Agent Ethics

The Teaching of Ethics

Chapter 4

Can Ethics Be Taught?

  Can ethics be taught? This is disagreement on the answer. Some feel ethics can be taught if the situation is right. For example, parents teach their children ethical attitudes from the time they are born. Those attitudes are taught by the parent’s words and actions. Unfortunately, what is taught is not always as intended.

  Much of what one obtains in ethics is taken from their religion. Does a person have to be religious to be ethical? Certainly not. Ethics is not tied to religion. However, religion is tied to ethics. Mainstream religions advocate ethical behavior. Religions keep their ethical teachings fairly pure if they follow the Bible. In other words, those that believe in following the Bible will be similar from church to church because the Bible is similar from printing to printing. Of course, different interpretations might exist, but the basic teachings will be the same. In addition, there are only a few points of the Bible that might not suit everyone. For example, all people generally believe that it is wrong to kill. The purist will be against all killing, even when sanctioned by law (such as the death penalty). People who are against killing may not be against abortion. This is where different interpretations of the facts exist. One may believe a fetus is a person from the moment of conception while another believes it does not occur until life outside of the body is possible.  Each side of the issue tries to persuade the other.

  The Bible may also be used by those who wish to perpetuate a philosophy of hate against a particular group. Of course, we know the Bible does not promote hate, but those who do will use sections for their own benefit. Even when America was trying to end segregation, the Bible was used to support segregation. As with all things, facts can be selectively used to verify a desired position.

Philosophers often point out

that the truly ethical person studies all the facts.

  Philosophers often point out that the truly ethical person studies all the facts. One cannot be ethical and only listen to one viewpoint. Since ethical standards must be based on logic and reasoning, obtaining all the facts is essential. A great leader once remarked about a change of belief “I have learned something new.” It is the willingness to “learn something new” that is the base of ethical thinking. Occasionally we may feel that changing our mind is a sign of weakness. Pride gets in the way of logical thinking and ethical conduct. In fact, business leaders who are able to accept new ideas and trends are often the most successful. Salespeople who adapt to new products are routinely the leaders in their fields. The ability to change and adapt as new facts and technologies emerge is an important quality. Even views of morality need to be able to change and adapt as conditions, circumstances, and facts change and emerge.

Variability in moral judgments is often nothing more

than different amounts or combinations of knowledge.

  Variability in moral judgments is often nothing more than different amounts or combinations of knowledge. We try to make the best decisions possible with the information we have available. As more information becomes available, views of moral judgment may change. This is not a bad thing. Morals must be able to change and form as knowledge is added or corrected.

  When looking at any issue, some facts are bound to be more prominent than other facts. Even the way an issue is stated can affect how one believes. For example, what one person considers religion another may consider superstition. One person heard the facts from a different standpoint than the other.

  The requirement of knowledge (schooling) is often an attempt to provide additional facts with the end goal being a broader base from which to form opinions. While it is probably true that ethics cannot be mandated, they may be taught. That is, a person’s view may be broadened or changed due to additional facts. When a person’s view is expanded, their activities will usually reflect this.

A Moral Habit

Habit: “an act or practice so frequently repeated as to become almost automatic; a tendency or disposition to act consistently or to repeat.”

  Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. 

  Are morals merely a habit that we continue to follow without thinking? In many ways, they are. As children, for example, our parents taught us certain paths they wished us to follow. Once we had followed those paths often enough, they became the accepted way to go. Even if we do not fully understand why we believe certain things or don’t believe others, what we have done and believed for years becomes part of who we are; they become part of our thinking process. Such habits become part of our personality.

  Most activity is performed without a thought to the complexities of moral rights and wrongs. Ethics still plays a part in the activities, but not necessarily a conscious part. In many ways, morals are simply habits. A person gets accustomed to thinking and behaving a certain way and they continue to do so out of belief and repetition.

  A single act seldom defines who we are, although a single act can affect others around us. The man who rushes into a burning house and rescues another certainly affects the person in peril as well as their family members. That one act affects many people. However, that one act does not define the hero. It may have been a single act that is essentially out of character for the individual. Most of us are glad that a single act does not define us. Probably everyone has committed an act or said some words that they deeply regretted later. We would hate to believe that one senseless act defined us for our lifetime. On the other hand, the hero would like others to believe that he is courageous all the time. Even when we do not admit it, how others view us does affect our actions or even our own opinions of ourselves.

