|
101 Required Ethics |
Agents affect the public financially. Therefore, agents have an ethical responsibility to represent each consumer fairly and appropriately. This statement should not come as a surprise to any agent. Knowing this, why are agents required by several states to acquire education in the topic of ethics during each renewal cycle? Why are numerous agents fined and suspended each year for failing to fairly and appropriately represent their products and responsibilities?
Hello. My name is Harry Bobs and I will be your narrator for this course. I am one of the old men of insurance, having been around longer than I care to admit. There are always new things to learn, but not always those willing to learn it. You must decide if you are one who learns or one who doesnt.
I believe that most insurance representatives are responsible and
honest people. Of course, there will
always be those few who are not and they will, unfortunately, be the
individuals that consumers remember.
Because of this fact, even very ethical agents and financial planners
must seriously consider the need for errors and omissions insurance to protect
themselves from lawsuits. When an agent
or broker chooses not to carry E&O (errors and omissions) protection we say
they are going bare.
Todays consumers have a great perception of their legal rights.
Their perceptions may not always be accurate, but they do know how to find an
attorney if they believe they are right.
Therefore, the second rule of ethics is Agent, protect thyself. The first rule is easy be honest with your
clients. If you dont know the answer
to a question, dont guess. Tell your
client you will find out and get back to them.
Yes, it might mean a delayed sale, but it might also mean you dont get
sued.
How does an agent protect themselves from legal
difficulties? This seems to primarily
be a question for the career agent.
Those who dabble in insurance seldom carry E&O insurance and mostly
do not last long in the industry anyway.
Of course, a person who is an agent for only one day has the potential
of financially harming the consumer.
Such harms are often the result of uneducated agents. While their intent may be pure, even
innocent errors in financial judgment can be devastating. Most states try to prevent such errors by
requiring education prior to obtaining an insurance license. Unfortunately, many people who are able to
pass the insurance exam still do not fully understand the financial elements of
their profession.
Consumers are increasingly aware of their rights. Since agents are so often described as
greedy, unethical, commission grabbing scoundrels, consumers are ready to
believe the worst. While this is an
unfair assessment to be sure, it is one that the general public seems to enjoy. Many articles have been written in magazines
and newspapers outlining consumer rights.
Lawyers are even advertising about the merits of suing at any
opportunity. Little wonder consumers
are so eager to sue. It is a foolish
agent indeed that goes bare.
We generally relate malpractice lawsuits with the medical
field, but any professional can be guilty of malpractice. It refers to the manner in which the
professional handled their legal and ethical duties, whether that involves
medicine, accounting, or insurance. The
courts have already ruled that insurance agents are professionals in their
field. This definition was broadened in
the 1970s to include many professions, such as architects, engineers,
accountants, stockbrokers, and, yes, insurance agents. It has further been established that agents
are contract specialists since policies are legal contracts. In todays legal climate there is absolutely
no excuse for an agent not reading the policies that they sell. I dont mean skimming through it in the car
before you go in to give the presentation.
Agents must take the time to completely read and understand each
contract. After all, you are a contract
specialist by legal definition.
Once a group of people, such as agents and financial planners,
are classified as professional specific responsibilities are then legally tied
to the classification. That means that
individuals practicing that profession must meet the responsibilities or face
the possibility of lawsuits as well as state sanctions. Statistically, once a profession is
classified as professional, the rate of malpractice legal action rises. Since agents and brokers (as well as
financial planners) deal in an area that can result in financial loss, it is
certain to be a target of dissatisfied consumers and their attorneys. Our clients prefer to think any type of
financial loss must be our fault, even when we, as agents, acted in good faith.
What can agents do to protect themselves legally? First of all, each agent must consider
purchasing errors and omissions insurance.
This is a type of insurance designed to cover your behind if you are
found at fault for either making an error or omitting pertinent information
(thus the name errors and omissions insurance). Secondly, you must be as informed as possible. That mandated education required by the
state is for a good reason. Beyond
required education, however, the aware agent will accept education in their
field of expertise any time the opportunity is presented.
After E&O insurance and education, awareness is probably the
best defense against being sued.
Awareness includes many things, but perhaps one of the most important is
an understanding of your legal and moral obligations. Note there are both legal
and moral obligations. Some agents and
brokers wear more than one hat, such as agent, retirement advisor, or estate
planner. There may be more hats than
those three in your briefcase, depending upon the types of products you
sell. It is important to know what hat
you are wearing at the moment so you do not have any conflicts of
interest. Please note that E&O
insurance typically covers only insurance related activities. If you are selling trusts or other
non-insurance entities, it is unlikely that your liability policy will cover
any mistakes you might make.
Why would an agent be sued?
Anything that might be viewed as
self-serving could be grounds for a lawsuit. Self-serving? How can an agent expect to earn a commission and not be somewhat
self-serving? Just because we earn our
living on commissions doesnt mean we are self-serving, but it must be pointed
out that if we dont sell something we cant pay our bills. In order to avoid being self-serving should
we tell every client: Go online.
Youll probably find something cheaper than mine?
Do we expect the Chevy dealer to suggest that their customers go
look at Ford products? Someone
apparently thought Bill Gates should help his competition since he was the subject
of a lengthy lawsuit for not doing so.
His attorney likened it to requiring Coke to include a bottle of Pepsi
in every six-pack.
Agents, like many other industry professionals, must walk a
narrow line. Obviously, the agent that
enters the customers home is there to sell them a product. Mrs. Smith knows the magazine peddler is
selling magazines when he knocks on her door, so does she not understand the
same thing when the agent comes calling?
There is both a yes and no answer to that. Yes, she knows the agent is there to sell her something, but no,
she doesnt necessarily understand what is being sold. When it comes to the magazines, if she pays
the peddler $12 for a product that is never delivered, she is not likely to
sue. First of all, the attorney would cost
her more than the $12 loss is worth.
Secondly she may not be able to find the dishonest peddler who took her
money but did not deliver the product.
If an insurance agent sells Mrs. Smith an insurance product that
does not deliver, her loss is much greater than $12. She has the loss of her premium, but in addition to that loss she
is likely to have the loss of the circumstance the insurance was supposed to
insure. That circumstance may be a
wrecked car, a husbands death, or her financial future. Whatever the product was designed to
protect, she will sue not only for the initial premium but also for the
perceived loss that was not covered by the policy. If she has a good attorney, there may be additional damages
requested besides the actual monetary loss.
Now it is worth the attorneys fees to sue.
Mrs. Smith couldnt locate the magazine peddler because he wasnt
licensed (even though he should have been in some towns). Insurance agents are
licensed through the state. If he was
selling an actual policy (there have been cases of unlicensed agents selling
fictitious policies) Mrs. Smith can easily locate him. She can call the company that issued her
policy, for example, and they will provide her with her agents name and location. She should also have the agents business
card with this information on it. If
the agent has moved, she can contact the state and they will locate him for
her. Mrs. Smith has options with the
insurance product that she did not have with the magazine peddler.
As I said, agents walk a narrow line. They need to make a living and at the same time they must be
ethical in their selling practices. It
is actually possible to be both ethical and successful, but it would be easier
if it were recognized that agents perform a vital financial function. States have sometimes lost sight of the fact
that agents are generally pretty good people.
It is apparently easier to slap all the agents periodically than to separate
out the few individuals that actually need the beating.
