Back to literature I go...
Currently I am reading Asleep: The Forgotten Endemic that Remains one of Medicine's Greatest Mysteries. It is a nonfiction book following Encephalitis AKA "The Sleeping Sickness" - it follows several case studies and the doctors involved in the spread between 1915 and 1927.
In order to better understand health issues at the time, we are given some history into NYC public health standards and practices. One raises a particularly interesting ethical question in my mind - the case of Typhoid Mary.
Mary was a cook for several wealthy families, and the Health Department - through much searching - found out that she was spreading Typhoid through the food she prepared for these families. She did not suffer from the disease, but she was a carrier of the germs and gave those to the families for which she worked. Mary had fears of the department catching her (not sure what would happen if/when they did), so she continued to bounce from job to job, cooking for families all while spreading the disease. Since Mary would not quite her job as a cook despite the fact that she was spreading this horrible illness, she was finally arrested and forced to live out her life in an isolation hospital.
Now, the ethical question I have is this: is it right for the officials to imprison Mary for the remainder of her life? She did not purposefully murder anyone. She simply was stricken with something that she could not get rid of. For the record, I think that, yes, they did have to imprison her. If they had not done so, they would have been knowingly allowing more and more people to die (would they then be murderers??). If Mary would have just stopped cooking for families, she would not have been imprisoned. Of course, that was her way to make money. She did not exactly have many other options in life as a poor Irish immigrant.
What about a larger picture? Does the government have the right (or maybe the need) to take away some/all of our freedoms in order to keep the public safe? Well, they are doing these types of things right now. Bans on smoking and trans fats are two recent examples. But at what point is it too much? Have we begun to open the Pandora's Box of banning? And - most importantly - how will we know when to close it?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Quote
Here's a line from the novel that I have to write down and blog about later today...
"If we can't respect the way we earn it, money has no value."
"If we can't respect the way we earn it, money has no value."
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Case Studies and A Couple of Philosophies
Once again, the novel I am reading relates in an unexpected way to our class. In this instance it relates in a specific way that can be taken more broadly as well.
The lesson the main character - Lin - is learning has been continued. And the main point is now brought to this: 'Sometimes it is necessary to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. The important thing is to be sure that our reasons are right, and that we admit the wrong - that we do not lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that what we do is right.'
This brought me back to yesterday's discussion of the church case study. The woman in the story was doing something wrong. But, was she doing it for the right reasons? And was she honest with herself about her actions?
Initially she believed her actions were for the right reasons. However, as someone pointed out, if she truly thought them to be just and right why would she have been so reluctant to fess up to them? She was not willing to admit that her actions were wrong until she'd been caught. The whole idea also reminds me of Thoreau's ideas of civil disobedience. If you believe something is just or unjust it is your duty to stand up for or against it but o do so in a non-violent and "civil" manner.
When I taught this to my English III students I was always careful to emphasize one main point: you must be willing to accept the consequences to your actions. This can be taken in the case studies we've done. For instance, in the church case study, if the woman truly believed her actions were just and right, she should have been willing to stand up for them (of course, I don't think Thoreau had stealing from a church in mind, but you get the idea). And this should be true throughout the workplace.
If, as a CPA, you are asked or told to do something that is not right, you have the opportunity to stand up for or against that action. However, you must realize that you are accepting the consequences of your actions. In our case study, the plant manager believed it was right to get the orders in on time for customers. If this wasn't accomplished, he believed it would make the plant suffer and there would be potential for customers to be lost, snowballing the problem into something greater. He took an action he believed to be best for all and must be willing to accept the consequence of that.
The lesson the main character - Lin - is learning has been continued. And the main point is now brought to this: 'Sometimes it is necessary to do the wrong thing for the right reasons. The important thing is to be sure that our reasons are right, and that we admit the wrong - that we do not lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that what we do is right.'
This brought me back to yesterday's discussion of the church case study. The woman in the story was doing something wrong. But, was she doing it for the right reasons? And was she honest with herself about her actions?
Initially she believed her actions were for the right reasons. However, as someone pointed out, if she truly thought them to be just and right why would she have been so reluctant to fess up to them? She was not willing to admit that her actions were wrong until she'd been caught. The whole idea also reminds me of Thoreau's ideas of civil disobedience. If you believe something is just or unjust it is your duty to stand up for or against it but o do so in a non-violent and "civil" manner.
When I taught this to my English III students I was always careful to emphasize one main point: you must be willing to accept the consequences to your actions. This can be taken in the case studies we've done. For instance, in the church case study, if the woman truly believed her actions were just and right, she should have been willing to stand up for them (of course, I don't think Thoreau had stealing from a church in mind, but you get the idea). And this should be true throughout the workplace.
