Articles

Is ethics futile?

By Rushworth M. Kidder
Institute for Global Ethics Newsline
September 24, 2007

"Does ethics really make any difference?"

It was a heartfelt question. The questioner, a corporate finance executive from England, didn't strike me as cynical, ignorant, or confused. Over dinner in Vienna with his colleagues from Germany and South Africa several weeks ago, he was recalibrating his thinking in light of a two-hour ethics workshop earlier that day.

He'd been an active participant in that session. He liked the ideas. Working in finance, he knew the enormous value of honesty. Working internationally, he'd seen that ethics has cross-cultural validity. Working in a team atmosphere, he realized that responsibility and trust are crucial to corporate efficiency. He wanted ethics to matter. But did it?

I could see his point. Corporate executives so often get nailed in high-profile cases -- corruption, fraud, sexual harassment, or whatever -- only to bargain their way back to freedom and business as usual. Politicians of scant means, earning modest salaries, retire to millionaire settings. Students plagiarize, get caught, confess, and receive the faintest of reprimands. Is anyone really paying a price for unethical behavior? Is anything changing? Does anybody care?

I was thinking about my friend's concern as the news rolled in last week. It featured two high-profile cases from the sports world that may give him a ray of hope:

Floyd Landis, the 2006 Tour de France champion, was found guilty by an arbitration panel of using performance-enhancing drugs. After an extensive series of hearings, charges, and countercharges, Landis was at last stripped of his title and barred from the sport for two years. Because doping among competitive cyclers has been such an open secret -- causing the sport to lose considerable cachet, and some of its public base -- the panel's decision was praised by (among others) Travis Tygart, the chief executive for the United States Anti-Doping Agency, who called it "a victory for clean athletes and for those who value clean and honest competition."

Barry Bonds, the baseball slugger who in August surpassed Hank Aaron's record for career home runs, revealed that his team, the San Francisco Giants, did not plan to renew his contract, which this season is paying him $15.8 million in salary. One likely reason: persistent suspicions that Bonds used steroids. The distrust has become so strong that Bonds has been booed regularly wherever the Giants travel -- a distraction that to an otherwise solid team may have become insurmountable.

To be sure, each of these cases has complications. Both athletes insist on their innocence. Landis has one more chance to appeal, though the expense may be prohibitive. Bonds has not been formally charged, though his name is often mentioned in connection with steroids distributed by the former Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO).

Even so, these cases tell us something. Taken together, they remind us that crime still doesn't pay, that celebrities can't hide, and that even hot-shot public relations advice can't undo the weight of public opinion.

And it's the public opinion itself that most matters here. Apparently the public does care. Fans aren't shrugging off these victories. They're not inclined to applaud a win-at-all-costs attitude or tolerate a whatever-it-takes mindset. They're not buying the simplistic argument that man is no more than a cellular machine, to be redesigned and strengthened in any way possible by whatever drug comes along. They don't see steroids as progress, but as artificiality.

Why are they so clear? Because, at its core, these two cases are almost perfectly unethical. Of the five core values that define an ethical mindset -- fairness, responsibility, respect, honesty, and compassion -- the cases of Landis and Bonds strongly call into question the first four. Using illegal substances is unfair, tilting the playing field and disadvantaging those who play by the rules. Such use is irresponsible, not only to one's own body but to fans, fellow team members, and young people who see athletes as role models. It is disrespectful to the sport itself, and especially to former stars whose records get shattered by artificial means. And it is dishonest, not only in prompting the dozens of daily deceptions required of any cover-up, but in publicly agreeing to one set of rules while privately playing by another.

Where does that leave my English questioner? No doubt (he might say) a few like Landis and Bonds do take a hit -- but many don't. Agreed. But there's a larger point here. What matters is not the number who get caught but the public desire to catch them. What we're seeing is a longing for a world of integrity. Without that longing, who boos a home-run champ? Who banishes one of the world's fastest cyclers?

Does ethics make a difference? It certainly did to those two, and to huge numbers of fans. Those fans aren't prudish puritans. They're ordinary folks who care enough about the ordinary ethical values to say, "That's not right -- you don't play the game that way!" I find that encouraging.

Copyright 2007 Institute for Global Ethics. More information: www.globalethics.org.

Read this story online: http://www.globalethics.org/newsline/members/
pastissue2.tmpl?issueid=9/24/2007#09240719074213.

To make a comment on the Faith And The City weblog, click here.

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information, visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.