These trade offs are generally about integrity (sacrifice, commitment, morals) versus necessity (safety, profitability, expediency). It is not necessarily about ethics, though they do play a role, nor is it about legality, though that also plays a role. It's about principles.
I'm reminded of a line from a film, in this case, The Contender, where the main character says: "Principles only mean anything when we stick by them when they're inconvenient." The most famous principle of all time is the ethic of reciprocity, or the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them to unto you."
Publicly traded companies are ironically almost required to violate this rule - they routinely attempt to undermine their competition. But they have other principles that together form their integrity. Things like fair treatment of employees, customer service, truth in advertising, obeying commercial rules, adhering to intellectual property rights, etc. It's the idea of the new green being corporate behavior - not social responsibility or the environment, but integrity.
What about the principles of a nation? How should a country's integrity be characterized? For most, the rules governing treatment of the citizens are enumerated in their Bill of Rights or their constitution or both. But these documents don't talk very much about how the government should behave. It's not surprising - the authors probably wanted to give the government of the day as much latitude as possible, but I wonder if there are any absolutes that every leader and government of this country ought to adhere to?
I'd start with three for the United States:
The standard for adherence to the laws of the land is highest with the governments, and their accountability should greater as well. If these are the right absolutes, then they can't be violated - if the government does violate it, the individuals should be terminated.
Some might consider this drastic, but that's what absolutes are...
Defining moments are often ones where difficult trade-offs are made. It can be personal sacrifice vs. personal safely - someone (firefighter) deciding to run into a burning building to save a victim. It can be commitment vs. profitability - a company altering its usage contracts after people have "signed up" to take advantage of a revenue opportunity. It can be morals vs. expediency - a politician deciding that even if citizen's lives are at stake, we don't compromise our laws proscribing torture.
How often have you flaunted this principle in the interest of necessity or convenience? Did you feel a twinge? As individuals we should hopefully not violate this rule very often.
Every person on the planet should (by the US government, defense, security agencies, etc.) be treated like they were an American citizen, and accorded the exact same rights. This is a global "do unto others..."
Recent Comments