If, as a CPA, you are asked or told to do something that is not right, you have the opportunity to stand up for or against that action. However, you must realize that you are accepting the consequences of your actions. In our case study, the plant manager believed it was right to get the orders in on time for customers. If this wasn't accomplished, he believed it would make the plant suffer and there would be potential for customers to be lost, snowballing the problem into something greater. He took an action he believed to be best for all and must be willing to accept the consequence of that.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Ethics from Fiction
I am reading a semi-biographical novel titled Shantaram. For quick background:
It is about a man who was sentenced to 19 years in prison in his home of Australia, but he escaped a few years into the sentence and fled to India - Bombay (at the time). He begins to live a good life in the slums - starts a free clinic for the 25, 000 slum-dwellers, befriends those in the slum and helps all when he can. Then he eventually turns to crime again (fake passports, exchanging rupees for dollars at different percentage than the banks, etc) for various reasons dealing with his personal safety and protection.
In one scene, Lin (main character) is having a moral discussion with the man training him to do crime in India. They begin to talk about wrong versus right...an interesting talk if you think of what these two men do for a living. The leader - Khader - goes on to tell Lin that many people say things are wrong, but those people never seem to know why. They may attribute it to the Koran, the Bible, the Upanishads or some other text but still cannot say exactly why. Khader then says that one must ask himself the question: "What would happen if everyone did this thing?" and "Would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?"
His point about complexity is that if everyone ran around stealing, killing, etc then we would all be so consumed with worrying about that that we would not be able to move towards "the ultimate complexity...that is God".
I loved this part in the novel. And I can take what Khader calls the "ultimate complexity" and frame it around a more secular view. It is like saying, if we were all consumed and worried because we lived in a (morally or literally) lawless state, then we would be constantly sitting at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. We could never reach the top to self-actualization. It's like having students who are so concerned with feeding their families that my request for them to read The Crucible and understand the finer points of its themes is ridiculous. That is not on their radar. They need survival first.
So how can this be brought into business ethics?
If there were no rules - SOX or AICPA, etc - then people would be consumed with the ideas of what is really being done. Are they being treated fairly? There would be no groundwork to keep that basic level of safety with their finances (their livelihood), so they would not be able to begin moving upwards in trust and would not use CPA's or financial advisors. People would want to have the trust and feeling of safety, so they'd just prefer to do work on their own (possibly not very well) and do their own planning. Because of this, I think it is quite essential that we have laws at not only the governmental level, but within that to those who deal with other aspects of our lives. It lets the rest of us know what is being done and that we are backed up by something and needn't worry - too much.
Medical practitioners have laws (HIPAA), politicians have laws (in theory), so should those who deal with our monetary livelihood. It is just essential if we want to move forward.
It is about a man who was sentenced to 19 years in prison in his home of Australia, but he escaped a few years into the sentence and fled to India - Bombay (at the time). He begins to live a good life in the slums - starts a free clinic for the 25, 000 slum-dwellers, befriends those in the slum and helps all when he can. Then he eventually turns to crime again (fake passports, exchanging rupees for dollars at different percentage than the banks, etc) for various reasons dealing with his personal safety and protection.
In one scene, Lin (main character) is having a moral discussion with the man training him to do crime in India. They begin to talk about wrong versus right...an interesting talk if you think of what these two men do for a living. The leader - Khader - goes on to tell Lin that many people say things are wrong, but those people never seem to know why. They may attribute it to the Koran, the Bible, the Upanishads or some other text but still cannot say exactly why. Khader then says that one must ask himself the question: "What would happen if everyone did this thing?" and "Would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?"
His point about complexity is that if everyone ran around stealing, killing, etc then we would all be so consumed with worrying about that that we would not be able to move towards "the ultimate complexity...that is God".
I loved this part in the novel. And I can take what Khader calls the "ultimate complexity" and frame it around a more secular view. It is like saying, if we were all consumed and worried because we lived in a (morally or literally) lawless state, then we would be constantly sitting at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. We could never reach the top to self-actualization. It's like having students who are so concerned with feeding their families that my request for them to read The Crucible and understand the finer points of its themes is ridiculous. That is not on their radar. They need survival first.
So how can this be brought into business ethics?
If there were no rules - SOX or AICPA, etc - then people would be consumed with the ideas of what is really being done. Are they being treated fairly? There would be no groundwork to keep that basic level of safety with their finances (their livelihood), so they would not be able to begin moving upwards in trust and would not use CPA's or financial advisors. People would want to have the trust and feeling of safety, so they'd just prefer to do work on their own (possibly not very well) and do their own planning. Because of this, I think it is quite essential that we have laws at not only the governmental level, but within that to those who deal with other aspects of our lives. It lets the rest of us know what is being done and that we are backed up by something and needn't worry - too much.
