Morality or the rule book

CM · Post by CM » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:51 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3747192.stm

This is a very interesting issue. Should one listen to the moral conscious instead of the rules set out by the organization. Personally the rules are the rules. When you take a job you tacitly or opening agree to follow the rules of the company or organization. But does that mean you have to give up your own morality just so that the rules are followed?

Another example is the tabacco industry. The whistler blowers in that industry are regarded as heros and men and women or moral standing for what they did. But they did break the rules of the organization they worked for and have mostlikely not held a steady job due to their reps as whistle blowers. They did according to the general populace a good thing, but they broke the rules and codes of conduct for their company.

I know they are not the same as the news item i have linked, but is a very interesting issue. Once you have a job must you do things that you personally hate to do as it is part of your job?

JesterKing · Post by **JesterKing** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:34 pm

Ah... In a perfect world you could pick and choose a job where you liked the company and the rules and your employer. LOL!!!!

you need to respect a company's policies, because that is part of what they pay you for. If you do not do what they ask you, then why should they give you money? There really shouldnt be THAT many jobs that grind your morality to a pulp... but if there are then DONT TAKE THE JOB! seriosuly, if you are that financially insecure to where you need the job, it makes sense that you would have it, but ideally nobody should have to compromise their beliefs for cash.

Idealness is not a trait this world is famous for though, is it.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:26 am

No, I don't believe one should give up one's morality because of the rules. Unfortunately, it's never easy or simple to follow one's conscience. As the old expression goes, "No good deed goes unpunished".

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:41 am

@CM: I think a person's conscience should be their ultimate guide. The majority of people possess one, and those who don't stand out in a (usually) negative light.

I disagree with your depiction of whistleblowers in the US tobacco industry. They didn't betray their employers at all. Instead, they exposed their employers' betrayal of consumers and the public at large. Ethics is a multi-tiered organism that must be in harmony in order to work...and in the case of ethics, the larger responsibility always takes precedence, and that is what maintains harmony. In this case, the tobacco industry was engaged in unethical activities as a business. As a business they are bound by laws concerning truth in advertising, Fas. Any activity which breaks those laws, either indirectly or directly, is unethical. It often takes quite a bit of guts to take a stand for ethics. Whistleblowers have traditionally been subject to reprisals for doing the ethical thing...and that's why laws were created to protect them.

Here's a good illustration. I work for a governmental agency that regulates an industry that is rife with controversy, fraud, and scandals. It's our job to enforce laws which protect the public and the residents of our state. Every day, I receive phone calls from individuals who are blowing the whistle on situations involving abuse, neglect, and fraud. Often, lives are at stake in these cases. In others, taxpayer funds are being misused. Are they wrong for exposing this? Should they remain quiet so their employer can evade justice, causing loss of life and abusing public funds meant to help people?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:56 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]I disagree with your depiction of whistleblowers in the US tobacco industry. They didn't betray their employers at all. Instead, they exposed their employers' betrayal of consumers and the public at large. Ethics is a multi-tiered organism that must be in harmony in order to work...and in the case of ethics, the larger responsibility always takes precedence, and that is what maintains harmony. In this case, the tobacco industry was engaged in unethical activities as a business. As a business they are bound by laws concerning truth in advertising, Fas. Any activity which breaks those laws, either indirectly or directly, is unethical. It often takes quite a bit of guts to take a stand for ethics. Whistleblowers have traditionally been subject to reprisals for doing the ethical thing...and that's why laws were created to protect them.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, except for one minor detail. They did betray their employers. When one is employed by a company, the company places a trust in that person. Not to say what they did was unethical, but it was a betrayal of trust. And other companies would view it the same way and would be reluctant of hiring the whistleblower.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:42 am

[QUOTE=Vicsun]I agree with you, except for one minor detail. They did betray their employers. When one is employed by a company, the company places a trust in that person. Not to say what they did was unethical, but it was a betrayal of trust. And other companies would view it the same way and would be reluctant of hiring the whistleblower.[/QUOTE]

To the letter, you are correct. However, one can view it this way: if a company wouldn't want to hire me because I exposed the illegal activity of a previous employer, then they might have something to hide.

