A Crisis of Ethics

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “ethic” as, “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles; a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance; a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness).” By its very definition, ethics assumes that a set of absolutes are in place from which such a discipline could be derived. Without these absolutes in place, ethics will not have a foundation to stand on.

The question then is, “who determines what these absolutes are, and how do we determine whether such absolutes are immutable?” The source and character of absolutes are important considerations in defining a system of ethics, and this issue of source and character is at the heart of our present crisis of ethics.

Generally speaking, the ethics that govern business interests and stakeholder value are not bound by moral absolutes but by material expediency. It is not a question of right or wrong, but a question of minimizing risk and maximizing material gain. The ethics that parameterize the business environment is not about equitable exchange but one oriented towards securing much from very little. Most of the time, how a person defines what is ethical or morally upright in a relationship is usually determined by how much one wants to extract, or how one desires to be treated and not necessarily on a set of moral absolutes. In the world of business, it seems, only size matters at the end of the day.

At the inter-personal level, ethics is governed implicitly by social class and tradition and not on a set of universally accepted moral absolutes. Those who are of the elite have the capability of determining the ethics that he or she wishes to employ, often biased towards how she or he thinks would be to their best interest. We live in an age where everyone feels that he or she deserves more that what they have, and are driven to act in ways that force their own interests and maximum benefit on a given situation. In extreme cases such even leads to feuds that span several generations. We are predisposed to force our will at the expense of another’s liberty, to force our own comfort at the expense of another’s misery. The values taught in the home are now considered as convenient guidelines which are dispensable; only important and “absolute” only when such principles serve to benefit personal gain or interests.

Collateral damage, survival of the fittest, risk of mutual destruction, acceptable casualty, many shades of gray, plausible deniability, legal loop-holes, moderated transparency, material expediency, competitive advantage, situation ethics, white lies, are only a few examples of the many constructs that govern modern thinking processes as we know it today; constructs that run contrary to the vein of moral absolutes. This condition characterizes our inter-personal relationships, be it in business, private, or even our religious affairs. Truth, by popular definition, is no longer based on what is right and moral, but on what can be explicitly proven. Even the constructs of right and moral are often considered as relative in nature, with its definition and application dependent on the immediate context wherein it will be, or is applied. While we could say that humanity has not completely abandoned the ideal of absolutes, it may just as well be the case since classifying these absolutes as mere ideals implicitly and categorically suggests that these ideals are more an exception rather than the rule.

Recent movements or fads to re-introduce ethics into the business environment have been mediocre at best. Total Ethics Management or TEM, for example, posits ethics as relative rather than absolute—a system of ethics based on context. Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C.M. Mar, for example, in their book, Asia’s New Crisis: Renewal through Total Ethics Management, compiles contributions of different executives from some of the top corporations around Asia and the Asia Pacific Region on the subject of ethics management. In this book a substantial amount of space was devoted to discussing the benefits of eastern religious beliefs in an attempt to show how such belief systems framed the basis of successfully building a system of ethics within the contributor’s specific contexts. Several pages was devoted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Islam. That these authors failed to include a treatment on Judaism and Christianity into their treatise is perhaps indicative, on the one hand, of their conviction of Christianity’s inferiority, its inability to provide a suitable framework for the world to solve its crisis of ethics. On the other hand, it could also be that the authors considered the orthodoxy that characterizes the Judeo-Christian faith as too rigid and uncompromising given that the Judeo-Christian faith is based on absolutes it considers to be universal and immutable. By choosing to be eclectic, Richter and Mar introduced a definition of ethics, not as a function of absolutes, but situational expediency to synthesize global business culture with local religious belief—Judeo-Christianity as the exception—a method that follows Hegelian dialectic methods.

Their approach did not solve the problem, it simply compartmentalized it to a local context. What they did was force the issue of ethics as function of context and not of absolutes. The book suggests that if you want to build a global and socially responsible company, you need to introduce ethics back as a mainstream behavior, but do so in a manner that will remain consistent with local religious beliefs. This method may sell a lot of books, but it is far from solving the crisis of ethics that plagues humanity today.