Medical practitioners have laws (HIPAA), politicians have laws (in theory), so should those who deal with our monetary livelihood. It is just essential if we want to move forward.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Independence
We began with the question - why are some people willing to go against their own principles and societal norms in order to take actions. This led us to the expected discussion - people want $$ and they don't think they'll get caught. But then we went elsewhere and the topic of independence arose.
The idea is that if you are an independent employee you will not be as likely to fall victim to pressures from employers (or colleagues) to act illegally. But how can one truly be independent? You can get fired for going against a boss or ostracized from your co-workers (not a pleasant way to spend your working life). Well, there is always the "F-This" bank account, as someone in class brought up. Keep 6 months' to 1 years' salary put away so that you can just quit at any time and never have to worry about being forced to stay in a bad situation. Not a bad idea.
But what if you just got this job? Or you've not been able to save up that kind of money yet? I'm sure many would say that you have no choice, and you've just got to stick it out, do what you're told and hope that later on you can enjoy that dream quitting moment. But I disagree. Everyone always has a choice. The alternatives may be equally unpleasant, but there are choices for every situation in life. So, you would have to ask yourself one very important thing - how will I feel about myself after making this choice? I believe so many questions in life can be pared down with such a question. "Should I have one more drink?" "Should I take this course?" "Should I do this thing I'm being asked to do?" All can lead to thinking about how you will feel after the choice. And, hopefully, people like to feel good about themselves as people.
The idea is that if you are an independent employee you will not be as likely to fall victim to pressures from employers (or colleagues) to act illegally. But how can one truly be independent? You can get fired for going against a boss or ostracized from your co-workers (not a pleasant way to spend your working life). Well, there is always the "F-This" bank account, as someone in class brought up. Keep 6 months' to 1 years' salary put away so that you can just quit at any time and never have to worry about being forced to stay in a bad situation. Not a bad idea.
But what if you just got this job? Or you've not been able to save up that kind of money yet? I'm sure many would say that you have no choice, and you've just got to stick it out, do what you're told and hope that later on you can enjoy that dream quitting moment. But I disagree. Everyone always has a choice. The alternatives may be equally unpleasant, but there are choices for every situation in life. So, you would have to ask yourself one very important thing - how will I feel about myself after making this choice? I believe so many questions in life can be pared down with such a question. "Should I have one more drink?" "Should I take this course?" "Should I do this thing I'm being asked to do?" All can lead to thinking about how you will feel after the choice. And, hopefully, people like to feel good about themselves as people.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Ethics and HR
While taking this course I am concurrently studying Human Resource Management, and I came across some interesting ethical issues. The case study posed to us was that of a woman going through the interview process at her "dream job" company. The interview had several people present - top-level management along with her potential colleagues. During this interview she was asked several highly inappropriate questions that were not even relevant to the position. The company claimed that they asked such questions to see if she'd be easily "thrown off" and that they needed someone who could handle that type of pressure.
After reading this case study, I spoke with my own mother about the ethical issues often found during the interview process. She told me of a story in which she was interviewed and the boss asked her if she would ever cover something up (obviously asked it in different wording) to help him and/or the company. My mother hesitated in answering this awkward question but did eventually say that she would indeed turn him in. She then told me that the boss was really hoping she would quickly and without pause say that, yes, she'd turn him in - and anyone else. It was good to hear that employers do value ethics in their employees. And I suppose it only makes sense...without ethical employees an organization will gain bad notoriety with the public and potentially lose out...big.
But back to the original case study. Would I take a job if put in the same situation as the woman in the case study? If fellow colleagues were allowed to ask inappropriate questions during an interview without recourse from the management, what type of environment would that be to work in?
My answer: I'll find another job.
After reading this case study, I spoke with my own mother about the ethical issues often found during the interview process. She told me of a story in which she was interviewed and the boss asked her if she would ever cover something up (obviously asked it in different wording) to help him and/or the company. My mother hesitated in answering this awkward question but did eventually say that she would indeed turn him in. She then told me that the boss was really hoping she would quickly and without pause say that, yes, she'd turn him in - and anyone else. It was good to hear that employers do value ethics in their employees. And I suppose it only makes sense...without ethical employees an organization will gain bad notoriety with the public and potentially lose out...big.
But back to the original case study. Would I take a job if put in the same situation as the woman in the case study? If fellow colleagues were allowed to ask inappropriate questions during an interview without recourse from the management, what type of environment would that be to work in?
