Am I Ethical?

During my freshman year as a political science student, my academic adviser once lamented that most of the students in his Politics and Corruption course had a difficult problem recognizing a moral or ethical question. That was in 1973, barely a year after the Watergate break in.

Our nation is asking whether it is ethical for a political candidate to solicit foreign interference in an election or, more recently, in his reelection. And, yes, we should also be asking whether family members of sitting federal officials should be allowed to serve on the boards of any corporation, much less a foreign one.

But ethical questions are not limited to only to the national realm. For the past several decades I’ve witnessed numerous incidents when we should seriously ask, if reasonable ethical boundaries have violated. I’m talking right here in my hometown.

Ethical decisions and evaluations are a matter a judgement, which use the filters that have been programmed in us during our youth. These filters are created by our parents, our schools, our churches, and perhaps later, to a lesser degree, by our employers and other associations such as civic organizations and clubs.

Yes, ethics is a matter of values and judgement. What may be unethical to you, may not be to me. So, I’m going to present you with some non-rhetorical (based on actual incidents) situations to see how you feel.

Is it ethical…

• for a city politician to vote not to condemn property he/she owns or is owned by a close relative, an employer, or someone else to which he/she is reasonably beholden?
• for a politician to vote to have taxpayer resources routed directly or indirectly to a close family member or associate, their company, their employer, the employer of a close family member or associate?
• for a government associate to hire or otherwise hire or expect subordinates to provide services to himself/herself on their personal residence or a business that they own?
• for a politician to cause taxpayer resources to include contracts for services or employment to someone who has substantially endorsed their political campaign—especially if that person has no verifiable credentials, education, or background justifying that decision?
• for a media outlet to receive substantial taxpayer resources from politicians or a political entity when they have significant explicit “forth estate” advocacy or issue framing responsibilities—especially implicit or overt endorsements?
• for a politician or political entity to vote for substantial taxpayer resources to be routed to a media outlet that has “forth estate” responsibilities for that politician or political entity?
• for a media outlet to endorse a candidate or filter reporting and editorializing when key staff or owners have contributed financially to their campaign? Or the media outlet expects the politician to route city advertising dollars to them?
• for a person’s transgressions to be overlooked based upon your/their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, university affiliation, or social connections?

A matter of judgement

Please realize that your reactions as to whether such situations cross ethical lines are a matter of judgement. And, you and others may disagree on the severity of the action, whether it crosses lines that would justify admonishment or even legal procedures. However, if you failed to recognize the ethical question in these scenarios, perhaps you’ve lost your moral/ethical compass.

How do you get a moral compass when you don’t have one?

The first question should always be whether a statement or decision is truthful and based upon a solid sense of integrity. An ethical person should not have to resort to “white lies” and partial truths.

The second thing to ask is whether a decision is in the best interest of others. If so, you are moving in the right direction. However, that may not be end of your journey. In addition to possibly still violating a professional or legal ethical boundary, you may also be unethical.

This is where the third question comes in. Are you or those who are close to you for some reason receiving a benefit that is not available to everyone? For instance, a city council member who votes to approve a sidewalk construction job with the realization that everyone will have access to all citizens and visitors will have less of an ethical dilemma than when voting on an expenditure that will only affect a small group—especially if a member of that group includes them or someone close to them—even a past or potential donor. If a decision is primarily other-serving and the self-benefit is something that is more universal than limited to you or a handful of people with which you have a relationship, then you are probably okay.

There is time for “taking care of number one” and self-promotion. But wisdom dictates that when you are a public servant, whether in a government role, ministerial role, or education role, or similar roles, you must act and appear to be sincerely and primarily interested in others to the extent that you clearly subordinate self-interest even to the point of sacrificing. Not to do this is not only potentially immoral and unethical, it is also something that will destroy your effectiveness as a leader and as a public servant.

Should restrictive ethical laws be relaxed?

More and more politicians, who feel hemmed in by any rather arbitrary rules, want changes. This year in the State of Alabama, a bill was proposed that would relax ethical laws. It was not passed possibly because too many legislators may have felt that by supporting the bill, they were tacitly admitting that they were untrustworthy.

In addition to what I learned from my parents, in Sunday School, and as a Boy Scout, the values to which I was indoctrinated during my cadet, Active Duty and Reserve time in the Army, which was a span of 37 years, and the ethical standards that I lived up to during my 29 years as a practicing clinical hypnotherapist helped and help guide my actions. In all, it gives me a sense of what is right and what is wrong. That does not mean that I’m perfect. But at least I recognize most if not all my transgressions, regret them, and have made amends when possible.

Ethics and legal may not be the same

For some, such as politicians who have been admonished by enforcement agencies and possibly having the courts review their cases, an ethical decision is merely a question of whether they broke a law or not. Especially when we are a public official and live in the proverbial glass houses, we should instead focus on the basic concept of trust and realize that when confronted by any boundary violation that may even vaguely imply that we are not putting the interests of others first, we should refrain from such decisions. If we regulate ourselves only by what is legal or not, perhaps we fail to have enough ethical values to be trusted by the public. Public servants must realize that it is not their intent that matters most. It is the appearance of unethical behavior that destroys trust.

All about trust

Being a public official is all about trust. But aren’t all relationships? Ethics, trust, and basic human empathy should be considered as synonymous.