In many communities that have a public dump at which residents leave their rubbish and recyclables, there is a swap shop. That's where residents leave useable stuff they no longer want -- books, games, china, glassware, inflatable devices, furniture and assorted curiosities. Residents can take anything they want from the swap shop and, aside from whatever fee there may be for using the dump, there is generally no charge for any of the stuff that's taken from the swap shop.
As long as you leave your share of goods to be swapped, is it OK to take goods from the swap shop to sell at a yard sale or on eBay? Or should you take only stuff that you plan to use personally?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, October 12, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: FIRST CLASS SOME OF THE WAY
What a way to kick off a vacation!
Headed for Disney World with his wife and two kids, Alan Sechrest of Mission Viejo, Calif., was in Los Angeles International Airport, standing at an American Airlines electronic check-in kiosk, when an airline representative told him that they could get a first-glass upgrade for $45 a person.
Bingo! The $180 upgrade seemed well worth it for the five-hour flight to Miami, where they would change to a one-hour flight to Orlando. Who wouldn't want to arrive at the gates of the Magic Kingdom a little more rested after a long flight east?
But after telling the representative "yes," they discovered that the upgrade applied only to the short hop from Miami to Orlando.
"Had we known that," Sechrest told the representative, "we would have refused the upgrade."
The representative apologized and directed the family to the check-in counter so that the situation could be rectified and they could get back to their original coach status.
There, Sechrest says, the agent told them that he had put them back into coach and assured them that their credit card would not be charged.
His parting words, Sechrest adds, were: "But check your credit-card statement, just to make sure."
It wasn't until they were boarding the connecting flight in Miami that they found that their flight information had not been corrected: They had been left in first class for the one-hour flight.
"We never checked the boarding passes for the second leg," Sechrest admits.
They boarded the plane and rode the one hour in first class, but they weren't happy about paying $180 for a privilege that they had been assured had been fixed back in Los Angeles.
American Airlines has refused Sechrest's request for a $180 refund, telling him that, since he flew in first class on the final leg of his trip, he should expect to pay for it. Now he has contacted his credit-card company to see if it can offer a remedy.
Sechrest wants to know if it was ethical for them to request a refund from the airline.
"They sold us a product that we did not want and cannot return," he says, comparing the experience to "a car wash charging you for a wash and wax when you only asked for a wash. You received the wax job, but should you have to pay for it?"
Perhaps Sechrest should have refused to get onto the plane once he found out that he was expected to fly first class. But at that point, five hours into the trip, with wife and eager children in tow and his coach seats no longer guaranteed, was it fair to expect him to give up the guaranteed first-class seats that would get him to his final destination?
I don't believe so. The airline agent committed to fix the problem, but he didn't. It's perfectly ethical for Sechrest to request a refund.
American can, of course, deny his request, arguing that the Sechrests sat in the upgraded seats, even if they didn't want to and had been assured that the family had been reassigned to coach. They may be legally justified in doing so.
But the right thing for the airline to do is to refund Sechrest's money and to instruct its agents to do a better job of following through on their commitments to passengers.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Headed for Disney World with his wife and two kids, Alan Sechrest of Mission Viejo, Calif., was in Los Angeles International Airport, standing at an American Airlines electronic check-in kiosk, when an airline representative told him that they could get a first-glass upgrade for $45 a person.
Bingo! The $180 upgrade seemed well worth it for the five-hour flight to Miami, where they would change to a one-hour flight to Orlando. Who wouldn't want to arrive at the gates of the Magic Kingdom a little more rested after a long flight east?
But after telling the representative "yes," they discovered that the upgrade applied only to the short hop from Miami to Orlando.
"Had we known that," Sechrest told the representative, "we would have refused the upgrade."
The representative apologized and directed the family to the check-in counter so that the situation could be rectified and they could get back to their original coach status.
There, Sechrest says, the agent told them that he had put them back into coach and assured them that their credit card would not be charged.
His parting words, Sechrest adds, were: "But check your credit-card statement, just to make sure."
It wasn't until they were boarding the connecting flight in Miami that they found that their flight information had not been corrected: They had been left in first class for the one-hour flight.