No business in their right mind exists today without taking an ethical stance with both the public and their own employees. Simply put, a bad reputation is bad for business. Perhaps this ethical stance is a front in some cases...then who is to blame there? The employee, for remaining true to the ethics the company claims to uphold? Since I have some experience in this area, Vic, I can tell you that 9.9 times out of 10, an employee doesn't become a whistleblower without first trying to deal with their own company first. Usually, if the highest levels are not involved in unethical practices, it never needs to go outside of the company - it can be dealt with internally. Unfortunately, a "whistleblower" has no recourse for his or her conscience...because the employer doesn't have one to begin with.

Since business practices are in the public eye these days more than ever, it behooves a smart company to be ethical in what they do...it's a survival trait. Illegal activity might get a corporation ahead in the short term, but the ruin that follows the exposure of those activities makes such practices bad business decisions. Many employers now want people who are ethical...quite the opposite of what you assert. It helps the company survive.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:27 am

We live in a world of whistle-blowers. It's become all the rage, it's turned into a very profitable business, and it's their world now. As an employer in a field that is ripe with espionage and blatant stealing of ideas and creativity, I deal with issues like this every day. We, as in the western media-controlled world, are turning into a herd of Peeping Toms. Brit soccer hero David Beckham can't order out for pizza without it turning into a supposed sex scandal.

"Yes, I delivered a double cheese with garlic balls at the Beckham house, and David was humping my hand as I gave it to him! Give me a million and I'll confess on the cover of your sleazebag newspaper."

In 1992 a woman in Sacramento-California set a record for what Tom Brokaw referred to as "The Worlds Most Expensive Butt." A major exec in her firm had pinched her hindquarters during a christmas pish-up. The woman sued for sexual harassment, got rewarded a whopping 71 MILLION dollars, leaving the company bankrupt, and 421 people without jobs. I guess she believes she struck a blow for some cause....

Back to my own situation. In my two small companies I currently employ about 30 people. I run an extremely tidy ship. I don't cheat, cut corners or use dirty tricks towards the competition. I spend a considerable sum of money every year on arranging educational courses for my employees, not only to teach them how to do a better job, but to develop them morally and ethically. When I started my first business venture in 2000 I had just left a chief position in a gargantuan media company because I just couldn't live with the way they did/do business. It kept me awake at night. I had/have enough dirt on them to make the headlines, but I'm a firm believer in "What goes around comes around," and lo and behold, about a year and a half after I left they were all over the news being cut to pieces for corruption and unethical business practices. The company was disbanded, the majority of stocks sold to a Yank conglomerate/holding company, who did what they usually do: cut 2000 jobs. In Yankland that's (at least not under the current administration) a mosquito's fart in a mild spring breeze, but up here on the reef it's a major disaster. All this happened because one person in a position slightly above the one I used to hold, blew the whistle.

I don't have a solid standing on this issue. However, I'm a firm beleiver in a human's right to use their brain. If you join a governement agency, you're bound to discover manure and you have to live with it. If you dress in green and go out in world as a professional warrior, you must do that with the knowledge that you WILL encounter/do stuff that the world at large is better off not knowing. Or are they? An employee of mine has just signed up for a tour of duty as a peacekeeper in Afghanistan. He is extremely idealistic, to the point where he actually believes he's going on a crusade. I did the same thing in Lebanon and Nicaragua in the 80s, though for slightly different reasons. I am proud to say we saw/experienced stuff that the world didn't know. We took the liberty of showing them what they'd been missing. (thanx to the inventor of the hand-held VHS video camera) and we did it with a clear conscience. People needed to be told! We would have turned into concentration-camp guards if we didn't break the rules and smuggle out those tapes past the censors. (That's actually a pretty good story. The newsman on TV, being dead serious, going "We are now going to show scenes previously never seen about the conflict in Palestine. Be advised that children should leave the room." and then they got 20 seconds of Jason carving up teenagers in Friday the 13th part 5 which we used to fool the censors, before we got to the real stuff.

