Ethical Behavior in Public Service

[John-in-KC]

That Congressman in Louisiana.

 

The ones in California...

 

Ted Stevens maybe up in Alaska.

 

There are some bad actors in Congress, no matter which party we are talking about. Please, I would like to check party discussions at the door.

 

There is nothing which prevents Congress from creating its own rules to implement Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution. What we need are 535 Members to sit down, shut up, decide what the Moral High Road looks like, and enshrine it.

 

Too bad that simple sentence is so complex for those 535 we elect. For many of us, the end of the day is:

- Does my Congressman bring home the $$$ to my district?

- Does he/she agree with my hot-button issue?

- Has he/she done something stupid?

 

There are many honorable Congresspeople. Ike Skelton and Sam Graves, both of Missouri, are Eagle Scouts and continue active in their local Councils. I just wish I had the formula which brought all Congress people to the gut-checks of the Scout Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan.

 

So much for Walter Mitty today.

[packsaddle]

Could be that respondents might want to revisit the old thread that I tried to bring back to life on 'moral absolutes vs moral relativism'. Or not.

 

So I now ask a rhetorical question:

What's the difference between ethical behavior and moral behavior?

Curious to read the responses.

[TheScout]

I like when my congressmen brings money back to my district and hopes he agrees with me on "hot button" issues.

[GernBlansten]

The original intent was for our representatives to be citizens like us, who take a bit of time off from their chosen profession to serve, temporarily. I would expect in this type of system, the representative would apply ethics that would be what is best for the people who elected him/her.

 

Now however, they are professionals. Their primary incentive is to get re-elected. They are beholding to those who help them achieve that. That's not you or me, that's the party leaders, big cat donors and lobbyists. I would expect in this type of system, the representative would apply ethics that would be what is best for himself.

[Beavah]

What's the difference between ethical behavior and moral behavior?

 

Yah, hopefully most of da time, not much.

 

But sometimes a profession will define a set of ethics that may conflict in some ways with what would be ordinary personal morality. Some of da canons of legal ethics work that way, like a defense attorney working zealously to get a murderer off.

 

Sometimes professional ethics can strengthen a moral obligation that wouldn't otherwise exist, like the confidentiality of a physician being stronger than the confidentiality of talkin' to a colleague.

 

In da case of Congresscritters, ethics demands they represent their constituents and also act in the best interest of the country, and conduct themselves in office in an honorable way.

 

Seems like da problem is that few are ethical, and a fair number aren't moral to boot .

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[GernBlansten]

I can think of an instance where professional ethics might conflict with personal morals.

Pharmacists. As a consumer, I expect the pharmacist to employ his professional ethics and set aside his personal morals when fulfilling my prescriptions if they are in conflict.

 

Same goes for congressmen. If their constituents want a piece of legislation that goes against the morals of the legislator, ethics dictate he should vote for his constituents and put his personal morals aside. Too often, his personal interests push the values of his constituents aside.

[TheScout]

Ethics can sometimes dictate that we put our morals aside?

 

Interesting.

[GernBlansten]

Certainly.

A Catholic pharmacist. Dispensing birth control drugs.

[TheScout]

Many practicing Catholic pharmacists do not distribute birth control. Many places protect them in that right. California does as long as they notify their employer.

 

I would not expect them to go against their morals.

[packsaddle]

Allow me to prime the pump a little by asking a couple of followup questions.

Does all morality have a religious basis?

 

OK, regardless of how you answered that, now answer the same question for ethics.

Is the answer the same for both questions?

Explain.

[GernBlansten]

Morals vs ethics vs laws.

 

I view morals as an internal, self governed set of rules that I expect myself follow. They may come from a wide range of sources, but they are my personal rules and only I can be expected to follow them. A violation of morality is a break of trust with myself.

 

I view ethics as a set of rules that society expects others to follow. They differ from laws in that there are really no penalties associated with violating them, we just expect them to. A set of guidelines as it were. Some of those rules may be brought into my personal morality (remember I said my morals come from a deep pool) and some might even be codified into law. But ethics is that gray area between personal morality and law. I violation of ethics is a breach of trust with society.

 

Laws on the other hand is codified rules that we expect others to follow and punish them if they don''t. Some are derived from morality, some from ethics and some are just plain silly like the prohibition of catching fish with bare hands in Kansas.

 

Here''s an example.

I follow LNT. I''ve adopted it as part my moral code. I expect myself to follow it no matter where I camp. My morality. Although I''d like others to share my morality, I don''t expect them too.

 

I expect others to follow LNT ethics in certain situations like wilderness areas. The only backlash violators get is my scorn. I expect others to follow that ethic.

 

Rarely is LNT a law. If you violate LNT, you are not going to get fined or punished unless while doing so you break some other law like littering.

[packsaddle]

Last night when I tried to submit that last post, I never could get the confirmation. So I was surprised to see it just now. But glad it made it.

 

Gern, not bad. I think most of us grapple with these distinctions and the questions are hard to answer. Your explanation employs the situational approach and that works if you are willing to restate it for each type of situation. This is not a criticism because it is the best that most of us can muster.

I do the same thing. If I try to explain the distinction I think in terms of interactions with other people. For example, I may have a student. There is nothing illegal about a romantic relationship between me and the student. If I am single, there may be nothing inherently immoral either. However, the academic/jprofessional relationship places, in my mind, an ethical barrier that I should not cross, although I realize that some people evidently don''t recognize such barriers. In those cases I don''t judge them harshly but I do, nevertheless, apply this ethical standard to myself because I know I will experience guilt and remorse if I violate it. However, I''m not sure what the source is for my ethical standards. I think I know but I''m just not certain about it.

 

So, Gern, can you explain the ''deep pool''? Where is it, what is its origin?

[eisely]

I am not learned in these matters, but I will venture a thought. Ethical, moral, and even legal dilemmas arise when there is a conflict of duties. This idea is as old as recorded history. Society does give a great many rules and priorities, but these are designed to deal with situations where there are real consequences.

 

The question of romantic involvment between teacher and student is easily resolved on at least two grounds. First, a teacher automatically creates a conflict in his or her duties to the lover and the responsibilities of a teacher, particularly when it comes to handing out grades. Second, there is the difference power between the teacher and the student. The teacher is automatically in a position to exploit the student. That is why society comes down hard on teachers and college professors who do engage in these kinds of relationships.

 

[GernBlansten]

Ah, The Deep Pool.

 

Its that dark place where all my thoughts, experiences, teachings, fears, joys, successes, failures dwell.

 

I believe when you are born, your pool is empty. You have no morals, you are subsiding on base instincts. As you grow, your pool fills. Sometimes from your parents, your preacher, your environment, and sometimes just from observed behavior. Some of it is welcome, some unwanted, some downright scary. It forms the basis of your self governance. Your morals.

[packsaddle]

Eisely, I certainly agree with your reasoning. It is also reasoning that, for me, defined the most serious aspect of Bill Clinton''s illicit behavior with Monica, but I already described that in another thread. It is at the base of my ethical reasoning on the mentor/student relationship. However, I felt this way long before I ever clearly articulated the reasoning to myself.

For this and other reasons, I think I disagree mildly with Gern on one of his points. I think that there IS an inherent sense of fairness that we, at least most of us, have hard-wired in our biology at birth. (and obviously some of us don''t)

I think the basis for this innate tendency toward fairness (at least for most of us) is an innate empathy toward others...love for others, if you will. But as with all behavior questions, especially in humans, explanations are really difficult and always open to doubt.