"We never checked the boarding passes for the second leg," Sechrest admits.
They boarded the plane and rode the one hour in first class, but they weren't happy about paying $180 for a privilege that they had been assured had been fixed back in Los Angeles.
American Airlines has refused Sechrest's request for a $180 refund, telling him that, since he flew in first class on the final leg of his trip, he should expect to pay for it. Now he has contacted his credit-card company to see if it can offer a remedy.
Sechrest wants to know if it was ethical for them to request a refund from the airline.
"They sold us a product that we did not want and cannot return," he says, comparing the experience to "a car wash charging you for a wash and wax when you only asked for a wash. You received the wax job, but should you have to pay for it?"
Perhaps Sechrest should have refused to get onto the plane once he found out that he was expected to fly first class. But at that point, five hours into the trip, with wife and eager children in tow and his coach seats no longer guaranteed, was it fair to expect him to give up the guaranteed first-class seats that would get him to his final destination?
I don't believe so. The airline agent committed to fix the problem, but he didn't. It's perfectly ethical for Sechrest to request a refund.
American can, of course, deny his request, arguing that the Sechrests sat in the upgraded seats, even if they didn't want to and had been assured that the family had been reassigned to coach. They may be legally justified in doing so.
But the right thing for the airline to do is to refund Sechrest's money and to instruct its agents to do a better job of following through on their commitments to passengers.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, October 05, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: SEVERAL MORE FOR THE ROAD
When does a colleague's behavior rise -- or sink -- to the level at which it warrants being reported to your bosses? Does he or she need to do something egregious, perhaps illegal? Or can it simply be something that doesn't meet your own sense of propriety?
Unless driven by a desire to pay back someone for inappropriate actions or by an unhealthy dose of schadenfreude, employees rarely take joy in ratting out those with whom they work. That explains why one of my readers is struggling to decide what to do.
He is a consultant who was recently hired by a large company to complete a project in the field alongside another contract consultant. In the course of conversation, he writes, the other consultant "disclosed that her consumption of alcohol during a business trip was four to six drinks each evening. I observed such while having dinner with her."
He told her that he rarely drank alcohol while on business trips, in order to maintain his focus, and that he was uncomfortable hearing about her alcohol consumption and would decline to eat with her on future trips.
She seemed to have a hard time getting to work by 8 a.m. and required several cups of coffee to get going, my reader reports, and her production was considerably less than his. Nonetheless, her work has not been questioned by their employer.
The company travel policy states that alcohol consumed during a business meal is reimbursable "assuming the quantity and costs are within reason." Their job does not involve operating equipment, and he has never witnessed her driving after she had consumed alcohol.
My reader could refuse the work assignment with her, but that would cost him lost income. Aside from making her aware of his discomfort with her alcohol consumption, my reader asks, what other ethical obligations might he have?
My reader did the right thing by letting his colleague know that he was uncomfortable discussing how much alcohol she consumed during the business trip. He also was correct in removing himself from future situations that might cause equal discomfort.
But, having ascertained that she is not putting others in harm's way by driving or operating heavy equipment while intoxicated, he has done as much as he can ethically do.
If their employer doesn't have a problem with reimbursing her for her excessive drinking, it is not my reader's role to tell them that their policy is wrong. Likewise, if the employer regards her work as acceptable, it is not up to my reader to determine that she's not performing up to snuff, drinks or no drinks.
While I don't encourage or condone excessive drinking on business trips, it's beyond the scope of my reader's job as a consultant who is only a casual colleague, or of my job as an ethics columnist who doesn't know her at all, to say conclusively that she has a drinking problem and needs help. It would be a very good idea for her to seek help, even if her drinking is not yet affecting her work. But it's a decision that she will have to make for herself.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Unless driven by a desire to pay back someone for inappropriate actions or by an unhealthy dose of schadenfreude, employees rarely take joy in ratting out those with whom they work. That explains why one of my readers is struggling to decide what to do.
