Wall Street Ethical Failures Not Just a Wall Street Problem - Part 2
Since we're seeing more stories about ethical failures involving Wall Street execs we've been talking about how you don't only find these sorts of ethical failures on Wall Street. Basically, we're looking at ourselves and the places we work.
Having discussed the problem of lack of honesty in the workplace last time, we're moving on to integrity.
While integrity does mean being honest, it means more than that. Integrity implies "consistency." A person who behaves with integrity is someone who behaves according to a consistent understanding of right and wrong. And there lies the problem with integrity today. This takes us back to previous discussion of the "Dictatorship of Relativism." (If you're not sure what this means, you can check out our previous discussion by clicking HERE.)
When you live in a world where right and wrong are purely subjective concepts you wind up in a world where there's no integrity. If right and wrong are purely subjective, and what's right for you may not be right for me, then how can anyone judge whether anyone else is behaving with integrity? You'd have to know just what the other person's "belief system" is. How would you know that today? You really can't know.
On the other hand, you might have been able to know this in the past. For example, if you knew someone was Catholic, you'd know that they did not believe in abortion or contraception. Not any more. Lots of Catholics practice contraception. And - incredibly - lots of Catholics no longer think that abortion is murder, or if they do understand this, they allow for certain situations where such murder is somehow justified.
So let's say a colleague of yours claims to be a practicing Catholic. And let's say he makes it clear that - after having a second child - he and his wife are not going to have anymore children, clearly meaning they are going to practice contraception to avoid having any more children. In the past, if you heard a Catholic colleague talk about how they're "finished" or "done" after he and his wife had their second child, you'd think they were being hypocritical if they also claimed they were practicing their faith. Not any more.
Today, in the age of the "cafeteria" Catholic, we're not supposed to make such a judgment. What we're supposed to understand is that for them, contraception isn't wrong. They don't accept or believe in the Church's teaching on contraception. And that's OK, because, when you think about it, in a world where relativism prevails, it's not like the Church could possibly be teaching anything that's objectively right. All that matters is what your colleague thinks is right for him. (Of course that's not true, but that's how most people think.)
Now, just expand on this and think about all the decisions that we face on the job. If there's really no objective right and wrong, then not only we, but everyone around us has the right to decide what's right for them. So how can you have any sort of integrity in the workplace? The answer: You can't.
You can't have integrity in the workplace (or anywhere else) when everyone has the right to decide what's right or wrong for them. There's no objective standard, no real right or wrong. So you wind up with all sorts of individual opinions about ethical matters.
The only thing the prevents total chaos is the rules and regulations that your company might publish and enforce. And these rules and regulations can be pretty arbitrary.
We recently talked about how diversity has become so important to so many companies. That's a good example of rules and regulations having little or nothing to do with real right and wrong. You must speak, act, even think, in a manner consistent with the corporate culture of "diversity." If you behave in any way that contradicts the position that diversity is wonderful and critically important in your workplace, look out.
A company I worked for used to publish a manual of corporate practices that included a Code of Conduct. The manual grew larger every year. You were expected to have read and understood everything in it. It was hundreds of pages long! Do you really think I (or anyone) actually studied and memorized this thing. (This was the same company I referenced in our last discussion.)
The point of all this is simply to say that - in most situations - it's not even possible for integrity to exist in today's workplace. Everyone thinks whatever they think about what's right or what's wrong. The only consistency possible in such a world is that which is provided by rules and regulations made up and printed in a corporate manual. Otherwise, ethics is up for grabs.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying there weren't ethical failures in the past. I'm not saying that people didn't think something was right that was really wrong. What I am saying is that people once understood that whether a certain action was right or wrong wasn't dependent on what they, as individuals, happened to think or feel about that particular action. People could debate about whether something was right or wrong. But at some level, they knew that what made something right or wrong was somehow not dependent on their feelings or even how they just happened to think about it. They could be shown that perhaps they were mistaken.
Of course, I realize that people do discuss, even argue, over such matters today. But unless you agree that there is some sort of objective basis for right and wrong, what's the point of discussing or arguing? Usually the person who shouts the loudest, or creates the "slickest" argument prevails in the end. Why bother?