My answer: I'll find another job.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Privately vs Publicly Owned
Our readings continually state that these rules apply for publicly-owned organizations. But I want to know about private ones. If a privately owned company is not following through with fiduciary duties or not following corporate governance, what happens to its investors? Is there any form of recourse for those investors when the top-level is not following good policies and is intentionally taking actions that harm the investor's investments?
Obviously, this is an ethical issue for the private company, but, as another Ethics Blogger pointed out, ethics are sometimes only as good as the person making the decision.
There should (and perhaps there are) be controls in place for private corporations as well. Perhaps I just have yet to learn of them.
Obviously, this is an ethical issue for the private company, but, as another Ethics Blogger pointed out, ethics are sometimes only as good as the person making the decision.
There should (and perhaps there are) be controls in place for private corporations as well. Perhaps I just have yet to learn of them.
A Perceived Effect
In reading our third chapter, I came across a topic of conflict of interest and how "private interests or personal considerations may affect or be perceived to affect and employee's judgment to act in the best interests of the organization".
This idea of a "perceived" effect on an organization and/or a single person in that organization interests me. Does it mean, then that just because it seems to others that I may have a conflict of interest, that I am doing wrong ethically?
For example:
My cousin owns a company that produces milk. I am a manager at a small grocery chain. I am given the task of deciding what products we use to stock our shelves and have been looking at milk producers. Once I go through the numbers, I find that my cousin's product truly is the best for our store - price, quality, etc. Is it ethically wrong for me to go ahead and suggest that the chain choose her milk product(s)? Would it be wrong ONLY if I did not disclose our relationship?
My opinion is that I should disclose the relationship AND lay out all of the findings for those people making the final decision. Allow them the opportunity to send in someone else to check up behind my research.
Is this idea of a negative perception most dangerous, then, for the outer public? And, thus, can become a harmful perception of the organization as a whole?
I think that must be the main point behind it because there are situations in which the conflict-of-interest decision may very well be the right one.
This idea of a "perceived" effect on an organization and/or a single person in that organization interests me. Does it mean, then that just because it seems to others that I may have a conflict of interest, that I am doing wrong ethically?
For example:
My cousin owns a company that produces milk. I am a manager at a small grocery chain. I am given the task of deciding what products we use to stock our shelves and have been looking at milk producers. Once I go through the numbers, I find that my cousin's product truly is the best for our store - price, quality, etc. Is it ethically wrong for me to go ahead and suggest that the chain choose her milk product(s)? Would it be wrong ONLY if I did not disclose our relationship?
My opinion is that I should disclose the relationship AND lay out all of the findings for those people making the final decision. Allow them the opportunity to send in someone else to check up behind my research.
Is this idea of a negative perception most dangerous, then, for the outer public? And, thus, can become a harmful perception of the organization as a whole?
I think that must be the main point behind it because there are situations in which the conflict-of-interest decision may very well be the right one.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Dalai Lama and Business Ethics
During our first class someone raised the idea that it would be best to not do business with an unethical country in order to, basically, force that country to begin ethical practices. But a counter to that was also raised: do more business with such a country, for doing so would help that country rise above its ethical quagmire and move into better business practices and better lifestyles for its people.
That idea has been swirling in my mind ever since. Would this really be a way to help a country? Isn't that just like rewarding a person for bad behavior?
So, it was to my surprise that I learned just today that the Dalai Lama takes the latter position in dealings with China.
He is currently living in exile in northern India, and his culture - Tibetan culture - is dying at the hands of the Chinese government. Some people protest China and refuse to continue buying products with any relation to China due to these unfair dealings with the Tibetan people. However, the Dalai Lama believes that we should continue buying and supporting trade with China. He thinks that doing so will help place his people in a better light amongst the Chinese people; this will soften the Chinese to the Tibetans and eventually grant them the freedom they so earnestly seek.
I guess the Dalai Lama has some interesting ideas not only for the religious and spiritual world but also for the world of business.
New Question: When approaching an ethical question or difficulty, is it wise to reflect on spiritual advice to help you gain an answer?
That idea has been swirling in my mind ever since. Would this really be a way to help a country? Isn't that just like rewarding a person for bad behavior?
So, it was to my surprise that I learned just today that the Dalai Lama takes the latter position in dealings with China.
He is currently living in exile in northern India, and his culture - Tibetan culture - is dying at the hands of the Chinese government. Some people protest China and refuse to continue buying products with any relation to China due to these unfair dealings with the Tibetan people. However, the Dalai Lama believes that we should continue buying and supporting trade with China. He thinks that doing so will help place his people in a better light amongst the Chinese people; this will soften the Chinese to the Tibetans and eventually grant them the freedom they so earnestly seek.