He is a consultant who was recently hired by a large company to complete a project in the field alongside another contract consultant. In the course of conversation, he writes, the other consultant "disclosed that her consumption of alcohol during a business trip was four to six drinks each evening. I observed such while having dinner with her."
He told her that he rarely drank alcohol while on business trips, in order to maintain his focus, and that he was uncomfortable hearing about her alcohol consumption and would decline to eat with her on future trips.
She seemed to have a hard time getting to work by 8 a.m. and required several cups of coffee to get going, my reader reports, and her production was considerably less than his. Nonetheless, her work has not been questioned by their employer.
The company travel policy states that alcohol consumed during a business meal is reimbursable "assuming the quantity and costs are within reason." Their job does not involve operating equipment, and he has never witnessed her driving after she had consumed alcohol.
My reader could refuse the work assignment with her, but that would cost him lost income. Aside from making her aware of his discomfort with her alcohol consumption, my reader asks, what other ethical obligations might he have?
My reader did the right thing by letting his colleague know that he was uncomfortable discussing how much alcohol she consumed during the business trip. He also was correct in removing himself from future situations that might cause equal discomfort.
But, having ascertained that she is not putting others in harm's way by driving or operating heavy equipment while intoxicated, he has done as much as he can ethically do.
If their employer doesn't have a problem with reimbursing her for her excessive drinking, it is not my reader's role to tell them that their policy is wrong. Likewise, if the employer regards her work as acceptable, it is not up to my reader to determine that she's not performing up to snuff, drinks or no drinks.
While I don't encourage or condone excessive drinking on business trips, it's beyond the scope of my reader's job as a consultant who is only a casual colleague, or of my job as an ethics columnist who doesn't know her at all, to say conclusively that she has a drinking problem and needs help. It would be a very good idea for her to seek help, even if her drinking is not yet affecting her work. But it's a decision that she will have to make for herself.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: READ ALL ABOUT IT...FOR FREE
Many years ago my reader Janet Lohrman realized that she had accidentally taken two newspapers from a vending machine after paying for one. She decided to put another quarter into the machine in order to replace the extra paper.
Not all readers agreed with Lohrman's solution. In an informal survey on my column's blog, few advocated keeping the extra paper but many didn't think it necessary to spend another quarter to remedy the error.
Putting the extra newspaper on top of the vending machine was the choice of 50 percent of the respondents, with only 36 percent saying that they would do as Lohrman did and deposit another quarter. Of those who considered it wrong, 14 percent nonetheless admitted that they would chalk it up to good fortune and keep the extra newspaper.
That prospect vexes Shmuel Ross, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
"The reader was supposed to have taken one newspaper," Ross writes, "but instead took two. There's no `accident,' no `good fortune,' only negligence. Putting in another quarter is the only solution."
Barb Cutler of Orange, Calif., doesn't see it as negligence, but believes that an "honest mistake deserves to be rectified by either putting in an extra quarter or placing the paper on top of the vending machine."
Finally Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., recalls walking by a newspaper box, years ago, when a woman who was removing a paper from it smiled and asked him if he would like one too, as long as the box was open. Clutts declined, but still wonders if she thought it a moral act to rip off a corporate giant to help a total stranger.
He didn't see it that way, he adds, "but I certainly wasn't going to get on her case about it."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Not all readers agreed with Lohrman's solution. In an informal survey on my column's blog, few advocated keeping the extra paper but many didn't think it necessary to spend another quarter to remedy the error.
Putting the extra newspaper on top of the vending machine was the choice of 50 percent of the respondents, with only 36 percent saying that they would do as Lohrman did and deposit another quarter. Of those who considered it wrong, 14 percent nonetheless admitted that they would chalk it up to good fortune and keep the extra newspaper.
That prospect vexes Shmuel Ross, of Brooklyn, N.Y.
"The reader was supposed to have taken one newspaper," Ross writes, "but instead took two. There's no `accident,' no `good fortune,' only negligence. Putting in another quarter is the only solution."
Barb Cutler of Orange, Calif., doesn't see it as negligence, but believes that an "honest mistake deserves to be rectified by either putting in an extra quarter or placing the paper on top of the vending machine."