If an agent sells one client too much insurance, it is considered
self-serving by virtually every state.
On the other hand, sell too little and it is considered negligence. It would be self-serving to sell a specific
product merely because a higher commission was earned. Products must be sold on the benefits
offered to the consumer, not the benefits offered to the agent. Of course, any experienced agent has been to
those agency meetings where you can go to Hawaii if you just sell 15 policies
for ABC insurer. Sometimes it works out
because you are already using their product and you find it reliable. On the other hand, if the agent does not
believe their product has the best value, it would be self-serving if the only
reason for presenting it was to go to Hawaii.
The 1970s, when many occupations were changed to a professional
status, opened the doors to larger judgments being awarded to plaintiffs who
brought suit against agents and other professionals. Not only were courts awarding judgments in excess of the E&O
liability limits, but punitive damages were also being awarded. E&O insurance contracts are available in
various amounts, but the ceilings that many agents thought were sufficient were
proving inadequate. Since the point of
punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer, they can usually be covered by the
E&O policy. Of course, it is
important to check your own policy for details. If the agent follows all state laws, and any applicable federal
laws, and has not intentionally misguided a consumer, punitive damages are not
usually a problem. Even so, the
publicity surrounding a lawsuit is never beneficial to the agents career!
We have also seen another element of a lawsuit: when the suit
receives publicity it seems to draw out others who wish to sue as well. This has been the case even when the second
lawsuit seems to have little, if any, correlation to the first. The public seems to think that merely having
the same insurance agent (or even simply the same insurer) is enough grounds to
also sue.
An agent should assume that he or she could be sued at least once
in their career. This does not mean
that the agent is not following prudent guidelines in how they do business
rather it is merely a statistical possibility.
What should you do now to prevent becoming one of those statistics?
When a lawsuit is filed that has a public context to it (is
printed or put out in the media in some way) harm is done whether the agent is
guilty or innocent. Most people merely
remember that the suit has been filed not the actual outcome of it. In fact, it is much less likely that the
outcome will even be in the news. The
filing of the lawsuit is news the outcome is only news if a very large award
is involved. Therefore, a not guilty
verdict is less likely to receive press.
That means that your clients may simply assume you were found
guilty. It is very difficult to
overcome such a perception.
Beside the monetary aspect of a lawsuit, it is also very time
consuming to be involved in one. An
agent must be in the field if he or she is to earn a living. When court proceedings and attorney meetings
begin to fill up your day, it is very difficult to concentrate on a career.
How a lawsuit progresses will depend upon many factors, but it
can vary according to settlement clauses as well. In typical property and casualty insurance policies, the
insurance company is given the right to settle the claim in whatever way they
feel is expedient. Under a typical
liability contract, on the other hand, the insurance company cannot settle a
claim without the insureds approval.
Theres a reason for this difference any settlement made on behalf of
the agent could be construed as an admission of guilt. Even so, most lawsuits are settled rather
than taken to court. It is often in the
best interest of all parties to do so, including the agent.
Some professional responsibilities are common sense, such as
honesty, client concern, and the simple duties that come with working with the
public (being on time, following up on telephone calls, and so forth). Any agent who is not always courteous even
when clients are rude should consider leaving the profession. Id say this is true whether you are an
agent or a plumber.
Perhaps the first requirement in avoiding a professional
liability suit is an understanding what is expected of us. Or, as the courts would term it, the
professional must know the applicable standard of
care owed to a client.
When a lawsuit does not involve someone who is legally termed a
professional, the standard of care required pivots on the question of whether
or not the accused behaved as an ordinary
reasonable prudent person would
act under the same circumstances.
Sometimes property may be destroyed without fault due to the
circumstances involved. For example, if
you drive across a neighbors yard in order to avoid hitting his dog standing
in the road, you are not likely to be liable.
While it is true you ruined his lawn and shredded his rose bush, you did
so while avoiding his dog that was standing in the road. A prudent person would have done the same
thing.
Even an ordinary person is required to use any special knowledge that he or she may have, however. This would include special training, education, or experience. Some professionals have had to seek special protection under the law because of their special abilities. Many states exempted medical professionals from lawsuits if they attempted to help accident victims at the accident scene. Nurses and doctors were being sued for the deaths and injuries of the accident victims they attempted to help at the scene of the event. One woman actually sued over a scar she received when a nurse open her windpipe at the scene of an accident to prevent her suffocation death. These types of lawsuits made medical professionals afraid to aid accident victims. They were especially vulnerable because they could be sued for helping if it did not turn out well and they could be sued for failing to help under negligent laws, since they had the training necessary to help. Most states do now have protection laws for specific circumstances.
The required standard of care is different for a legally termed
professional than it is for an ordinary person. A professional negligence case imposes a certain level of skill
and knowledge that is not imposed on an ordinary person. It is important to note that the level of
skill and knowledge imposed by law does not always exist.
Example:
Bruce just received his insurance license. During the first week in the field, he advises Henry Poke to cash in his life insurance policy and put the funds towards the policy that Bruce is selling. It turns out to be a very bad move. When Henry dies suddenly, his family sues the writing agent (Bruce). Bruce did not intend to cause financial harm. He was inexperienced and did not fully understand what he was doing. However, since Bruce is legally considered a professional, he has a legal standing of skill and knowledge imposed on him by the courts. Ignorance is not a usable defense.
Considering Bruces case, what is the minimum standard of
professional conduct that is acceptable?
Since Bruce had no intention of causing harm, should he be held to the
same standards that an agent with ten years of experience should be held
to? That depends upon your point of
view. If you were the person suing a
professional, you would probably answer yes.
On the other hand, if you were being sued, you would probably answer
no. Each of us changes our point of
view depending upon how the answer affects us.
Maybe the better question would be: how do we want the courts to view
it?
Most agents would be wise to purchase errors and omissions
insurance rather than going bare (not having it). The policies purchased by securities dealers are called blanket bond insurance. Many professionals are reporting a greater
and greater difficulty finding adequate policies. This has especially been difficult for financial planners, who
often experience a much greater risk than that of the average insurance
agent. This is probably due to the
greater number of lawsuits as well as the higher cost in defending against
them. Despite any difficulties that
might exist in finding adequate coverage, it is important to do so.
Obviously, the first line of defense is prevention. It is much better to never be sued. With that said, agents must understand the
policies they are buying.
As every agent should know, the amount of risk directly affects
any type of insurance coverage. For a
risk to be insurable, certain criteria must exist. The first requirement is a sufficiently large number of exposure
units to make the loss reasonably predictable.
The second requirement is that the loss produced must be definite and
measurable. The insurer must be able to
tell when a loss has taken place and must be able to determine the dollar
amount of the loss. The third
requirement is that the loss must be accidental. Obviously, no insurer wants to cover intentional acts of the
agent. The lawsuit should not be
something that is certain to happen, but rather something that is a
possibility. Finally, the insurer does
not want the loss to be catastrophic.
This would probably only happen if many agents were sued at once, which
is not likely to happen in the E&O market.
I suppose it could happen if one type of agent was being sued at
exceptionally high rates. If that were
the case, insurers would likely make immediate changes in order to protect
themselves. Chances are, if such a
situation existed, the states would also step in with legislation to protect
the consumers.
Claims-made policies are more rigid than occurrence
policies. Even so, they are often the
type issued. Under a claims-made
policy, the insured is covered only for claims made during the policy period
(while it was in force). Under an
occurrence policy, the insured is covered for any damage that happens during
the policy period. It doesnt matter
when the claim itself is actually filed.