)

Well, it's turned into a rant, and I'm slightly tipsy, but hey! If you come to work for me, I apply the following standard, and this should be hammered into the head of every human being on the planet: Question me and my leadership every day. If you have an issue that doesn't sit right with you, be open about it. Come to me and talk. The boss is not your enemy, there's a reason for everything he does, but he is only human, and will make mistakes. If you are uncomfortable with your job, DON'T WORK HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Okay, I'm opening another Bordeaux....

giles337 · Post by **giles337** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:48 pm

In 1992 a woman in Sacramento-California set a record for what Tom Brokaw referred to as "The Worlds Most Expensive Butt." A major exec in her firm had pinched her hindquarters during a christmas pish-up. The woman sued for sexual harassment, got rewarded a whopping 71 MILLION dollars, leaving the company bankrupt, and 421 people without jobs. I guess she believes she struck a blow for some cause....

Speaking of stupid cases(disgusting overkill), a man in the uk was summoned to court for stealing and eating a bannana. In a case costing £20000 pounds, he was sentenced to one day in prison. And because the court case had taken most of the say, he walked. For stealing a banana. And it cost £20000

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:36 pm

@Moonbiter: Usually, the whistleblowers I deal with are never known by anyone except myself and legal agencies. Instead of making money on some scandalous story, they instead help to save the life of an 85 year-old widow who is being administered the wrong medications, and not the ones she needs...or, she's being subject to emotional and physical abuse by a convicted felon who never had a background check done on them by the company who hired them.

Let's see...instead, these whistleblowers remain totally faceless and nameless in fear of reprisals. And they'll stay that way, too. Oh yes, the agencies they work for call them troublemakers, rabble-rousers, etc...all because their neglect and desire to make an easy buck off the government gets them busted, exposed to the public, and put out of business and often behind bars to boot. Sounds like attention-getting to me.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:11 pm

[QUOTE=CM]Once you have a job must you do things that you personally hate to do as it is part of your job?[/QUOTE]

I would say it depends on what the "part" is. Anything having a serious side effect against another person or groups of people, I would just have to be fired for reporting.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:55 am

[QUOTE=Moonbiter]In 1992 a woman in Sacramento-California set a record for what Tom Brokaw referred to as "The Worlds Most Expensive Butt." A major exec in her firm had pinched her hindquarters during a christmas pish-up. The woman sued for sexual harassment, got rewarded a whopping 71 MILLION dollars, leaving the company bankrupt, and 421 people without jobs. I guess she believes she struck a blow for some cause....

[/QUOTE]

Yes, her own. I don't see this as whistle-blowing, but a personal grievance case, which she had every right to pursue if she felt she was wronged. However, I seriously wonder about whoever presiding over that case - $71 million is excessive in anyone's book. Was there more to this case?

Opalescence · Post by **Opalescence** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:14 am

Once again, as the article itself says, the real goal of any political group is "effectiveness". Being that such contenders as this diplomat is invariably a small group or as in this case one person, they could never hope to push their ideals across effectively. They would always eventually be forgotten, and everything returns to normal.

Humans, like I always say, are naturally greedy and self-serving. As such, any ordinary human being placed in a position of power is wont to abuse that power. It is a natural instinct, a holdover from the animal realm where only the strong survive. In order to be effective in the world, the quaint human quality of "ethics" must neccessarily be discarded. An example would be attorneys: it is theoretically possible to be a "good" attorney, taking on only those cases in which you feel that the client is indeed innocent, but as any half-decent (decent meaning "successful") attorney will tell you, in order to succeed in any way, shape, or form as a lawyer is to take whatever case comes your way, no matter how repulsive the client. Indeed, it's a sad fact that it's usually the scumbags that pay the most.