Finally Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., recalls walking by a newspaper box, years ago, when a woman who was removing a paper from it smiled and asked him if he would like one too, as long as the box was open. Clutts declined, but still wonders if she thought it a moral act to rip off a corporate giant to help a total stranger.
He didn't see it that way, he adds, "but I certainly wasn't going to get on her case about it."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, September 28, 2008
SOUND OFF: TAXING MATTERS
Recently Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) conceded that it was "irresponsible" of him not to report on his taxes rental income from a vacation home he owns in a resort in the Dominican Republic. Rangel, who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, argues nonetheless that the income he didn't report should not affect his standing in Congress.
Rangel is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a panel which, among other things, is responsible for shepherding tax law. So far Rangel is ignoring the call of some Republican leaders for him to step down from the committee.
Given his admitted tax lapse -- Rangel says that his staff was delegated responsibility for preparing his taxes, but concedes that he bears "the ultimate responsibility" -- is he ethically obligated to step down from his position as chairman and/or to resign from the House?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Rangel is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a panel which, among other things, is responsible for shepherding tax law. So far Rangel is ignoring the call of some Republican leaders for him to step down from the committee.
Given his admitted tax lapse -- Rangel says that his staff was delegated responsibility for preparing his taxes, but concedes that he bears "the ultimate responsibility" -- is he ethically obligated to step down from his position as chairman and/or to resign from the House?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: A SHATTERING REALIZATION
A regular customer of a prescription-eyeglasses chain, one that examines patients and readies their glasses within a few hours, is perplexed.
During the past two years he has purchased more than 10 pairs of prescription glasses and sunglasses from the store. Part of my reader's attraction to this store is that, if you don't like the glasses you've purchased for any reason, you can return them within 30 days for a full refund, no questions asked.
The frames by the particular designer whom he favors are on the expensive side, costing $600 to $700 per set. After keeping his most recent pair of frames for two weeks, he decided that they simply weren't right for him. He arranged to return them, in order to purchase a new pair that suited him better.
When he was ordering the new frames, however, he asked the clerk if the store wanted his old pair back. He was told no, that he should keep them until his new pair was ready.
Curious, he asked what the store would do with the old pair: "Did they donate them to people who needed them? Were they sold to employees at a reduced price? Did they receive credit from the manufacturer?"
The answer to each of these questions: no.
According to the clerk, the store staff "stepped on them."
They destroyed the glasses by crushing them, in other words. Having learned this, when my reader returned to pick up his new glasses, he did not offer to give back his old pair, and the clerk never asked for them. He left the store with both pairs, and gave the ones he didn't care for to a needy person.
"I just could not stand the thought of a perfectly good pair of glasses being crushed for no good reason," he writes. "Did I do the wrong thing?"
Yes, he did.
Not requiring people to return their old glasses when getting a refund would allow unscrupulous customers to take advantage of the policy to keep both pairs, essentially misrepresenting themselves to get something for nothing. It's only fair for the store to ask customers to leave the old pair with the store, even if it doesn't send them to the manufacturer for a credit.
My reader's instinctive distaste for the idea of the wasteful destruction of glasses that could help someone else is praiseworthy. It's not an excuse, however, for him to keep something that doesn't belong to him, however well-intentioned he may be and however little it may ultimately benefit him. The store has a right to set its policies as it sees fit, and his initial agreement obligated him to respect those policies.
The right thing is for the store itself to establish a process by which returned glasses are recycled, resold or donated to those in need, and there's nothing wrong with him speaking to the store management to encourage such a process. If the management is reluctant to do so, for whatever reason, he might then ask if it's all right for him to keep his old pair and dispose of them in an appropriate way. If it's OK with the store, then there's nothing wrong with it.
It is admirable that my reader tried to do something right, but he didn't go about it in the right way. The fact that he didn't feel comfortable telling the clerk what he planned to do with the glasses is the tip-off that his plan, though well-intentioned, wasn't the right thing.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
During the past two years he has purchased more than 10 pairs of prescription glasses and sunglasses from the store. Part of my reader's attraction to this store is that, if you don't like the glasses you've purchased for any reason, you can return them within 30 days for a full refund, no questions asked.