Example:
Jerry sold a policy in
2004. He carried E&O insurance at
this time and it was an occurrence policy.
In January of 2005 he let both his policy and his insurance license
lapse. In March of 2005 a client from
2004 files a lawsuit against him for negligence, the most common reason for a
claim against an agent. Jerrys policy
will cover the claim even though the policy is now lapsed because it was in
effect at the time the incident happened.
If Jerry had had a claims-made policy he would not have had
coverage because the claim was filed after his policy had lapsed for nonpayment
of premiums. Additionally, even if he
had wanted to renew his policy, it may not have been possible since he also
lapsed his insurance license.
Many agents go with the claims-made types of E&O policies
because they are less expensive to buy.
This is understandable from the insurers standpoint. Their risk is less under a claims-made
policy and higher under an occurrence policy. In the medical malpractice
industry it is not even possible to buy an occurrence policy and has not been
available since the 1970s when malpractice lawsuits became such a problem. Insurers simply did not want to take on the
liability associated with such a long-term risk. Financial planners are finding a similar situation. Few insurers want to issue them an occurrence
policy because the potential for lawsuits continues for such a long period of
time. In the financial planning field,
losses may not become realized for several years. Fewer and fewer professional industries are able to purchase
occurrence policies, as insurers increasingly prefer the lower risk claims-made
type.
Errors and Omissions insurance contains specific language. While there are some variances in the exact
wording, they basically state the insurer pays on the behalf of the insured
all sums which the insured becomes obligated to pay on account of any claim
made against the insured and caused by any negligent act, error or omission of
the insured or their employees in the conduct of their business as general
agents, insurance agents, or insurance brokers. Dishonesty is excluded from coverage as is fraudulent acts, criminal
activity, or malicious acts, libel and slander. E&O insurance would not apply to any type of bodily injury,
sickness, disease, or death of any person.
These policies also do not cover damage to property, including the loss
of property use. E&O policies cover
nothing beyond the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the covered parties.
Most E&O policies are claims-made, not occurrence
policies. The agent or broker can be
covered for liability to clients, to third parties, and to the insurance company
for which he or she works. The amount
of coverage can vary greatly.
Considering the trend in verdicts, many agents probably purchase too
little protection for themselves.
Policies can range from $25,000 per claim/$75,000 single limit and
up. Several million dollars in coverage
can be purchased.
Nearly every adult understands the concept of ethical
behavior. Most of us have the mental
ability to tell right from wrong. What
kind of idiot wouldnt know it was wrong to lie to their clients? Having said that, why do states find it
necessary to mandate ethic education for their agents? Because states are still getting consumer
complaints.
Some of the state requirements that we are seeing implemented,
such as the new California requirement for annuity education, is the direct
result of past consumer complaints and agent misconduct. That is not to say that agents are purposely
conducting business in an inappropriate manner. Most of it is not intentional, but rather a lack of knowledge on
the part of agents. Is this the result
of agencies throwing new agents out in the field with either too little
education or virtually none at all? It
could be argued that agencies are not responsible for the education of the agents
that affiliate with them. These are
adults who should already know how to read sample policies and understand the
benefits that are offered, as well as what types of risks are not covered.
Aside from acquiring proper education, how can we mandate
personal ethics from our countrys agents?
This is not just a problem in major cities or certain parts of the
country. It is a problem everywhere. Is it even possible to mandate ethical
behavior? While we may not be able to
mandate beliefs, establishing consequences may modify behavior.
By the time we are adults many of our personal traits and flaws
have developed, perhaps beyond repair.
Therefore, management, state insurance officials, and insurers may not
be able to change the views of someone who already has a flawed ethical concept
of the world. Such people will never
change their personal conduct unless they see some personal reward in doing
so. Therefore, perhaps the only way to
handle and sway such people is through state imposed fines. The individual never becomes ethical, but
they may change how they do business just to avoid the financial repercussions. Therefore, I am personally in favor of
financial fines for unethical behavior.
The states report that it is very common for those who commit an
inappropriate act to say they were not aware they were misbehaving.
While attending a conference on agent ethics, a common trend
developed:
Mac was confronted by the
state for not turning in consumer premiums.
He responded to the complaint by explaining his wife had recently filed
for divorce and he was having a difficult time concentrating on his business.
Barry was fined by the
state for making fraudulent statements.
He blamed his conduct on the fact that he had recently divorced and was
having personal difficulties.
Lloyd was caught cheating
the insurer he worked for. He would
take a name and address from the telephone book, fill out a fraudulent application,
personally make the first premium payment with cash, and collect commissions in
advance (on a years premium). This
earned him praise for the numerous policies he was writing, and it even earned
him a trip to Mexico as a reward. Of
course, the insurer eventually discovered this when the policies began
lapsing. He said his conduct was the
result of financial pressure following a divorce.
After hearing multiple stories like these of unethical or foolish
behavior it became evident to me that either (1) insurance agents should not be
allowed to marry or (2) if they do marry, marriage counseling should be
required by the various insurance departments as part of their continuing
education. One of the other attendees
also recommended that insurance departments print out a list for agents of
possible excuses for bad behavior so they would have more to choose from than
just divorce.
Lets be honest with ourselves.
Our behavior simply reflects what we want to do for personal gain or
power. Selling an insurance product has
the ability to improve the lives of all involved if it is done correctly. The person buying the contract knows they
will be protected from some specified risk, the agent gains a commission as well
as a policyholder who may buy additional products in the future, and the
insurer builds their business. Commerce
is neither moral nor immoral, but how business is transacted can be.
One of the best-known philosophers, Plato, believed that a human
being is essentially composed of appetites, will, and reason. Mans appetites make him want things, his
will allows him to gain them, but his reason controls those two elements to
prevent him from harming others. Plato
further believed that a selfish person has allowed his reasoning to be ruled by
his appetites, which then uses his will to gain personally. Plato believed a person who allowed their
appetites to control them could never really be happy because appetites always
wanted more, never being satisfied with the current situation.
Example:
Maggie loved clothing and
jewelry. She had a beautiful wardrobe
and many stunning pieces of jewelry.
Her husband worked hard and made a good living, but Maggies tastes
always kept them deep in debt. There
was always something more that Maggie desired.
After years of struggling financially, Maggies husband finally divorced
her. Maggie did have a job, but her
earnings had never been sufficient to buy all that she wanted. Now that she had to live on what she earned
she fell even deeper in debt, eventually going bankrupt. Maggies appetites controlled her. Reasoning had not been able to control her
spending.
Can a person like Maggie be happy? Certainly she must have moments of happiness, but if they are
only available when she buys something, then her happiness is superficial. Lasting happiness must come from within if
it is to sustain us.
Plato argued that any person who had not learned how to achieve
morality (living with reason in control of appetites and will) could not find
happiness. Therefore, an immoral
person, under his theory, could not really be happy.
We have seen many immoral people who seemed happy. Of course, there is no way for an observer
to really know whether or not that was the case. Most of us would agree that material items could bring some
measure of happiness. Who wouldnt
rather be rich than poor? Certainly, it
must be easier to be happy if our stomachs are full, there is a roof over our
head that doesnt leak, and clothes that keep us warm. Maybe it has not so much to do with the
material possessions we buy but rather with how we view them. If we enjoy the items we buy without letting
them rule our lives, then happiness must be possible. On the other hand, if we buy only to impress our friends or to
feel loved or worthwhile, it is unlikely that such spending will really bring
lasting happiness.