  We tend to especially admire those who seem to do the “right” thing consistently, even when there will be no recognition or personal gain. That admiration does not always mean, however, that we desire to follow in their footsteps. Few people would want to do what Mother Teresa did. Although we admire her, we do not necessarily want to face the same hardships that she willingly took on. Mother Teresa is a prime example of being ethical by choice.

Books allow us to live someone else’s life without the danger.

  We read fiction and nonfiction books about people that do fantastic things, endure great danger, or demonstrate enormous mental abilities. Books allow us to live someone else’s life without the danger or stress that would exist if we actually performed the feats. We may dream of skydiving or enjoy reading about it, but that does not necessarily mean we plan to carry through and actually perform the activity. In short, what we say and what we actually want to do are often not the same. 

  Ethical conduct, while varying from person to person, has some very stable basics within any particular society or country. France might be different than America but approved ethical conduct will be basically the same for all Frenchmen and the same for all Americans. Therefore, all French citizens will have some basic, common ideas, while Americans will also have some basic, common ideas. However, what the French believe and what the Americans believe is not necessarily the same.  Each country’s belief is correct even though different. Ethical conduct is always about what is perceived.

  We know in America that it is not condoned to steal, lie, or kill.  That is not to say that it doesn’t happen. In fact, many Americans feel they have a right to do these things. At least, they rationalize it for their own benefit. What they do not believe is that everyone has a right to do it; only themselves or their group. For example, certain hate groups feel they have a right to injure minorities, but they do not believe that minorities have a right to injure them. A few anti-abortionists believe they have the right to kill doctors or clinic staff members, but they do not believe that the same doctors have a right to kill them.  Our history is full of examples of one group intending rights for themselves, which they purposely deny to others. Rationalization is a marvelous thing. It allows a person to believe they are somehow special and deserve special things or treatment.

  Do such people really believe they have special rights?  It is hard to know. The human mind is complicated and even the experts disagree. From a purely logical standpoint, it would seem that such people know they do not deserve special privileges but hope to convince others that they do. If they are successful in convincing others, then society might actually let them get away with it. Children try this with their peers. If they can convince their playmates to always let them be the hero, they will do so. Such actions ignore right and wrong in favor of getting power. For children, it is usually nothing more than getting their way. In adulthood, it is still about getting one’s own way, but it also involves such things as greed, power, and gratification.

Violence in The Name of Ethics

  The words, ethical violence, seem to be incompatible. However, it must be remembered that ethics do not necessarily follow the moral judgments of others. The pure ethicist will not believe that morality (ethics) can ever be compatible with violence. Indeed, Martin Luther King advocated nonviolence because he was an ethical purist. He applied the same standards to himself that he applied to others. Therefore, if it was wrong for another to harm a black person, then it was also wrong for a black person to harm another.

Rationalizing is not the same as truly believing.

  Our history, unfortunately, is full of violent acts performed in the name of morality. In the truest sense, if the person believes their actions to be right, then they are personally ethical, even if their actions do not follow the stated laws. The key word believes. Rationalizing is not the same as truly believing.

  For the person who does really believe in what they are doing, even if their actions are incompatible with the laws or the majority of the population, they are still behaving ethically. This happens more than we might realize. In Nazi Germany, many people hid their Jewish neighbors and friends, even though it was against the law to do so. During America’s days of slavery, many people worked to help African Americans escape into Canada.  During the Vietnam War, our own citizens escaped to Canada, even though it was illegal to evade the draft.

  When acts become violent, more is involved than a purity of beliefs. Ethical actions typically do not involve violence. No matter whose philosophy is considered, seldom do mainstream philosophies include violence to others. Of course, there are many philosophies that are not mainstream. People rationalize hatred of other cultures or races by telling ourselves that they are “not the same as us.” This is not a new rationalization. Violence in the name of ethics can nearly always be broken down into some form of rationalization. Why? Because ethical conduct is a logical, thinking process. Ethical behavior even involves the ethical treatment of other animal species, so violence cannot be condoned towards any other human species or group.

