Are ethical values set or fluid?
August 29, 2007 by Miki Saxon
Brian Clark over at copyblogger wrote an interesting post on whether or not people really want transparency and authenticity that sparked a discussion that’s well worth reading.
There are times when, “Do these pants make me look fat?” needs to be answered yes, but that yes can be phrased far more diplomatically, e.g., “You have far more becoming outfits to wear.”
Is the businessman who projected a positive persona that performed well truly at fault because his inner thoughts were different from the outer ones?
Isn’t what goes on in your head your business or is what we think the crime vs. what we do?
Isn’t it only when our thoughts spur actions, our own or others, which are detrimental to individuals or society that outsiders have the right to judge them?
Rich Brooks commented, “So, maybe it’s not that what we want is transparency and authenticity, but what we DON’T want is concealment and dishonesty.”
Sounds right, but all four attitudes-transparency, authenticity, concealment and dishonesty—are still situational, based on the society and time in which they’re happening. According to Lynn Sharp Paine, the John G. McLean Professor at Harvard Business School, “Indeed, as the size and importance of corporations have increased, so has the general propensity to view their activities through a moral lens.” (See post)
Unfortunately, the world isn’t black and white, but rather it’s done in shades of gray based on the beliefs of people in a particular society and at a particular time.
Most social police, blogging, fashion, etc., started as one person with a specific set of forceful opinions and the skill to make them known to a wide audience from which, s/he amassed like-minded people who added their voices and built clout until they suddenly became the arbiters on that topic. This scenario applies equally in politics (think Hitler), religion (every religious leader throughout time), etc. But being the <?> police doesn’t make them “right.”
Even most judgmental words such as, right, wrong, good, bad, etc., have meanings that have changed at various times in history and in the same times, but in different societies and cultures, or even the same ones.
Universally, murder has always been considered bad, but what constitutes murder is ever changing.
The most we ever state is our own opinion, IMO in today’s lexicon, as I have done today and then hope that it is backed up by others who share it.
Great commentary and questions, Miki. Some people say that the only difference between persuasion and manipulation is intent, but I actually believe that persuasion creates a win-win situation, and manipulation is one sided. That approach leaves no room for the “thought police” to get involved at all.
This is a great post with some really thought-provoking points.
The stand-out:
Universally, murder has always been considered bad, but what constitutes murder is ever changing.
Brilliant!
Thanks, Brian. I’ve enjoyed many a bottle of wine during all night manipulation vs. intent debates and they were rousing good fun, but I’m afraid that we’d be on opposite sides. I define manipulation as the “ability to persuade people to do what you want them to do and, taken to its highest art form, think that it was their own idea.” With this definition, intent becomes everything, so I always add this caveat, “Manipulation is only acceptable if it does no harm to the people or organization and doesn’t scare the children and animals.”
********************
Wow! Thanks, Kelly, that’s a great compliment, especially coming from you!
>>“Manipulation is only acceptable if it does no harm to the people or organization and doesn’t scare the children and animals.”
And that’s the definition of a “win-win” if I’ve ever heard one. :)
All action is taken because of the actor’s own idea and intention, no matter who provides the stimulus. Marketers try to give themselves too much credit. The only true marketing skill is in knowing what people want to do, and then providing the means for them to do it.
Interesting discussion. Ethics is unlike many other leadership attributes in that genuinely consistent and true ethical behaviors tend to flow from an interior orientation rather than conscious efforts to follow external rules and guidelines.
When we find a truly admirable leader of high character and ethics who inspires people to follow, it’s unlikely to be someone who simply keeps an eye on the rule book in order to extract as much territory as possible without stepping over. Instead, I think we find someone with a solid internal compass whose behavior is natural, intuitive and unforced.
That’s why, in my view, words like “good”, “bad”, “right”, and “wrong” are too valuable to discard. “Goodness” is a rather intuitive attribute and difficult to measure. But it would be hard to deny that it describes something to which it’s worthwhile to aspire and from which ethical behavior and compelling leadership might flow.
As I frequently tell clients, just because something is hard to measure or enforce, doesn’t mean it’s not important.
“All action is taken because of the actor’s own idea and intention, no matter who provides the stimulus. Marketers try to give themselves too much credit. The only true marketing skill is in knowing what people want to do, and then providing the means for them to do it.”
Ahh, but many times those actions would stay dormant forever without the stimulus, so there is a certain responsibility that goes with providing it.
““Goodness” is a rather intuitive attribute and difficult to measure. But it would be hard to deny that it describes something to which it’s worthwhile to aspire and from which ethical behavior and compelling leadership might flow.”
“Goodness,” “high character” and all similar terms and subject to varying definitions, therefore they’re fluid.
Yes, it comes from within, but the lens through which it’s viewed is external. Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that obscenity wasn’t an absolute, but was in the eye of the beholder; most people consider slavery in any form as evil, but it is still an accepted practice in some places; Jeff Skilling has never seen himself as bad, but there are thousands who consider him completely evil.
Just as murder has always been bad, goodness has always be good, but the definition of each keeps changing.
Having to be PC has stopped people speaking their mind, a shame.
True, especially since covert attitudes are far more dangerous than overt ones. However, HAVING a PC encourages far more open interaction, comments and rants, although too many are anonymous.