I guess the Dalai Lama has some interesting ideas not only for the religious and spiritual world but also for the world of business.
New Question: When approaching an ethical question or difficulty, is it wise to reflect on spiritual advice to help you gain an answer?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Ethics - Day one
Last night - January 24, 2011 - in our first Ethics class we had a discussion on ethics in a general sense in order to prep the class towards the focus on ethics as it pertains directly to accounting. Some questions were raised and discussed:
Within a work-related setting, who decides what is or is not ethical?
I look at my career - as brief as it was - as a teacher and can recall instances in which I disagreed with the way(s) in which the administration handled various issues dealing with both students and my fellow colleagues. For example, one member of the administration would treat students in ways that I considered to be quite rude, all the while chastising colleagues (and myself on occasion) for similar behaviors towards students. It was a very do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality that this person carried around. And it was quite hypocritical. When teachers attempted to use more positive methods that were not rude and/or got the problem solved so the rest of the students were able to learn, the administrator was up against them. The students could see this in that person's actions on many occasions and wanted to speak up about it (not to mention the teachers on happy hour).
Then came the question for me: do I encourage or discourage these students from speaking up about this? They will easily be punished for "insubordination" - a favorite of the school's punishments. However, I think of it as a necessity for us to teach people that speaking for their rights is important. It's a dilemma, faced on more than one occasion.
I handled it as this...If a student wanted to come and talk to me about something upsetting him/her, I was happy to listen, empathize on the general feeling (not necessarily about the same person though...keeping job is good) of hypocrisy, and basically give them advice on how to handle "those types of people and situations" when encountered in their future. I take this to be an ethical response, but at the same time I would really have liked to encourage the students to bring forth their complaints and angst in a format that would be taken seriously by the offender and not just blown of as "insubordination". I do not like that I was basically stuck with the best option being to tell them how to "deal with it" while in school and not get in trouble. Especially since what they were saying was a very genuine complaint.
It is like their trouble spot of not being able to say anything is so similar to how people feel in the workplace. Say something, get fired. Keep quiet, keep your job. I hope that the school system is not producing or reinforcing that type of behavior, but now that I step outside and look at it, I fear that it is.
Back to the question: What is the ethical obligation in such a scenario? Going with rules set aside by superiors? Or going with what an individual believes to be right?
- Are ethics something that keep our society moving forward?
- If you look at it as work-related, who decides what is ethical?
- Is outsourcing ethically good, bad, or somewhere in between?
- As a company, should you do business with a country that is - according to your standards - unethical?
- Is it good to do business in such a country in order to help bring that country up - eventually raising it out of unethical practices?
Within a work-related setting, who decides what is or is not ethical?
I look at my career - as brief as it was - as a teacher and can recall instances in which I disagreed with the way(s) in which the administration handled various issues dealing with both students and my fellow colleagues. For example, one member of the administration would treat students in ways that I considered to be quite rude, all the while chastising colleagues (and myself on occasion) for similar behaviors towards students. It was a very do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality that this person carried around. And it was quite hypocritical. When teachers attempted to use more positive methods that were not rude and/or got the problem solved so the rest of the students were able to learn, the administrator was up against them. The students could see this in that person's actions on many occasions and wanted to speak up about it (not to mention the teachers on happy hour).
Then came the question for me: do I encourage or discourage these students from speaking up about this? They will easily be punished for "insubordination" - a favorite of the school's punishments. However, I think of it as a necessity for us to teach people that speaking for their rights is important. It's a dilemma, faced on more than one occasion.
I handled it as this...If a student wanted to come and talk to me about something upsetting him/her, I was happy to listen, empathize on the general feeling (not necessarily about the same person though...keeping job is good) of hypocrisy, and basically give them advice on how to handle "those types of people and situations" when encountered in their future. I take this to be an ethical response, but at the same time I would really have liked to encourage the students to bring forth their complaints and angst in a format that would be taken seriously by the offender and not just blown of as "insubordination". I do not like that I was basically stuck with the best option being to tell them how to "deal with it" while in school and not get in trouble. Especially since what they were saying was a very genuine complaint.
It is like their trouble spot of not being able to say anything is so similar to how people feel in the workplace. Say something, get fired. Keep quiet, keep your job. I hope that the school system is not producing or reinforcing that type of behavior, but now that I step outside and look at it, I fear that it is.
Back to the question: What is the ethical obligation in such a scenario? Going with rules set aside by superiors? Or going with what an individual believes to be right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)