Not everyone agrees on morality or what morality is. Some believe we must act in the best
interest of others. Other philosophers have
believed we must act in the best interest of ourselves. What is ethical can be a matter of
disagreement even among the most educated people. What does not seem in dispute is the fact that ethical behavior
never harms another. Acting in our own
best interest is fine unless it brings harm to another. This seems to be universally agreed upon by
philosophers.
Why do we want a just country, a just state, and a just
interaction with others? Because we may
not be on the winning end of a situation and we want to be treated justly when
that is the case. If we could be sure
to always have the upper hand, would we really care if our treatment of others
were just? It is precisely because we
may not have the upper hand that we want justice.
The Republic of Plato states that most people want to do wrong;
it is a desirable thing. On the other
hand, no person wants to suffer a wrong.
When a person has both done wrong and suffered wrong, they realize that
they do not like to suffer. Consequently,
those that have experienced both, begin to weigh their options. They begin to desire rules to prevent them
from suffering wrongs again in the future.
In order to gain this, they are willing to give up their ability to also
commit wrongs against others. Groups of
people with the same experience join together to lay down laws and covenants to
neither do wrong nor suffer wrong.
Plato is probably right when he states that this is the process that
brought about our views of justice.
Justice is, in this context, a compromise. We give up our right to violate the lives of others in order to
prevent them from violating ours.
Is there such a thing as a person who would always do right even
when not required to do so? A few. Mother Theresa was such a person. We dont see very many like her,
however. Consider the number of people
who have gone into politics with a desire to do great good. Within a short time the amount of available
power and money seems to change their views of what they wish to accomplish. This is likely to happen continuously as
wealth and power overwhelm any morality that originally existed.
Pretend I gave you a magic power that enabled you to go anywhere
in the world and take anything you desired, even if it belonged to another. Initially you would probably resist taking
anything of great value. Perhaps you
would only take modestly at first: food, some clothing. As time progresses it is likely that you
would take more and more, whether you needed the items or not. I believe this is what happens to the good
men and women we send to office in our states and federal government. Under this scenario, it is easy to see why
basically good men and women do bad things.
We send them to an arena that gives them an open checkbook (our taxes)
and the power to do as they wish.
There are many different views on ethics. As we know, ethics are based on what one
perceives to be right. It is not
necessary that society agree with them.
Ethics is never about laws, peer groups, or what the wife thinks. Ethics are about what is perceived to be
correct, whether or not the rest of us agree.
An ethical view can be neither good nor bad. It is always about an individuals perception. If I believe I am right, then I am performing in an ethical context. If my motivation is personal gain rather than a belief, it has no ethical foundation. Generally speaking, it would be hard to be performing in an ethical context if it were going to bring me financial gain or additional power. It is not unusual for a person to attempt to gain wealth and power on the proclaimed basis of morality. It is possible to be ethical and successful at the same time, but ethics is not typically the reason one makes more money or gains power.
Not all ethical theorists agree on ethics. Under the Objectivist
Ethics view, the standard by which one judges what is good or evil
is mans life. Good is anything that is
required for mans survival. Any act
that destroys or opposes mans life is, therefore, evil.
Everyone is, in some way, selfish. This is not necessarily bad in the proper context. Everything man has developed in technology
has been to benefit mankind in some way (either the inventor or the user). Most grand developments have brought someone
income, either through patents and promotion or as an employee of a company
that plans to patent and promote it.
This doesnt mean it is unethical, even though someone benefited from it. In fact, society often appreciates the
development because it brings about employment and other advantages for
society. Who doesnt appreciate our current cars, cell phones, and good medical
technology?
Everything man needs or simply enjoys has been discovered by his
own mind and produced by his own efforts.
Both are essential to a rational being: thinking and productive
work. Even those individuals who refuse
to be productive live off of those who are.
Whether they live off our tax money and social programs or by stealing
from others, their existence still depends upon those who think and
produce.
Beside those who refuse to be productive, there will be those in
our society who are incapable of producing on their own. It is our moral duty to care for those who
truly cannot care for themselves. It is
for these individuals that our social programs and welfare dollars were
intended. However, those who want to exist not by reason and positive
production, but rather off the thinking and production of others often rob our
society of the resources that could be better used elsewhere.
Objectivist ethics states that mans life is the standard of
value and his own life is the ethical purpose.
What does that mean? This theory
is looking at two elements: individual life and the existence of the
group. It means that an individual
should first preserve his or her own life and secondly the lives of those in
the group.
This brings us to the group: who makes up the group? There can be several groups: our nation, our
state, our town, our personal community, and our family. Each of these makes up a group. We could even consider the world as a
group. Usually it depends upon what is
being considered. In the book War of
the Worlds, it was our world against an alien world. In that context, the group was our entire world. Under Objectivist ethics it was ethical and
moral to preserve our world as the group.
If we were considering one of the World Wars, the group would be
the United States. If we were considering
the civil war, the group would be either the North or South, depending on which
group you were a part of. The
definition of the group always depends upon the context of survival. In all cases, under this theory, it would be
ethical and right to preserve the group.
Groups are made up of individuals. Objectivist ethics states that mans
life is the standard of value, but that his own life is the ethical purpose. Therefore, it is necessary that man (as a
group) be preserved, but it is also necessary that the individual be
preserved. It puts the responsibility
of each life with that individual. In
other words, since individual life is the purpose of ethical living, it would
then be unethical to do anything that might end that individual life. This is a very important point. For example, if an individual smokes, since
that would endanger his or her life, it makes it immoral to do so. It is the moral duty, under objectivist
ethics, to continue life through reason and action.
Value is that which one
strives to gain or keep, whereas virtue
is the act by which it is kept or gained.
Under objectivist ethics, the three values that together are the
means to and the realization of ones ultimate value are Reason, Purpose, and
Self-Esteem. The three corresponding virtues
are Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride.
Productive work is the central purpose of a rational persons life. Reason is the source of his work and pride comes as a result of his work. All of his virtues come as a result of his rationality.
This theory feels that a person who is not thinking and producing
must then have an unfocused mind. This
does not mean he is blind to his lack of performance, but rather he refuses to
see his own ignorance. He refuses to
acknowledge that he is not focused on making his life productive and may even
be rationalizing that he is, in some way, productive. Of course, a person who is not personally thinking and producing
must be living off of the thought and production of another. Objectivist ethics holds that irrationality
is the rejection of mans means of survival and, as a result, a commitment to a
course of blind destruction, which is anti-mind, therefore anti-life. Under this theory, anything anti-life must
be evil.
More simply put, objectivist ethics holds that man must live for
his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to
himself. Achievement of his own
happiness is his highest moral purpose so long as it comes from thought and
productiveness.
How is this theory then considered selfish? It must be noted that it upholds rational
selfishness not all selfishness.
Rational selfishness means the values required for human survival. Objectivist ethics does not promote the
values produced by personal desires, emotions, aspirations of greatness,
self-feelings, or the whims and needs of brutes seeking to take from
others. It only promotes rational
selfishness born from rational thinking and productivity.
It is probably true that most people have some level of
selfishness that is not productive.