Ethics is a matter of universal absolutes, and until we are able to reckon with absolutes, until we are able to accept absolutes as universal and immutable, humanity will constantly be plagued by the complexity and degenerative effects of relativism to the point of complete ethical desensitization. By attempting to localize the meaning and implications of ethics, we make issue of ethics a non-issue. If everyone can make their own set of absolutes, then in reality there are no absolutes. And without absolutes, one does not possess moral authority. Without moral authority, all that is left is material expediency.

Do we really want to live in a world openly governed by material expediency? Even those who often take advantage of others would refuse to be at the receiving end of their behavior. To minimize this possibility, they resort to methods that appeal to the sense of ethics and absolutes of those they exercise authority over. This is where absolutes are typically seen as most useful—when it is employed to control or limit the actions of another. But when it comes to having absolutes control how they act, well, this becomes a completely separate and dispensable issue.

We cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. There is much wisdom in this statement. But despite this clear message, we have never really taken Einstein’s words beyond its anecdotal value. What will become of us in the very near future? If we do not change our course, we will all suffer the consequences. We will sink further into the mire of our pretenses. Worse still, instead of leaving a legacy our children could be proud of, we will leave them with problems compounded over time-accursed by the work of our own hands. We have been at the crossroads for quite sometime now and we need to define a new paradigm, a new way of providing for real answers and sustainable solutions based on absolutes; absolutes that are universal and immutable if we are to secure a better future for humanity as a whole.

Surely progress does not have to be secured at the expense of moral absolutes. In the final analysis, this crisis of ethics will only persist if we allow it to. Teaching ourselves to live on the basis of principle is the first step towards sustainable solutions, the first step to solving our crisis of ethics. But if we allow ourselves to remain bound to material expediency, we will never break free of the yoke that enslaves our lives and the generations of lives that follow us.

How Do I Make the Right Choice?

It is a universally accepted principle that “the choices we make today determines our tomorrow.” But exactly how do I make the right choice today? If we could mnemonically tap into the minds and consciences of every human being alive today I am certain that this question will come out to be the single most asked question by any one person through any given day.

How do I make the right choice?

There are governing principles or value systems which we have been taught to uphold from the earliest years of our lives. Some use negative methods, while others constructive ones. But regardless of the method employed, the point is, we have been inculcated with a set of values and system of norms that are both universal and particular (borne out of family tradition). As we mature, we discover how that some of these values tend to contradict our very experiences. From such contradicting experiences we synthesize new mental models that govern our thought processes and actions. The resulting synthesis is not necessarily better than the thesis or antithesis from which we derived our new models, but it is a way for us to internally harmonize our lives despite the dissonance that reverberates between our system of values against the reality of daily experiences.

We develop a personal philosophy for survival. This philosophy may not necessarily be absolute in character, in fact it may very well consist of layers of contradicting practices and norms. Nevertheless we tend to minimize such contradictions in an effort to find the “silver lining” among the dark clouds that ominously looms in our horizon. We synthesize to harmonize.

Sure, we have absolute principles that we have been taught to live by that are incontestably important, but when push comes to shove, we tend to opt for the path that leads to harmonization. It seems that principle is only valuable when the results are favorable for the person making such a stand, but when that person becomes the object of the punitive end of principle, it is typical to expect one to reason “plausible deniability” if only to inoculate oneself from the negative consequences standing on absolute principle brings. It is at this juncture that we find much compromise occurring (anyone remember the tenets of Hegelian dialectics?)—better them than I or any of my family—the first instance only serving as a primer to a life filled with compromise until our system of though and living are so overwhelmed rendering us unable to distinguish whether our decisions are made for convenience or conviction.

Let’s take our political situation as an example…

The Filipino culture in general, values compromise over principled conviction. It is not uncommon for us to hear quips that “principle doesn’t bring food at the table” or “you can’t eat principle”. We put too much stock on “losing face” to the point that it wrong can be made right in relatively easy ways. This is for good reason. The prevailing system will explode should the new wine of principle be poured into the old wineskins of traditions of compromise.

How do you convince everyone to pay their actual taxes? How do you convince banks to make credit much more accessible to the public? How could any of the existing political parties convincingly argue that they could really eliminate corruption beyond reasonable doubt? Can any political supporter truly say to him or herself that his or her candidate is absolutely free and will remain absolutely free of corruption?