So, Catholic men, let's just stand by the conviction that comes to us from our Faith. We know what's right and what's wrong. Now we simply have to live out our lives consistent with that knowledge. At least we can try to give others an example of what real honesty and integrity is all about.
Having discussed the problem of lack of honesty in the workplace last time, we're moving on to integrity.
While integrity does mean being honest, it means more than that. Integrity implies "consistency." A person who behaves with integrity is someone who behaves according to a consistent understanding of right and wrong. And there lies the problem with integrity today. This takes us back to previous discussion of the "Dictatorship of Relativism." (If you're not sure what this means, you can check out our previous discussion by clicking HERE.)
When you live in a world where right and wrong are purely subjective concepts you wind up in a world where there's no integrity. If right and wrong are purely subjective, and what's right for you may not be right for me, then how can anyone judge whether anyone else is behaving with integrity? You'd have to know just what the other person's "belief system" is. How would you know that today? You really can't know.
On the other hand, you might have been able to know this in the past. For example, if you knew someone was Catholic, you'd know that they did not believe in abortion or contraception. Not any more. Lots of Catholics practice contraception. And - incredibly - lots of Catholics no longer think that abortion is murder, or if they do understand this, they allow for certain situations where such murder is somehow justified.
So let's say a colleague of yours claims to be a practicing Catholic. And let's say he makes it clear that - after having a second child - he and his wife are not going to have anymore children, clearly meaning they are going to practice contraception to avoid having any more children. In the past, if you heard a Catholic colleague talk about how they're "finished" or "done" after he and his wife had their second child, you'd think they were being hypocritical if they also claimed they were practicing their faith. Not any more.
Today, in the age of the "cafeteria" Catholic, we're not supposed to make such a judgment. What we're supposed to understand is that for them, contraception isn't wrong. They don't accept or believe in the Church's teaching on contraception. And that's OK, because, when you think about it, in a world where relativism prevails, it's not like the Church could possibly be teaching anything that's objectively right. All that matters is what your colleague thinks is right for him. (Of course that's not true, but that's how most people think.)
Now, just expand on this and think about all the decisions that we face on the job. If there's really no objective right and wrong, then not only we, but everyone around us has the right to decide what's right for them. So how can you have any sort of integrity in the workplace? The answer: You can't.
You can't have integrity in the workplace (or anywhere else) when everyone has the right to decide what's right or wrong for them. There's no objective standard, no real right or wrong. So you wind up with all sorts of individual opinions about ethical matters.
The only thing the prevents total chaos is the rules and regulations that your company might publish and enforce. And these rules and regulations can be pretty arbitrary.
We recently talked about how diversity has become so important to so many companies. That's a good example of rules and regulations having little or nothing to do with real right and wrong. You must speak, act, even think, in a manner consistent with the corporate culture of "diversity." If you behave in any way that contradicts the position that diversity is wonderful and critically important in your workplace, look out.
A company I worked for used to publish a manual of corporate practices that included a Code of Conduct. The manual grew larger every year. You were expected to have read and understood everything in it. It was hundreds of pages long! Do you really think I (or anyone) actually studied and memorized this thing. (This was the same company I referenced in our last discussion.)
The point of all this is simply to say that - in most situations - it's not even possible for integrity to exist in today's workplace. Everyone thinks whatever they think about what's right or what's wrong. The only consistency possible in such a world is that which is provided by rules and regulations made up and printed in a corporate manual. Otherwise, ethics is up for grabs.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying there weren't ethical failures in the past. I'm not saying that people didn't think something was right that was really wrong. What I am saying is that people once understood that whether a certain action was right or wrong wasn't dependent on what they, as individuals, happened to think or feel about that particular action. People could debate about whether something was right or wrong. But at some level, they knew that what made something right or wrong was somehow not dependent on their feelings or even how they just happened to think about it. They could be shown that perhaps they were mistaken.
Of course, I realize that people do discuss, even argue, over such matters today. But unless you agree that there is some sort of objective basis for right and wrong, what's the point of discussing or arguing? Usually the person who shouts the loudest, or creates the "slickest" argument prevails in the end. Why bother?
So, Catholic men, let's just stand by the conviction that comes to us from our Faith. We know what's right and what's wrong. Now we simply have to live out our lives consistent with that knowledge. At least we can try to give others an example of what real honesty and integrity is all about.
Comments