This rational selfishness versus irrational selfishness becomes
confusing. Ethics is a code of values
that we hope will guide people to choices that give life joy and helps others
in our family, our community, and our country.
Who cares if it is termed objectivist ethics or relative ethics? Each of us faces continual choices that can
affect our families, our community, and certainly ourselves. Each of us must determine what is right or
wrong.
There will always be a clash between egoism and altruism egoism
holds that man is an end in himself; altruism holds that man is a means to the
ends of others. In the real world,
sometimes we do what is personally right for us and other times we do what is
best for others. How do we make the
choice between the two? There are so
many conditions affecting that. If our
child is very ill and needs one of our kidneys, most parents would gladly give
one up. On the other hand, few of us
are willing to do the same for a stranger.
Obviously, our child is more important to us than is a stranger. There will always be such conditions that
determine our actions. It does not
label us immoral because we will not donate a kidney to a stranger.
Selfish people are motivated by concern for their own personal
interest. Even so, it is not
necessarily selfish to pursue our own personal interest. Just because I fish every chance I get doesnt
mean that I am a selfish person. On the
other hand, if I allow my family to go without essential items in pursuit of
fishing, then I am probably being selfish.
Selfishness is setting all standards according to ones own personal
gain or pleasure and refusing to take any other path for the benefit of
another.
There have been many people who pursued their own paths while
helping others. For example, people
have built mighty companies gaining wealth and power in the process. At the same time, however, they employed
thousands of people bringing up the standard of living for many of their
employees. Even though the businessman
or woman may have been pursuing their own goals, in the process they allowed
others to pursue theirs. This is a good
example of how reason and productivity is both self-serving and ethical at the
same time.
What is Really Ethical?
As we know, ethics are all about perception. Cultures disagree and even people within the
same culture may have different views on what is ethical. It never means one is right while the other
is wrong. In America we are allowed,
within reason, to disagree and still hold our personal beliefs. Normally one would add, as long as it does
not promote harm to another. However,
many who are against abortion would say that we are allowed this belief even
when it harms another. Obviously, no
one in America is advocating infanticide.
Rather, they are for a womans right to choose whether or not she bears
a child (within certain legal restrictions).
One of the differences in how ethics are perceived has to do with
cultural beliefs. Some cultures have
believed that we live our afterlife in the same condition as we left this
one. In that context, would we want to
live until we were totally disabled before we died? No, we would want to die while we still had mobility and clear
thought. Under this belief, it would
not be morally wrong to kill a parent at a certain point since it has to do
with cultural beliefs about afterlife.
The child is not killing his or her parent out of personal gain, but
rather to enable the parent to have a better life after death on earth. In this context, the child is believed to
have a moral duty to the parent and is expected to act accordingly.
In America we also believe children have a moral duty to their
parents. Therefore, both our culture
and theirs agree on that point; the difference lies not in moral beliefs, but
rather in cultural beliefs. To us, our
moral duty is to keep our parents physically safe and emotionally happy as they
age. To them, their moral duty is to
end their parents life while they are still relatively active.
We often find that people everywhere have the same fundamental
moral or ethical beliefs. Since
cultures, however, can be vastly different, how those ethical beliefs are carried
out are different. As a result,
diversities may not reflect genuine disagreement on ethics, but rather a
disagreement on how those ethics should be followed.
Some philosophers claim that our so-called facts are often to
blame in ethical disagreements. Of
course, who is to say which set of facts are correct? Just because we do not believe that our afterlife depends upon
our physical condition now doesnt mean we are right and they are wrong.
Perhaps most of our cultural disagreements are not so much based
on ethics as it is on beliefs. As we
have said, ethics are entirely about perceptions. That does not excuse an individual when the law is not followed. If someone from another culture attempted to
kill his or her parents in America, it would still be tried as murder. Furthermore, we would believe we were right
in prosecuting them. It would be the
persons duty, when he or she moved to America, to follow our customs and
beliefs as outlined in our laws. If
their disagreement with our laws was too strong to change, then that individual
should not choose to live here where their actions could result in
imprisonment.
Our own culture is full of examples where ones belief clashed
with our laws. Often those clashes have
changed the course of history for our country.
Of course, the largest example of this would be the civil war. In this case, two opposing sides fought to
have the law reflect their beliefs. It
would be easy to say that the anti-slavery group won because they were right, but
life is seldom so black and white. They
won for many reasons, but seldom can it be contributed to right or wrong. What should be said is that there were many
who were willing to give up their own life for their belief.
Objectivist ethics would have said that the continuation of life
is the only ethical path, but what if continuation of life meant living under
unbearable circumstances? If the
individual could not live in a way that allowed reason and productiveness, then
under that ethical theory, his life had no meaning anyway. A person living under slavery may ethically
have had to achieve freedom or die trying.
The person who believed that enslaving another was morally wrong would
have to try to achieve freedom for others or die trying. Remember that ethics dictates that what is
right for one must be right for all.
Lets look at that very important point: what is right for one must be right for all. That means that if an individual desires to
have slaves, he or she must also be willing to endure slavery for him or
herself. Lets look at it from an
insurance agents view: if it is right for you to lie in order to make a sale,
then it must be right for others to also lie to you for monetary gain.
The theory of relativism holds that there will be morality
based on cultural differences. In other
words, all acts following cultural belief are moral and should therefore be
tolerated. Cultural
relativism is the view that what is right or wrong is determined by
culture. If one culture says that
slavery is right and another says it is wrong, that has to be the end of the
discussion. Each party would live as
their culture dictated. This would
obviously be impossible in a diverse society.
It may work well in one where diversity is not tolerated (You follow
this cultures belief or well cut your head off). Consider the issue of slavery: if we were to allow cultural
relativism, an individual might forcefully enslave another. The person enslaved would have no recourse
if society tolerated that behavior.
Therefore, we have set up laws that we feel suit the majority of those
living here. All are required to accept
those laws, even if they dont believe in them.
When an individual tries to change how the majority believes, we
call them moral reformers. Rational agreement among all people would be
impossible. There will always be those
with opposing views. However, it may be
possible for a moral reformer to sway enough people to their thinking that laws
will reflect that for the majority of people.
Many of our states are currently involved in this today. Most states require marriage to be among
opposing sexes. Many of the states are
ruling on the legality of gay marriage.
Why is it necessary to make a ruling at all? Are their actions contrary to the ethical
definition: what is right for one is right for all? The reason for businesses is primarily
financial. In order to receive all the
rights afforded a traditional marriage, it must be considered legal. Some companies will honor gay marriages and
allow all considerations the same as those in traditional marriages, but this
is rare. Company benefits are
expensive. As medical and other costs
continue to rise, companies do not want to give benefits if they are not
legally required to do so.
Moral reformers have often brought about positive change in our
society. If change would improve the
conditions of a segment of our population we feel the change must be ethically
better. Such was the case when moral
reformers ended the use of child labor in our factories, and legally brought
about equal rights for women and minorities.
The difference, as it relates to gay marriage, is that the opposition is
attempting to prevent equal rights rather than provide them. So, who are the moral reformers in the
same-xex marriage issue? Are they the
opposition who wants to ban same-sex marriages or those who are attempting to
legally afford the same rights to them?
Both sides could be considered moral reformers since it merely means a
person who is attempting to persuade others to their point of view.
