Can the Stimulus Package Stimulate Our Ethics?

The biggest challenge facing President Obama and the Congress is not engaging the clutch that will put our economy into gear, but rather engaging the heart and spirit of Americans in putting the stimulus package to work.

Already we are hearing of behind-the-scenes maneuvering by individuals, companies and local governments to put themselves in position to take advantage of the various incentives to advance their own needs. Homeowners who are current with their mortgages are complaining that those who aren't are getting help. A local county has already figured out how to use stimulus money to pay itself back for something it did two years ago. Corporations are scrambling to reinvent themselves to grab up as many stimulus dollars as they can.

The drive to fulfill self-interests will surely outweigh the intentions of creating something for the greater good, unless we begin asking questions; and that is the stuff of ethics.

Does it serve the common good for me to apply for mortgage relief when I really don't need it?
Does it serve the common good for us to simply refill county coffers rather than create new opportunities for employment?
Does it serve the common good to jump from provision of one set of products and services to another just because there is money there?

I know I'm not smart enough to ask all the questions that need to be asked. And I know the questions I have asked are much more complicated than I have presented. But I am smart enough to know that unless we ask the questions and discuss the answers publicly, we will likely miss the very opportunities President Obama and the Congress are trying to create.

On Situational Ethics

The term “situational ethics” suggests that the morality of an act is defined by the situation. One’s actions are either right or wrong depending on the circumstances. This is a philosophical issue way bigger than we can deal with here, but from a practical viewpoint, let me ask you: Are you comfortable with others making decisions involving you on what they think is right in that time and place? Decisions about your money? Your kids? Your faith? Your future? Think about it. It’s a constantly moving target.

Repeat this: Starting with me, the moral base for decisions must be clearly stated. I will not allow people to make decisions based on their perceptions of a situation.

Ethics Forum: Diatribe or Discussion?

Sometimes and with some people, you can have serious, respectful discussions around differences in beliefs - even religion and politics (which common wisdom says to avoid). Other times, it's impossible. What's the difference?

Listen and you'll hear it. It has to do with inflammatory language. In those impossible moments, you will hear name calling, judgmental terms, sarcastic tones, negative characterizations and usually, raised voices. In the more constructive interactions you will hear open ended questions, a respectful tone, non-judgmental terms and voices at normal volume. It's really the difference between a diatribe and a discussion.

"Diatribe" is a word that comes from a couple of Greek words which mean "to wear away." People that engage in diatribes are holding forth their own views in such a way as to rub out any dissenting idea. Inflammatory language is an attack and puts people into the "fight or flight" mode. Instead of discussion, there is either an argument, or a one-sided oration. "Discussion" comes from two Latin words which mean to shake apart. In usage, it means to dissect and examine. Respectful language invites an in-depth look at a subject.

Consider an example in which someone starts out a conversation with, "Those fat-cat senators just screwed us again by passing that baby-killing bill." If the listener is in agreement, there won't be a discussion, only a crucifixion of the senators and mutual self-righteousness around the speaker's moral beliefs. If the listener is not in agreement, there will either be an argument trying to prove who's right, or the listener will withdraw.

Now consider a different start: "I just heard on the news that the Senate passed a bill encouraging stem cell research. What kinds of moral and practical issues does this raise?" By creating a safe forum, extending an openness to examine what the bill really means, the discussion is likely to lead to all sorts of questions and issues that have far-reaching implications. Regardless of your beliefs, there is a freedom to raise questions for deeper thought.

Diatribes shut off questions. Discussions encourage them.
Diatribes create an adversarial atmosphere. Discussions create a collegial atmosphere.
Diatribes force defensiveness. Discussions allow self-examination.

The next time a moral issue arises, start a discussion. Challenge those who use inflammatory language to put their guns away and respectfully look at the issues with you. This leads to ethical and moral growth and creates and environment of change. One more example of "Starting With Me."

Storm Mentality Spawns Ethics Discussions

While Minnesota digs out from a second snow storm in as many weeks, the news programs have picked up some interesting human interest angles - people helping people. There seems to be a "storm mentality" that touches people's desire to help others in a way that's not normally so present.

Well, kudos to all those who are shoveling neighbors' walks, pushing strangers' cars and cleaning off coworkers' windshields. But kudos also to the media for highlighting ordinary people doing extraordinary things. The news stories spawn discussions about reaching out; about helping people whether or not they "deserve it;" about anonymous acts of kindness.

The more people talk about it, the more people are open to doing it. The more people are open to doing it, the better off we will all be. Mature ethical behavior spawns ethics discussions. And the discussions spawn action. It comes down to "Starting With Me."