring and forthright conversation about the person’s plans, in the hope of facilitating a gracious and timely exit. Demeaning sidebars behind the colleague’s back don’t constitute an ethical good for the workplace, the worker, or their colleagues.

The Ethics Of Political Brinksmanship

Also see this article posted online at its original source:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2012/12/17/political-brinksmanship/

Two more weeks until the United States pitches over the “fiscal cliff”!

The phrase is shorthand for the consequences anticipated on December 31 should the U.S. government fail to address the Budget Control Act of 2011 with its attendant tax hikes and spending cuts.

When Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warned of the fiscal cliff last February, he likely intended to heighten public awareness of the risks that would follow should leaders fail to address the national debt, spending, and the pending expiration of Bush-era tax cuts. Ten months later, as the deadline for action looms closer, the term fiscal cliff has been flung about so often that its power to shock has been replaced by its power to annoy. It’s a phrase now amplified by dire warnings of massive unemployment, Wall Street hoarding, economic stagnation, a decimated federal credit rating, middle-class devastation, and other apocalyptic forecasts. The language describing the negotiations themselves is similarly extreme (and prone to sports metaphors). These are gladiators, going multiple rounds in a showdown that is (variably) stalled, softening, heating up, tense, and too late. The negotiators are punching, posturing, leveraging, uncooperative, confident, blinking, playing chicken, flailing, taking hostages, and seeking cover. Proposals are laughable, dead on arrival, delusional, unserious, a charade, a chess match, and unworthy of a response.

Exaggeration, hyperbole, and threats seem to be endemic to all forms of negotiation, from used car prices to pro hockey contracts. At their essence, are these strategies tantamount to lies? And if they are lies, are they justified? Is their use ethical? Even if acceptable for tactical advantage in job negotiations, are they appropriate in legislation involving the world’s largest economy?

Under the best of circumstances, negotiators may find themselves confronted by ethical dilemmas characterized by competing goods. Truth-vs.-loyalty dilemmas arise when parties are inclined to be forthright, but the strictures of the bargaining process or promises made with allies prohibit transparency. Short-term-vs.-long-term considerations also must be weighed as the immediate values of respect and candor are juxtaposed against the ultimate aim of prevailing in the deal. And the individual-vs.-community paradigm is evident when negotiators weigh their own electoral interests with the needs of their constituents, their donors, and the country at large. Similar conflicts of interest are reflected in inside-outside messaging when negotiators posture to maintain their followers and appease allies while making covert diplomatic efforts to reach consensus with the other party.

Maybe such deceit does not even constitute an ethical dilemma. Some would contend that it is a routine and expected element in any negotiation. The extremes ostensibly create starting points from which the parties can move closer to an acceptable compromise. Starting with honesty and transparency would mean conceding past a fair midpoint if the other party failed to do the same. Taking all statements at face value is naive and violates the first rule of bargaining: “Let the buyer beware.” Perhaps implicit in this view is the consequentialist position that the ends justify the means. If the norms of negotiation involve overstatements, omitting relevant facts, misrepresenting intentions, or concealing the bottom line, isn’t it implicitly fair to all parties — and therefore ethical?

According to Sisela Bok, “A lie is a statement, believed by the liar to be false, made to another person with the intention that the person be deceived by the statement.” If the other party in a negotiation expects false positions and will not be deceived by outlandish threats and brinkmanship, perhaps the inflammatory statements are not technically lies. Still, they clearly are not the truth, either. Bok cautions us about the slippery slope that emerges when the principle of veracity is not universally embraced. In cases like the fiscal cliff, there are other harms of dishonesty to consider beyond the risk of deceiving the other party.

Played out on a national stage, amplified by a 24/7 news media voraciously seeking a new twist on an old story, political leaders’ maneuvers do great damage. Extreme postures erode public confidence and increase cynicism. Like the boy who cried wolf, our leaders’ extreme positions create a public inured to warnings, discouraged about civic engagement, and detached from the outcomes of political jousting. And contrary to the popular wisdom about extremity as a precursor of compromise, the noise and threats seem only to lead to further escalation and distance between positions rather than to resolution.

Petraeus’s Fall & Punishment-By-Resignation: Worthy Or Wasteful?