The facts about diversity of moral behavior are often used to
support another position that may be confused with ethical relativism. The common name for this position is moral skepticism. Moral skepticism believes there is no way to rationally establish
a cultures moral views or show that the views of one culture are better than
those of another. This is, of course,
an ethical view of tolerance. Most
would believe that we must tolerate the views of others if we are to be ethical
people. Catholics must tolerate the
religious beliefs of Jews. Baptists
must tolerate the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses and so on. Primarily this is how America operates. We do have incidents of vandalism and other
violence in the name of morality against a certain group, but usually that
turns out to be anything but morality.
We term many of these incidents hate crimes.
Moral reformers primarily try to change the views and tolerances
of our society through non-violent legal channels. When a group refuses to follow our societys laws, what course of
action must we take? We cannot allow
White Supremacy members to abuse minorities and certain religious groups, for
example. We must take legal action
against them to insure that they follow our nations laws. Remember that moral skeptics argue that
ethical judgments cannot be adequately justified, which means toleration of
others is an ethical view.
There are two problems with uniformly and unquestioningly
tolerating the ethical or cultural beliefs of others:
It would be very difficult to have an organized society if
everyone could do as they wished on the basis of moral beliefs. Even our early ancestors probably had some
form of group requirements for the good of all. Agents are required to follow strict guidelines in their products
and selling procedures to protect those not able to protect themselves. Our laws allow religious freedom so one
religion may not harm another. There
are many examples that work for the benefit and organization of our
society. Even the laws that govern our
driving are for the benefit of the group (imagine if we could choose which lane
we wanted to drive in!).
Most disagreements, it is said, are the result of different sets
of facts or different views of the same facts.
I say the glass is half full but you feel the glass is half empty. I say we need to cut the trees to supply
lumber, but you say we need the trees to preserve air quality. We are seeing the same thing, but viewing it
from a different angle.
Many disagreements come from a different opinion on
priorities. That is why it is so
important to be able to state our personal views. Debate over the issues, whether it is same sex marriage,
abortion, or what to name our neighborhood street is vital. It allows us to learn new facts, view facts
from a different angle, or come to a conclusion not previously seen.
Edward Westermarck wrote in Ethical Relativity that perception
of the facts could determine our view of morality. Many moral views can be dictated by necessity. The tradition of eliminating elderly members
of a group was especially common among nomadic hunting tribes. The life was hard and the inability of the
elderly to keep up was obvious. In
addition, if food was in short supply, it seemed sensible to feed the young and
vigorous rather than the old and useless members.
In todays society, we are not immune from issues of age or
health. There have been numerous
attempts among the states to legalize mercy killing for the old or very
ill. In fact, those who would be killed
are often in favor of it for very personal reasons. It is not hard to understand why someone in constant pain might
favor such legislation.
As a society, why are we generally against mercy killing? There are many arguments both for and
against it, but one argument against it was especially memorable. A doctor speaking at a state hearing said
that his concern was how the ill person might come to the decision. Would the elderly or ill begin to feel that
he or she was a burden to their family physically and financially? Could the family members shame the
individual into accepting death when, in fact, they did not wish to die? Even if two doctors must agree upon the
circumstance, would they not at least partially base their decision upon the
wishes of the individual? Therefore, if
the elderly or ill person specifically stated they wished to die (even though
they felt the opposite) would the doctors realize the truth? The ethical issues involved in mercy killing
are so great that it is unlikely we will come to a general decision in favor of
it.
Virtually every culture, even those we tend to consider as
savage, ban homicide. Therefore, from
an ethical standpoint, our world seems to agree on this. Theft is also universally banned in
virtually every culture. Charity is
generally regarded as a virtue in all societies. Generosity is praised by all cultures and recognized as a special
trait. In some cultures telling a lie
is considered especially wrong and punishment is often much more severe than in
the United States. In many cultures,
however, it is only wrong to kill, steal or lie to those in the same
group. It is not necessarily wrong to
kill an outsider, steal from an outsider or lie to an outsider.
As the world had gained greater technology, what is considered as part of the group versus an outsider has certainly changed. Our community was once our personal group, with family always being the primary group. Today, our group may be defined in a multitude of ways, usually depending upon the circumstance. In some cases, the primary group is our family. In others, it may be comprised of the entire state we live in.
We would be kidding ourselves if we said we now accept all people
as equal. Virtually all of us harbor
feelings that some group still does not quite measure up to the rest of
us. Maybe there is something in the
human being that wants to feel superior to someone else. We see it in all cultures. Whether it is another country, state or the
guy next door, there is always someone we think of as inferior. From a purely ethical standpoint, we are
obligated to think of all people equally.
Of course, we know that will never realistically happen. Whether we make blonde jokes, attorney
jokes, or poke fun at politics the point is always to degrade some group of
people. Both law and public opinion
statistically show that we are better people today than we were a century ago
and thats the good news. The bad news
is that we have not yet arrived at our destination of being truly ethical
towards all.
Mores are those customs
that are enforced by social pressure.
Mores are relative to culture.
Not all cultures will have the same social pressures. It may even be different from one
neighborhood to another. Mores are
established patterns of action to which a person is expected to conform. Deviation is done at the risk of disapproval
and perhaps even punishment.
What begins as a more (social pressure to perform in a specified
manner) sometimes becomes a law. At
that point, conformity is more than social pressure, it is dictated by legal
standards. This often happens in the
insurance field. When long-term care
policies first came on the market, there were few state laws dictating how an
agent must present and sell them. As
time went by and social pressure to present the products in the appropriate
manner was disregarded by increasingly more agents, states began to pass laws
dictating how they should be presented.
Today there are several states that even require specified long-term
care education before an agent may market these products.
Mores do not represent right or wrong from an ethical
standpoint. As they relate to mores,
right simply means according to that specific more, whereas wrong would
then mean in violation of it. Since
the standard definition of ethics states that what is right for one must be right
for all, a more that socially accepts slavery cannot also fit the description
of ethics. Those who keep slaves are
not likely willing to also be one.
Therefore, while keeping slaves might be right according to the
cultures mores, it would not be right according to the universal code of
ethics.
Any society tends to adopt mores that are convenient and
agreeable to the way the people wish to live.
Often the manner chosen supports conduct necessary for survival and personal
well-being. Children were used in
Americas factories because it was convenient and agreeable to those who owned
the factories. The parents of the
children accepted it because it brought in a small amount of money and they
believed it was acceptable. It was not
until moral reformers made the practice unacceptable that it was changed. Change did not come easily. Once a practice is established even those
that may be harmed by it often cling to its existence because it has become
accepted as necessary to their survival.
In fact, one of the arguments used by factory owners was that child
labor was good for families because it brought them income. Those opposed wanted the children in school
so that their lives could be improved through education. From an ethical standpoint is improving the
lives of the children more ethical than allowing them to earn money for their
families? It all depends upon the view
one is taking.
For the most part, it is important that citizens follow the laws
or mores of their country or state.
Otherwise, there would be no order in our society. We must all follow the same rules of the
road, for example, or there would be so many automobile accidents that it would
not be safe to drive. There is an
obligation to conformity when it involves public safety. There may not be the same obligation when
the laws or mores involve taking advantage of a specific group of people. This would be true whether it involves
children in factories, or differing views on abortion rights. It is not possible to say one group is wrong
and the other right. As long as the
moral reformers advocate change in nonviolent ways, it will bring about new
thought and perhaps new laws and mores if they are able to sway enough people.