There are, as with everything else that has to deal with humans, always exceptions to this "rule". But let's face it, in most cases it's one voice against a hurricane.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:44 am

@Sojurner: No, there was nothing else to the case. However, this was the early 90s, when Politicalifornia Correctness in the USA had gone completely out of control, especially in California. This was also the era of setting new world records for ridiculous lawsuits. The 3 million rewarded for the "McDonald's Hot Coffee" case springs readily to mind, and so does the entire OJ Simpson circus. The fact that the jury held the entire company responsible for the actions of one stupid, drunk, chauvinist pig could probably not have happened anywhere but right there at that particular time. They wanted to make a point, and they did so. Was it morally correct? IMO there wasn't an iota of morals involved in it.

@Chanak:I know what you're doing, and I have no objections. Sorry if I came across that way. Over here we have a governement agency doing it for us. It's a great way of filtering out the real cases from the drivel. There's too many disgruntled former employees going around out there wanting to get back at their former workplace. They just wrapped up a major such case over here.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:00 am

[QUOTE=Opalescence]Humans, like I always say, are naturally greedy and self-serving. As such, any ordinary human being placed in a position of power is wont to abuse that power. It is a natural instinct, a holdover from the animal realm where only the strong survive. In order to be effective in the world, the quaint human quality of "ethics" must neccessarily be discarded.[/quote]

With respect, I think there are two problems with this line of thinkning. First, the part about humans as solitary, primal hunters: what distinguished humans in prehistory (and we know this both from changes in the archaeological substrata and in "prehistoric" tribes that still live, deliberately untouched, today) is their social ingenuity, their ability to form complex, socially adaptive practices (even in tiny villages or extended family units) that survive changes in climate, hunting conditions, natural disasters, etc, which decimate other species. This isn't to say humans are nice-nice children, but that their natural instinct is to work together to achieve Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The other point I wanted to mention is the illogical jump from the general to the specific. "All humans are this way, therefore each human is this way" needs much more justification to prove itself. "The human race began as solo hunters," even if it was accurate, wouldn't automatically lead to "...therefore modern, urban, industrialized civilization has to discard any notion of ethics." There's no obvious link between the two. This is the "nature of man" fallacy, the idea that if anything you or I say in generalities about the human race today can be justified by looking back to some generalities about early humanity. During the so-called "Age of Reason," the opposite premise led to the opposite conclusion of the Noble Savage: Primitive man, untouched by civilization, was noble and pure, therefore, since we aren't that way, returning to our roots and leaving modern civilization will restore that purity." Reversing that, arguing that primitive man was a murdering thug and therefore we are, by extension, most ourselves when we act ruthlessly, doesn't make good sense.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:14 am

[QUOTE=Moonbiter]
@Chanak:I know what you're doing, and I have no objections. Sorry if I came across that way. Over here we have a governement agency doing it for us. It's a great way of filtering out the real cases from the drivel. There's too many disgruntled former employees going around out there wanting to get back at their former workplace. They just wrapped up a major such case over here.[/QUOTE]

Not a problem - I apologize for taking it the wrong way. Screening whistleblowers in general - now that's a great idea. I know in years gone by, a journalist would investigate a story before it ever went to print. I suppose standards have changed.

We do that in the investigation process...while we investigate every complaint we receive, some never amount to anything. Without quoting exact stats, those unfortunately are in the minority.

Perhaps you are familiar with this scenario...a for-profit corporation creates a Limited Liability Company...this LLC buys property(ies) and builds a facility(ies) to care for the elderly...the LLC applies for Medicare and Medicaid certification...hires staff, never bothering to check their backgrounds nor screen for drug usage (saves them money). All that matters is the bottom line here, so the facility maintenance is pushed aside (too costly to adhere to regulations). The real controlling entity, the distant Corp, up until lately has been untouchable. The LLC takes the fall for everything...fraud, bankruptcy, etc, leaving the real culprits trouble-free.