Also see this article posted online at its original source:  http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/2012/11/19/punishment-by-resignation/ 

This week David Petraeus joined the pantheon of powerful men undone by sex scandals. Like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Mark Sanford, Anthony Weiner, John Ensign, and a host of others who have gone before, this most recent dishonor makes an easy target for ethicists. It features the usual characteristics: conflicts of interest, the misuse of power, moral and familial failings, and an innocuous event that unraveled to reveal secrets and duplicity.
The table discussion at my business dinner Monday night revealed the diversity of public opinions on such matters:

• What concern is it of ours how one conducts his or her personal life? The Europeans think we are absurd and puritanical on these matters.
• The personal is professional. Such behaviors create the risk for blackmail or other compromises in order to maintain the secret and uphold the image created by the leader.
• Infidelity is not an isolated event. If one would betray the trust of his family in this manner, doesn’t that suggests other failings of character that are undesirable in our leaders?
• These scandals reveal poor judgment. Should someone who uses commercial email to communicate with a paramour be the nation’s spy chief?
• Petraeus’s actions erode trust in all authority figures. He is a role model and should be held accountable for his example.
• Perhaps the public should not be so indiscriminate in its hero worship. Petraeus is human and to expect him never to err is naïve of us and unfair to him.
• Why aren’t any women represented in this “Hall of Shame”? Are there simply too few in high-level leadership roles to call attention to their failings? Are women less likely to stray in the first place or are they simply more discrete when they do so?
• Why are so many of these scandal-ridden people lawyers? Are some professions more prone (or immune) to adultery in public office? If so, what characteristics explain these patterns?
• The preoccupation with infidelity in this case is a red herring. It diverts us from more important issues like electronic data privacy and the war in Afghanistan.
• And, on the Veterans’ Day holiday, an historical note from a WWII vet: What if General Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to resign on the eve of the invasion of Normandy due to allegations of an affair with his chauffeur, Captain Kay Summersby?

This last point turns the discussion to an important and less examined ethical question: What is the proper response to ethical lapses — in particular, sex scandals? Why is a job resignation the apparent default choice in such circumstances?
A leader’s resignation may quell the publicity, provide privacy for healing, and satisfy societal clamoring for punishment, but is it just, effective, and proportional? Does punishment-by-resignation ultimately deprive the public of the talents and abilities of the banished leader, compounding the cost of the scandal?
Three cases come to mind that offer lenses for these questions:

• The 1968 death of Mary Jo Kopechne and the 1991 rape allegations against his nephew William Kennedy Smith raised significant questions about Senator Ted Kennedy’s judgment and conduct. Kennedy received a suspended jail sentence for the Kopechne case and public derision for both incidents, but he refused to resign and served in the Senate until his death in 2009. His government service led to significant pieces of legislation spanning health insurance, civil rights, mental health services, AIDS treatment, and education. His long-standing quest for universal healthcare influenced passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
• Even before he became president, Bill Clinton was surrounded by allegations of sexual impropriety. In 1998, he was impeached for obstruction of justice and other charges involving his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. While his second term in office was severely compromised by the scandal and impeachment proceedings, his legacy after the presidency is distinguished by humanitarian relief efforts, establishment of the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation HIV and AIDS Initiative, and diplomatic roles such as special envoy to Haiti following the 2009 earthquake.
• Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the U.S. presidency four times and served during tumultuous years for the nation and the world at large. His affair with Lucy Mercer, his wife Eleanor’s social secretary, was discovered by his wife and mother, but did not result in divorce, likely for political and family reasons. Mercer and Roosevelt continued to be companions, and she was with him at his death in 1945. Roosevelt’s paralysis also was successfully concealed throughout his presidency. His legacy in legislation and global leadership endures today.

As my dinner conversation suggests, we are far from unanimity on what role, if any, public opinion should play in response to personal failings by our leaders. Clearly these scenarios constitute powerful examples of the justice vs. mercy dilemma. Firing the leader may conform to public standards and notions of justice, but it fails to take into account the consequences of justice. Mercy would suggest that there are countervailing considerations, as the cases of Kennedy, Clinton, and Roosevelt illustrate. Taken to its extreme, however, mercy gives rise to extortion, wherein some people can flout standards due to their importance, or relativism, in which no standards apply because of public unwillingness to sit in judgment of the mighty.

©2012 Institute for Global Ethics