Johnny was raised by parents who would not tolerate lying. No lie was too small or perceived as merely
a white lie. All untruths were viewed
equally. As a result, Johnny continues
to tell the truth as an adult. He
realizes others lie, but having been raised with the truth he continues to live
his life that way. It has become part
of his personality. Johnny tells the
truth even when it would benefit him to lie.
We know that our body has certain reflex actions that protect
us. Our eyes blink if something is
flying at them; we blink before we even realize the danger. We instinctively pull back from a hot
surface even before we realize we could get burned. Our body protects us. We
acquire other types of behavior through constant conditioning.
When one specific behavior is repeated consistently, it becomes a
form of conditioned behavior, like the blinking of our eyes. Johnny has become conditioned, as a result
of positive and perhaps even negative reinforcement from his parents. It is likely that he experienced both
positive and negative reinforcement of the habit. Today, as an adult, he doesnt necessarily realize why he
dislikes lying and why he chooses to always tell the truth. It has become part of his personality.
Johnny tells the truth because of a process called operant conditioning. When a type of behavior is followed by a
specific kind of consequence, that behavior is likely to occur again. The consequence that follows the behavior is
called a reinforcer. In the case of Johnny, it may have been
praise for telling the truth in a difficult situation or it may have been a
soap rinse if caught in a lie.
Whatever, the case, the reinforcer brought about the same behavior time
and time again. The reinforcer can be
either positive or negative with one called a positive reinforcer and the other
called a negative reinforcer.
A positive reinforcer gives the individual relief or reward. If we pull our hand from a hot surface, we
experience relief from pain. If
Johnnys father hugs him after he tells the truth, Johnny will tell the truth
again when a similar circumstance faces him.
Example:
Johnny and a friend went
with his father to the candy store.
Johnnys father bought each of them a piece of candy. While he was paying for it, Johnny witnessed
his friend put another piece of candy in his pocket. Johnny did not want to lose his friend, but he knew his father
would not approve of the stealing. Therefore,
he quietly informed his father of his friends stealing. Johnnys father made his friend return the
candy. When they got home, Johnnys
father praised him for telling the truth and bragged about it to family
members. All who were told also praised
Johnny. If this situation were to arise
again Johnny is likely to again tell the truth even though it may mean the loss
of his friend.
A negative reinforcer is an action that a person would want to
avoid in the future. Such is the case
with a jail sentence for stealing. The
intent is to prevent future stealing in order to avoid jail time.
Example:
Johnny broke his
mothers favorite vase with a carelessly thrown ball in the house. Johnny knew he was not supposed to throw the
ball in the house. When his mother
asked him about the vase, Johnny lied and said he didnt know how it
happened. However, his lie was found
out. As a consequence, his mother took
his allowance to buy another vase as a replacement. She told him she would not have done so had he told the truth
when she first asked him about the broken vase.
Assuming Johnny believes he could have avoided this punishment by
telling the truth, Johnny is likely to tell the truth in a similar circumstance
in order to avoid the loss of his allowance.
It is important that Johnny believe he would have been better off
telling the truth. If Johnny tells
the truth the next time, but his mother still takes his allowance she has
actually taught him that telling the truth is not necessarily an
advantage. He lost his allowance under
both circumstances so it would be reasonable for him to lie the next time since
he might get away with it.
We often hear that parents must be consistent. This illustration demonstrates why. If Johnny were punished equally for telling
the truth and for lying, why would he tell the truth? Parents must place a priority on the specific traits they wish to
reinforce and follow it time and time again if they wish to bring about operant
conditioning in their children.
In the use of nonviolent punishment (the loss of allowance)
reasoning is the key element. As we
know, many philosophers feel that reason and productive actions is the key to
ethical behavior. Seldom could violence
be considered logical. Not only does
violence usually bring about fear and anger rather than choice, but also the
lessons taught are often not the ones intended.
Example:
When Johnny broke the vase
and lied about it, his mother cut a willow switch and whipped him with it. He felt pain and humiliation. Johnny also felt anger and resentment. He knew he should not have thrown the ball
in the house, but he also knew breaking the vase was not his intention. It had been an accident. Because he did not intend to break the vase,
he felt the whipping was unfair.
Later that day, his dog
was jumping, excited to see him. In the
excitement the dogs toenail scratched Johnny.
Johnny took a stick and whipped the dog for accidentally scratching him.
Our example shows that what we teach our children is not
necessarily what we intended the lesson to be.
Johnnys mother intended to show Johnny the result of lying. What Johnny learned was the feeling of
anger, unfairness and even fear of pain.
He also learned that he could use the same force against others who are
weaker (in this case, the dog). He may
still lie since he perceived his whipping to be unfair. He may also learn that he can give the same
physical justice to others who are weaker than him.
It must be noted that many parents have used physical punishment
and raised loving, social children. Professionals in child psychology say the most important part of
child rearing is love. Parents can make
many mistakes, and surely do, but when genuine love is part of the parenting
process those mistakes are not likely to overshadow the love.
Negative reinforcement, also called aversive training, is part of
our lives every day. Other people often
generate aversive conditions, perhaps without even trying to do so. This would include rudeness, or treating
others badly.
Our society actually uses intentional aversive control a great
deal, whether it is a fear of failing class if the student doesnt pay
attention, fear of losing a job if sales quotas are not met, or imprisonment if
we do not pay our taxes. All of these
use intentional aversion (negative reinforcement) to achieve a specific
goal. We escape from a specific
situation or avoid some negative punishment by behaving in ways that are
reinforced by those who treat us aversively if we do not conform. Both our actions and those in power of the punishment
are reinforced by the success of the process.
Sometimes moral reformers refute the success of aversive
actions. There was a time when corporal
(physical) punishment was approved in schools.
Students could be physically punished for misconduct. This ranged from a simple slap on the
knuckles with a wooden ruler to a harsh whipping. When cases of actual abuse began to be documented against our
children by a few individuals, society determined that we must stop all
physical punishment by all school authorities, even if administered by a
responsible non-abusive person. There
is evidence that physical punishment brings about desired behavior, but there
is also evidence that it encourages those who are least trustworthy to
administer it.
There is another side to aversive conditions: some may
retaliate. We have seen a rise in road
rage and other forms of social violence.
Road rage seems to stem from the perception that an abuse has been
received, so the individual retaliates in some way. People have even been shot as a result of a driving
infraction. Why would an individual
take a driving infraction so personally?
Views on this differ greatly, but obviously there is, as the name
implies, too much individual rage for such an insignificant incident.
It would be hard to believe that people will ever live together
without quarreling, constantly being logical thinking people, producing what we
need to survive in harmony. Even very
small groups of people have problems.
Family members disagree, want more than their fair share of the
resources, want to be the one in authority, or want others to take care of them
so they do not have to personally produce for the unit. We rationalize bad behavior with Hes just
human.
Mandating Ethics as Part of CE
Many states are now mandating agents complete education in
ethics. This has come about because
there is concern that agents do not always see the line between what should be
perceived as duty and personal desire.
Example:
Marvin is experiencing
tough financial times. He is behind in
his personal bills and sales have been lagging. He has just made a sale and collected a years premium from Mrs.