The frames by the particular designer whom he favors are on the expensive side, costing $600 to $700 per set. After keeping his most recent pair of frames for two weeks, he decided that they simply weren't right for him. He arranged to return them, in order to purchase a new pair that suited him better.
When he was ordering the new frames, however, he asked the clerk if the store wanted his old pair back. He was told no, that he should keep them until his new pair was ready.
Curious, he asked what the store would do with the old pair: "Did they donate them to people who needed them? Were they sold to employees at a reduced price? Did they receive credit from the manufacturer?"
The answer to each of these questions: no.
According to the clerk, the store staff "stepped on them."
They destroyed the glasses by crushing them, in other words. Having learned this, when my reader returned to pick up his new glasses, he did not offer to give back his old pair, and the clerk never asked for them. He left the store with both pairs, and gave the ones he didn't care for to a needy person.
"I just could not stand the thought of a perfectly good pair of glasses being crushed for no good reason," he writes. "Did I do the wrong thing?"
Yes, he did.
Not requiring people to return their old glasses when getting a refund would allow unscrupulous customers to take advantage of the policy to keep both pairs, essentially misrepresenting themselves to get something for nothing. It's only fair for the store to ask customers to leave the old pair with the store, even if it doesn't send them to the manufacturer for a credit.
My reader's instinctive distaste for the idea of the wasteful destruction of glasses that could help someone else is praiseworthy. It's not an excuse, however, for him to keep something that doesn't belong to him, however well-intentioned he may be and however little it may ultimately benefit him. The store has a right to set its policies as it sees fit, and his initial agreement obligated him to respect those policies.
The right thing is for the store itself to establish a process by which returned glasses are recycled, resold or donated to those in need, and there's nothing wrong with him speaking to the store management to encourage such a process. If the management is reluctant to do so, for whatever reason, he might then ask if it's all right for him to keep his old pair and dispose of them in an appropriate way. If it's OK with the store, then there's nothing wrong with it.
It is admirable that my reader tried to do something right, but he didn't go about it in the right way. The fact that he didn't feel comfortable telling the clerk what he planned to do with the glasses is the tip-off that his plan, though well-intentioned, wasn't the right thing.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Climb Every Mountain
Last Decem
ber, I wrote in The Right Thing column about how a young woman hiker from Quebec went out of her way to encourage my oldest grandson Evan the confidence he needed to complete his hike up Mt. Katahdin.
About a month later, Evan set as his new year's resolution the goal of climbing ten, 4,000-foot summits and raising $5,000 dollars for his school's environmental efforts. He called his project "Summits for My School" and started a blog where he writes about his climbs, offers environmental tips, and accepts donations via PayPal.
To date, Evan has received $5,120, from 123 people who have supported his project. That's 102 percent of his goal. And last weekend, Evan -- along with his younger brother, Lucas, his father, David, and me -- climbed Mt. Lincoln and Mt. Lafayette in New Hampshire to reach his goal of climbing ten summits this year.
I am very proud of Evan and Luke (who joined in on six of the ten climbs) and the project to try to accomplish a personal goal and make the world a little better place in the process. Evan's report on the latest climbs is on his blog.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: ALL IN THE FAMILY?
A reader from southern California is troubled by the state of ethics in America and, more particularly, among some members of his own family.
"Ethics are vital to quality of life," he writes, "and there simply is no room for unethical behavior. It is, unfortunately, common in all strata of society, as we experience and also read in the news every day. Lies appear to be acceptable, and even expected, in business, politics, relationships and many other areas of life."
He sees American society "tearing itself apart" because of unethical behavior.
Clearly, he posits, there is a trickle-down effect: "The housing-market collapse was caused by lies from unqualified mortgage applicants, lies from commission-seeking real-estate agents and mortgage bankers, and lies from investment promoters selling the packaged mortgages to investors."
But what troubles my reader the most is his discovery that many members of his own extended family have a totally different idea of what it means to be ethical.