Violence in the name of ethics can nearly always be broken down, upon close examination, into a form of rationalization.

Ethical conduct is a logical, thinking process, never a violent process.

  Is the element of death always considered to be violence? No. This is why the subject of ethics becomes so confusing. In the past, Eskimos believed it a just act to kill aging parents. In fact, the parents themselves believed in it. The killing of aged parents was not considered an act of violence at all. Each society develops its moral standards on the basis of what is best for the group as a whole. In the Eskimo society, at that time, it was best for the group to eliminate anyone who became a burden. It was considered a loving act to give one’s life for the benefit of the group, so even the aged considered their death to be right, or ethical.

  The dividing line seems to be who would benefit from the act. When a person desires particular circumstances for their own benefit that has the possibility of being unethical. If the circumstance is desired for the good of someone else or the group as a whole, it is more likely to be ethical in nature.

The Addiction to Power

  It would be completely wrong and unfair to say that powerful people as a group are unethical. However, it must be noted that too often power does corrupt. It is easy to say that one should be content with their lives, but it is human to want what someone else has.  For most people, such jealousy has no ability to become abusive since the individual has no personal power over others. For a person in a powerful position, however, abuse is often possible. We have seen this demonstrated in jobs where there is control over others, such as guards have in a prison. Luckily having control does not change most people, but if we are not very careful those who would change with power will seek out situations that give it to them.

  Surprisingly, it is often those with some power, but not lots of it, that seem to abuse their position or authority. Often such things are merely annoying, but not dangerous.  However, our history has some very dramatic instances where power gone wild has resulted in death and destruction, sometimes for entire populations.

  It has been said that power draws others thirsty for it. Perhaps this is why powerful people so often experience anxiety, stress, depression and unhappiness. History has also shown that power can bring about immoral behavior in otherwise good people. Who can say why this happens? Many of our political leaders have demonstrated behavior that was not only unethical, but potentially destructive to their careers.  One must only turn on the nightly news to observe examples of those engaging in destructive behavior.

A powerful person attracts others who are thirsty for power.

  Why would a savvy, smart, ambitious person do things that might destroy them? For some, there is the feeling that their power is so great that nothing can touch them. People tend to surround themselves with others who validate their own feelings. Someone who thought they could not be touched would choose friends who reinforced their opinion.

  For some, the temptation is simply greater than their moral standing. Powerful people attract others who desire power. In their desire to obtain power, special opportunities may be offered. Those seeking power hope that, by giving special favors to the powerful, their own needs for power will be fulfilled. Many thirsty for power will achieve it by trampling those in their way. There is the saying: all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

  Those of us who have no position of power may imagine that power would enrich our lives. This is generally not the case. Powerful people are more likely to have heart attacks, and other physical ailments. Of course, that may have more to do with the stress of their responsibility than with the actual power. It is hard to know for sure. Even aside from the physical ailments they experience, the mental stress is great. Powerful people typically must “stay on top.” Sometimes by whatever means available. Powerful people often desire wealth since it is an avenue to obtaining power. Because they have power, they are able to pursue wealth successfully.

  Ironically, history often shows a different view of who was actually powerful. Who would have considered Ralph Nader powerful several decades ago? Yet today, industry certainly considers him to be powerful. He has forced some very strong companies to change the way they do business.

  Several environmental and animal rights groups have also stretched some muscle in ways that no one imagined possible. Usually, we think of powerful people as those who work for their own benefit, but that is not always true.

  Even Mother Teresa who never sought power, never sought wealth ended up being a powerful figure. Corporate heads listened when she spoke. Why was that? Perhaps because the greatest form of power is the ability to persuade others or to affect how others view us. Mother Teresa had that ability.

Wealth and power are not always connected initially,

although wealth often comes as a result of power.

  It must be stressed that power and wealth are not always connected initially. Wealth often comes as a result of power, however. Many wealthy people live long lives, often with little stress involved. When power is not the goal, individuals are free to work as they choose with no regard for others who are drawn to power (avoiding all the conflict that brings). Many wealthy people shield knowledge of it from others in order to avoid problems. They live simply, driving modest cars, living in modest homes, and demonstrating lifestyles like most middle America. Those most likely to be concealing wealth earned it themselves. There are many more self-made millionaires than most people would guess. Often it was the result of years of hard work building up a business. For these individuals, wealth was never the goal. Power was never the goal.  Instead they simply pursued a career choice that brought them pleasure. Wealth merely happened to be a resulting factor.