Even though there are those who are incorruptible, the general public simply considers them better at hiding whatever it is they purportedly hide. Does it mathematically compute how candidates can afford to invest hundreds of millions of pesos in a campaign for a post that pays less than a half a million pesos a year? Would you take a job that requires you to pay 1000% over what your employer will promise to pay? It simply does not compute.

What if these millions used for campaigning were instead used to actually demonstrate action rather than communicate, what everyone already knows are potentially empty promises? Is it because they could be construed to be buying votes? We have a system that prohibits any aspirant from actually doing what they said they would do but allow ludicrous amounts to be invested into a campaign of promises? Who really benefits? Certainly not the constituents who will tender their votes.

Just imagine if we had a system that allowed these funds to instead be used to back up credit facilities for SME’s? Wouldn’t that be a change. Where the criteria for making the list is raising so much capital to back up or underwrite credit facilities to realize real poverty alleviation. 250M PHP is definitely a substantial amount to help a huge number of entrepreneurs who have great ideas and skills but no access to capital facilities; 250M PHP will feed 25M hungry and homeless Filipinos for an entire day, help the millions who require medical assistance, or put up world-class neighborhood schools, daycares, or even improve the facilities of a minimum of 10 public schools. It can definitely pay for the education of the 625 brightest scholars to attend the most prestigious universities in the country, or 892 scholars to attend less prestigious universities, or 1250 scholars to attend the University of the Philippines. Now figure 250M times the number of political aspirants. To wit, this amount likely constitutes less than 50% of their overall campaign budget.

Something’s gotta give…I am sure I am not alone in thinking this way. The good thing about numbers is that 1 plus one will never end up as 4 or 20, but will absolutely be 2 in every instance. Somehow the political mathematical axiom is that a 455K PHP a year job that has limited tenure is worth investing over 500M PHP just to land the job.

Synthesis: A compromise not of intellect but of values. Sure there’s the political platform, but when we look into the aggregate amount it took a candidate to get elected into office, and the amount he or she has been able to add into the country’s GDP, one would be hard pressed to find acceptable returns on investment. But then again, we can look into the corporate machinery that funded these campaigns, and 250M PHP is a drop in the bucket compared to a 1000% ROI.

Another example of this contradiction is found in our personal values. Dualistic. This is how we have been conditioned to be as a people. We say we value family, but we would no sooner sacrifice breaking up a family if only to bring in dollars. We say we love our family, but the type of entertainment the masses embrace are those depicting violence, infidelity, chaos, compromise, depleted of principled conviction which purportedly forms our value system as a people. We say we are a hospitable and friendly people, but we would be willing to break up a friendship for less than two thousand pesos, and so on and so forth.

So how do we make the right choice?

No we come to another period of opining and theorizing. Voices to be heard in the “who’s who?” of society; voices loud and filled with promises which overwhelms the cries of the people for change to a slight whimper. It is interesting that the candidate who decided to stand on principle and run as an independent only because he does not want to violate personal principle, is now (at least according to the papers) unlikely to win. Is it because of coverage, or the lack of party support, or are my fellow citizens unable to value a principled man when they see one? This man in my view is not straddling the fence. He has made a stand—to stand on principled conviction. But then again, standing on principle can mean many different things to different people. In the minds of the many, he could be one that simply could not get along, or one that is left without an option but to remain an independent—it all depends on the political spins framed in sound-bytes that occupy the various communication frequencies of the land.

So how do we make the right choice when we intentionally deviate from the very values and absolutes that serve as the foundation for making the right choice as individuals? Does it all come down to best guess? A lesser-of-two-evils type of decision? Are we willing to render as credible the performance records of aspirants? Or do we view these objective metrics as malleable?

At the personal level…are we willing to live on the basis of principled conviction even when such a conviction will likely result in not being able to temporarily bring food on the table? Right choices are always wrapped in difficulty since right choices are narrow roads, single paths that are usually lonely and unpopular...often taken in single file.

So how do we make the right choice?

To ensure you make the right choice, you must first ask yourself if you are willing to personally live the right way despite the reality that the consequences of your decisions may not always be to your advantage, it may not always result in wealth or success, but at its worst may result in sheer adversity—sometimes requiring the ultimate sacrifice of life and limb.

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.