Rookierookie · Post by **Rookierookie** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:20 am

Anyone who blows the whistle will never work in that industry again.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:35 am

@Fable -

I very much agree, but I think that in the case of governments and especially corporations, the 'generality' does apply, the 'specific' less so, unfortunately.

Ethical principles get lost in big beaurocratic institutions. If you're a cog in a machine, you can play whatever part you like (unethical as you wish) and blame the resulting lack of ethicality on the workings of the machine itself, rather than on your own workings.

Therefore I think that individualism and moral accountability of individuals is essential in cases like this. If the individual's morality is hammered into line with the 'will of the institution', then there will be no moral accountability and no strongly compelling reason or motivation to ever do what you think is right insead of what'll get you promoted.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:30 pm

[QUOTE=CM]This is a very interesting issue. Should one listen to the moral conscious instead of the rules set out by the organization. Personally the rules are the rules. When you take a job you tacitly or opening agree to follow the rules of the company or organization. But does that mean you have to give up your own morality just so that the rules are followed? [/quote]

My opinion is that this world would be an even more horrible place, if people just mindlessly followed the rules set by the authority. Organisations like companies or governments are not always right because they have the power. Like Frogus writes, ethical principles can get lost in huge administrative and bureaucratic apparatus, and sometime focus on a goal leads to blindness to other consequences.

We must also remember that loyalty to an authority can result in hideus crimes. Being part of a group and doing something because "you were told to", diffuses personal responsibility for an act. From the Nurnberg trials to the recent Iraq prison torture, we have heard people who have committed unthinkable acts say in unison "I was told to to it", "I only obeyed orders from the superiors". Therefore, it is of utter importance that each and every individual take moral stance on their own acting, and what they participate in. Loyalty should never be absolute, it should always be conditioned.

[QUOTE=JesterKing]Ah... In a perfect world you could pick and choose a job where you liked the company and the rules and your employer. LOL!!!! [/QUOTE]

No LOL there IMO, to me and most people I know it is unthinkable to take a job if I don't agree with my employers moral and ethical views. Now, I live in the privileged world, but most of us here at SYM does. If I was a street orphan in New Delphi it would be different, but most of us here at SYM live in rich countries and since we all have computers, that means we are not starving to death.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:57 am

[QUOTE=C Elegans]...We must also remember that loyalty to an authority can result in hideus crimes. Being part of a group and doing something because "you were told to", diffuses personal responsibility for an act. From the Nurnberg trials to the recent Iraq prison torture, we have heard people who have committed unthinkable acts say in unison "I was told to to it", "I only obeyed orders from the superiors". Therefore, it is of utter importance that each and every individual take moral stance on their own acting, and what they participate in. Loyalty should never be absolute, it should always be conditioned...[/QUOTE]

It's worth noting that even in the military, the soldier is not bound to follow what can be construed as an unlawful order. Instead, it is the soldier's responsibility to refuse to carry out any such order, and report any unlawful orders they receive to higher authorities in their chain of command. Provisions for this exist in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Soldiers are also informed of this in basic training...it's part of a soldier's training. Every one of those soldiers involved in the crimes at that prison in Iraq were required by the UCMJ not to follow orders to mistreat any prisoner, at any time.

In the US, even the most depraved of criminals are protected by law from abuse. This also includes any suspects or prisoners detained by military authorities, wartime or not. The bunk you may have read in the news from the Whitehouse concerning "the Geneva convention didn't apply at the Iraqi prison" is just that - bunk. Military procedure for the basic processing and handling of detainees in general prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Geneva Convention isn't needed to give prisoners basic rights which prevents them from being abused and cruelly treated.

frogus23 · Post by **frogus23** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:57 am

Good point @ Chanak

The military is a good example of an organisation with an inherent ethical code...

The poblem comes with corporations whos only code is to earn.