Objective Morality

  Many philosophers and ethical writers believe morality is the evolution of continued discovery. As we discover new things about our society and the world around us, we must draw continually new conclusions regarding ethics. Fifty years ago, environmental issues were not considered. As our society grew and progressed, these topics became an ethical issue. Therefore, our society’s morality is, in many ways, linked to education. 

  Can a person be objective morally? In some ways, we must be. Otherwise we would not be able to deal on a global basis with countries that do not share our views. In other ways, we can never be. Otherwise we would be willing to tolerate another Adolf Hitler. Seem confusing? Ethics often are.

  It has been said that morals are the result of thoughtful and well-educated people. In many ways this is probably true. One must be thoughtful or all the education possible in ethics will not make any difference. On the other hand, no matter how thoughtful a person may be, without education they may be unable to fully understand an ethical issue. Education is to ethics what research is to science. Each is a necessary part of advancing theories and ultimately society.

It has been said that morals

are the result of thoughtful and well educated people.

  Education does not always bring agreement. This is true in science and in ethics as well.  Education often has to do with the way in which facts are presented. There was an exercise that was performed for the benefit of new insurance agents. Two policies were compared in two different lights. Under one comparison Plan A seemed the best choice; under the other comparison, Plan B was the obvious choice. Neither policy changed during the two comparisons, but how the facts were related did change. When agents saw the two presentations, they often felt confused and sometimes even annoyed. How were they to know which to present to consumers if both were simultaneously displayed as best and worst?

  The point of the demonstration is true in many situations. No one item is right for all people. No one set of facts is right all the time either. Each person and situation vary, and with those variations comes different applications of the same facts. We believe it is wrong to steal, yet we would each steal if necessary, to feed our hungry child. We believe it is wrong to lie, but many people lied to protect Jews during the Holocaust. We believe it is wrong to kill, yet we expect our policemen and women to kill if necessary, in order to protect America’s citizens.  It all depends on how the facts are presented.

  Police officers are in an especially difficult situation. If they must draw their gun and fire, the fact that they wear a badge is not protection from society’s view of the facts.  One part of society may feel they were justified, and another part of society may feel they were not. In addition to facing society’s opinion, they must deal with their own perceptions of morality and killing another person. Soldiers in combat faced similar ethical conflicts. Certainly, it is important that our police officers be well educated and ethical.  Some might say that ethical training is especially important for officers. Why? Because an officer who is prejudiced, greedy, or looking for power is in a position to do great harm. At the same time, an honest and well-meaning officer may find himself or herself unjustly treated because they judged the facts differently than a panel of judges who had time to consider all elements. In the years to come, society will have to make some decisions: are tax dollars more important than the cost of hiring the best men and women?

  The previous illustration regarding police officers could be applied to any profession that has the ability to affect consumers. An insurance agent who is uneducated is just as dangerous as an insurance agent who is unethical. Although the motives may be different, the results for the consumer are not.

Avoiding Negativity

  Virtually every living thing will attempt to avoid harm. People are perhaps the one exception. Some people seem to seek out danger. Even those that seek danger, however, probably try to avoid being personally harmed.

  Nature has installed in us several defenses to avoid harm: our eyelids instinctively close if something comes flying towards our face, we sneeze when our respiratory passages are irritated; our hand pulls back from a hot surface before we even consider the movement.  All these things, plus more, are reflex actions built into our bodies. Nature has a “survival sense.” Even plants have demonstrated survival conditioning. Many varieties protect themselves from water shortages, for example.

  There are other things that condition us towards certain behavior that is not a reflex. A reward of food following a specific behavior might encourage us to repeat it (“When you finish your homework, you may have desert”). On the other hand, a small shock would discourage the behavior (remember how people used to quit smoking?). The food is called a reinforcer because it encourages a specific related behavior. The shock would be called a negative reinforcer. Both reinforcer and negative reinforcer activity is contingent upon the previous occurrence or stimuli. This is nature’s way of educating us.