Washington. Although he is supposed to
turn the premium over to the insurance company, and he realizes this, he
chooses instead to deposit it into his personal account. Marvin pays several overdue bills. The next week his commission check comes in
so he then sends the amount of premium he collected from Mrs. Washington in to
the insurance company. When the insurer
receives Marvins personal check, they are concerned. Few people would pay a years premium with cash (the only reason
Marvin might pay with a personal check).
The insurer contacts Mrs. Washington and finds that she paid with a
check made out to the insurer. As a
result, Marvin is charged with fraud.
When questioned on the money, Marvin does not see why there
should be a problem. After all, Mrs.
Washington received the full value she paid for, though a week later than she
might have anticipated. He feels that
no harm was done and feels the insurer and the state insurance department is
unfairly prosecuting him.
There are several reasons why fraud charges would be warranted:
Probably everyone has wanted to change a requirement to a casual
law, meaning one that is basically followed but not consistently so. A good example of this would be the speed
limits imposed. Most of us probably
follow the speed limit most of the time, but we feel no guilt about
occasionally speeding. We consider the
speed limit (even though imposed by law) to be a casual law. This attitude is allowed by society since
most people do speed at times and will admit to doing so. If most of society
occasionally breaks the same law it is considered acceptable for all to do so
(what is right for one is right for all).
The exception is when breaking the law injures or kills another. Then society legally demands the law be
followed.
Example:
James mostly drives the
speed limit. However, when he is
returning home from work at 11 p.m. there is very little traffic. As a result, he nearly always speeds on his
way home. He has done this for over a
year without consequence. On one night, however, there is a pedestrian along
the stretch of road. Since it is dark,
James does not see him and strikes him with his car. The man is not killed, but he is injured. James is sued for speeding. James must pay a large sum of money, which
eventually bankrupts him.
James knew the speeding limit.
Therefore, there was no excuse for his actions. Even if James had proclaimed that he was not
aware of the speeding limit, if it was properly posted, he would still be
legally liable.
Most people act in character.
Just as James had consistently driven over the speed limit on his way
home, most people repeat the same actions over and over. When James never received a speeding ticket
his speeding was, effectively, positively reinforced. This is another reason why state insurance departments must
enforce their requirements. To do
anything less would give positive reinforcement to those who would break the
rules.
If there is no conflict in the agents mind between his required
duty to his client and his own personal desire, obviously he is likely to do as
his own personal desires dictate. There
would be no reason to follow the law if he or she saw no conflict in not doing
so. We follow the speed limit because
we fear receiving a ticket (costing us money).
We handle consumer funds appropriately because we fear punishment if we
do not do so. While we might like to
think that most people want to do their duty, realistically we know that many
prefer to fulfill their personal desires.
That is why we have laws and punishments for those who fail to follow
them.
It begins early in our life.
Our parents begin to tell us right from wrong. The Golden Rule is probably one of our very first lessons as a
child. When we are very young, these
lessons are imposed upon us. Lessons
might include sharing, manners, and other social issues. A young child learns to share his toys, say
please and thank you. As the child
grows older, he learns to pick up his toys, clean his room, and follow the
directions of adults. Some lessons are
for safety, such as receiving a spanking for running into the road. Some lessons are for order, such as putting
away toys. Some lessons merely satisfy
the parents desire to live according to a specific belief, such as religious
training.
By adulthood, many of our lessons have become part of our
personality. We no longer question many
issues; they have become habits of living.
If we were asked: Why are you always on time for every appointment? it
would seem an unusual question. You
might respond: Why wouldnt I be on time?
This aspect of living has become part of your personality; you no longer
think about it.
Most of us believe certain things but we dont necessarily think
about why we believe it. Our
religious training likely came from our parents. We follow it but probably dont think about why we consider it
the right path for us. In childhood we
followed the religious training because our parents told us to. By adulthood, we have accepted the beliefs
as our own and believe them to be proper and good for our lives.
It is not just religious beliefs that we adopt from others. We also accept hatred as well as love. When parents hold prejudices, those are
passed on to their children as effectively as religious training. Of course, parents believe their prejudices
so they actually want their children to accept and keep them along with other
lessons. This is why it is so difficult
to change hatred when it has been passed from parent to child.
Ethics do not actually need to be tied to either religion or the
law. Since ethics are based on beliefs
that are perceived to be true (actual fact is not a requirement), if an
individual believes he or she is right, they are following a personal code of
ethics. Changing that code to omit
hatred or illogical thought can be very difficult. That is why ethicists insist that ethics must be based on logical
thought, with education a necessary component of that process.
There was a time when people thought the world was flat. When some very learned people began to
announce that the world was round, many were actually prosecuted for saying so. The majority did not want their perceived
truths to be challenged. Hatred has
much in common with this example. Most
people do not want their beliefs challenged.
Rather, they want those around them to accept their beliefs as fact,
without questioning the basis of them.
Children are the most likely to be receptive. After all, young children are in no position to question their
parents authority and knowledge.
Plato and Kierkegaard raised this question: Is something
wrong because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong?
Ethics are not tied to religion or law. Ethics are always about individual perceptions and beliefs. Therefore, it is entirely possible for a persons ethical code to be a bit twisted. The pure ethicist will do nothing that harms another living thing. Ethics must always give to all what is given to one. In that respect, religion and law are connected to ethics even though they are not required to be. It could be said that although ethics are not connected to law or religion the principles of all are fundamentally the same.
Despite the fundamental similarities, there are also distinctions
among them. Laws are not always based
on what is fair to all (such as the legal discrimination placed upon same-sex
marriages). We know our justice system
does not treat all the same. For
example, how we fare in court can depend upon many elements, including the
fairness and prejudices of the judge, the ability of each attorney representing
the parties, and how a jury perceives the individuals involved. The outcome can even be swayed by the
honesty of those testifying. While the
intent of the law is to be fair, fairness is seldom a consideration during the
process.
Religions are based on moral concepts but how those concepts are
carried out depends as much on cultural beliefs as it does on a belief in
God. Additionally, we have seen many
examples of one individual or a group of individuals swaying the entire church
body. One very dramatic example was Jim
Jones and Jonestown. It would be hard
to believe that religion played an honest role in his life.
Ethics is the one pure element.
Even when people disagree on what is ethical, the main function is
following what one truly believes. Law
or religion cannot sway ethics. What
one perceives to be the true path is all that matters, regardless of what the
law or the church dictates. That is why
people smuggled slaves to safety despite great danger to them. That is why people marched for freedom. That is why people put their social acceptance
on the line still today for what they believe in. There is no easy way for most of us to announce our differences
or beliefs, especially when it could mean loss of our job, housing, and
friends.
There is no illusion that an agent will change their conduct
purely from taking a course or reading a chapter on ethical conduct. Ethics is a thinking mans topic. The point is to increase brain activity
enough to expose the agent to various ideas and concepts. The law may not always be right, but there
exists methods for changing an unjust law.
Religion might not always mirror what we feel is true of God, but we can
go to the Bible and research it. Ethics
come from within us. Our ethical views
can change with new information. Our
ethical views should change as we learn more. There will always be the
fundamental law of ethics: what is right for one is right for all. Therefore, from that point on, it is all a
matter of obtained knowledge and cultural differences.
Knowledge is essential to the insurance agent. He or she must continually learn new
products, stay abreast of new state or federal requirements, and meet the needs
of new clients.
Plato has taken the stand that justice wins out over piety. What is just for one is just for all.
Thank you,
United Insurance Educators, Inc.