  The path ethical education takes is not too different from nature’s way.  Often the negative reinforcer is the reaction of our peers. While it may not involve a hot surface, we still instinctively pull away when another person or group voices displeasure with our action.  If another person or group voices approval, it becomes a reinforcer. As a child the reinforcement came from our parents and friends. Their approval or disapproval meant a great deal. There is a close tie to feelings of being loved and having approval. The confusion between love and approval has sent many people to the analysts’ couch.

We instinctively pull away when another person or group voices displeasure with our actions.  If another person or group voices approval, it becomes a reinforcer.

  As we grow older, we do not voice the idea that our peer’s approval has anything to do with love, but that does not mean that it becomes any less important. It is the rare person who does not want approval from others. It may be less important to some than others, but it is still generally desired. Of course, the most important need for approval involves those we seek love or approval from.

  Because approval (even when not voiced) is desired, ethics can be taught. It is less likely to be taught in a classroom, however, and more likely to be taught in social circles. It is important to note that just any group will not influence a person. The group must be one that he or she wishes to participate in. When the individual values the person or group, then he or she will be swayed by their views.

  This ability to influence has been used very successfully by many groups. Some types of groups have even sought people who did not feel a sense of belonging anywhere else.  Since any person wants to belong some place, if that has not been fulfilled, they can be susceptible to a person or group that gives a sense of belonging. That is, the individual can be influenced. Youth gangs have especially capitalized on this need to belong. If the child does not have a sense of worth and personal importance at home, in church or in school, they will seek it elsewhere. Of course, children from loving homes have still been pulled into destructive situations, but without positive influences, the pull of destructive forces has a much greater chance.

  This brings us back to ethical standards becoming habits. The child who has routinely followed a religious path will be less likely to suddenly veer from it. It is not unusual for an adult to return to a religion they practiced as a child. Although they may not realize it, returning to their childhood religion often regains a security they felt at that time. Perhaps that is why parents so often feel strongly about teaching their children religion; it has the ability to lay a path for them in adulthood.

Who Is the Teacher?

  This chapter asked the question: can ethics be taught? Perhaps the better question would have been: who is the teacher? Where do we get our ethical training?

  Many people would be surprised to learn that they teach ethics to others every day. Each of us gives to others, whether we realize it or not. We, in turn, also receive from others every day.

  People who work with the public, such as insurance agents, see all kinds of people. When they are with their clients it would probably be safe to say that they “put their best foot forward.” I would be surprised to hear of any agent who treated their clients and potential clients rudely. Surely, they would not last in the profession for any length of time. Why, then, do we treat the store clerk, the telephone operator, or our children rudely? Is it because we think these people are different than those who supply our professional income?

  As an educational provider, we are always surprised by the rude telephone calls we sometimes receive. Perhaps the few agents who do this believe they are being assertive, but rudeness is never the same thing as assertiveness. Sometimes rudeness simply ends up being humorous if the receiver can keep it from affecting them personally. Perhaps fewer people would be rude if they realized how often they are laughed at.

Anger and rudeness are often companions.

  Rudeness can be comical to those watching (such as television sitcoms) but seldom is it humorous to the person who is the target. Anger and rudeness are often companions.  Therefore, the victim of the verbal assault must deal with two emotions, both of which are unacceptable and illogical. The target of this abuse is bound to feel drained emotionally by the end of the ordeal and all too often, nothing is accomplished by either person.

Is Manners Part of Ethics?

  Most philosophers feel that ethics and manners are connected. Since manners display a need to do what is right, the two have a common thread. An ethical person would be aware that the person waiting on them at the store has feelings and insecurities. Therefore, any action that brought about emotional pain would be unethical.

  It has become popular to display aggressiveness. What many people fail to recognize is that aggressiveness is not always particularly successful! The sweet old lady who smiles quietly at the clerk is much more likely to get her refund than the businessman who pounds the counter and demands to see the manager. Generally, people want to help those who they like. The counter-pounding man may get his refund, but the clerk will be unlikely to give him any additional service of any kind. On the other hand, the same clerk may carry the packages to the car for the polite, little, old lady. Which customer is really the smartest?

End of Chapter 4