"It's almost an hourly mental struggle for me to view them with love and not to be critical all the time," he says.
Their transgressions range from buying products, using them and then returning them for refunds to taking advantage of people "who are desperate to make a bare living" by asking them to do extra work for free, knowing that they have little choice because they fear not being paid for the original work they agreed to do.
My reader consulted a psychologist, who told him that this negative behavior is most likely born out of growing up in an impoverished environment.
"So," he wonders, "poverty early in life is a reason, if not an excuse, for dishonest behavior?"
He wants to know what happened to the concept of "you reap what you sow" -- or, to put it in New Age parlance, "karma."
His description of how hired workers might be compelled to do tasks without pay, out of fear of losing any payment at all, shows that my reader understands how financial pressure can cause people to do things that they know are wrong. These workers aren't the ethical transgressors in this situation, but their plight points to how financial need can be a powerful force in determining how we behave.
Even so, however, and regardless of any psychological explanation for how people decide to do what they do, there is no ethical justification for allowing your past to influence how you behave when you know that a given action is wrong.
I'm not sold on the idea that karma is the motivation we need to do the right thing. The choice to do what's right should be driven by the understanding that, as a society, we continue to function precisely because individuals opt for the right course of action when faced with tough choices.
I agree with Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner Rogers, who wrote in A Simpler Way (Berrett-Koehler, 1999): "Ethics is how we behave when we decide we belong together."
The right thing for my reader to do is to continue to let his family members know that he disapproves of their actions and why he disapproves, explaining how their actions are unfair to the retailers, workers or others of whom they take advantage. He doesn't have to harp on it, but neither should he give up and go along to get along.
After all, if we can't trust our family members, who love us, to try to set us on the right path, whom can we trust?
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Ethics are vital to quality of life," he writes, "and there simply is no room for unethical behavior. It is, unfortunately, common in all strata of society, as we experience and also read in the news every day. Lies appear to be acceptable, and even expected, in business, politics, relationships and many other areas of life."
He sees American society "tearing itself apart" because of unethical behavior.
Clearly, he posits, there is a trickle-down effect: "The housing-market collapse was caused by lies from unqualified mortgage applicants, lies from commission-seeking real-estate agents and mortgage bankers, and lies from investment promoters selling the packaged mortgages to investors."
But what troubles my reader the most is his discovery that many members of his own extended family have a totally different idea of what it means to be ethical.
"It's almost an hourly mental struggle for me to view them with love and not to be critical all the time," he says.
Their transgressions range from buying products, using them and then returning them for refunds to taking advantage of people "who are desperate to make a bare living" by asking them to do extra work for free, knowing that they have little choice because they fear not being paid for the original work they agreed to do.
My reader consulted a psychologist, who told him that this negative behavior is most likely born out of growing up in an impoverished environment.
"So," he wonders, "poverty early in life is a reason, if not an excuse, for dishonest behavior?"
He wants to know what happened to the concept of "you reap what you sow" -- or, to put it in New Age parlance, "karma."
His description of how hired workers might be compelled to do tasks without pay, out of fear of losing any payment at all, shows that my reader understands how financial pressure can cause people to do things that they know are wrong. These workers aren't the ethical transgressors in this situation, but their plight points to how financial need can be a powerful force in determining how we behave.
Even so, however, and regardless of any psychological explanation for how people decide to do what they do, there is no ethical justification for allowing your past to influence how you behave when you know that a given action is wrong.
I'm not sold on the idea that karma is the motivation we need to do the right thing. The choice to do what's right should be driven by the understanding that, as a society, we continue to function precisely because individuals opt for the right course of action when faced with tough choices.
I agree with Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner Rogers, who wrote in A Simpler Way (Berrett-Koehler, 1999): "Ethics is how we behave when we decide we belong together."
The right thing for my reader to do is to continue to let his family members know that he disapproves of their actions and why he disapproves, explaining how their actions are unfair to the retailers, workers or others of whom they take advantage. He doesn't have to harp on it, but neither should he give up and go along to get along.
After all, if we can't trust our family members, who love us, to try to set us on the right path, whom can we trust?
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: CABLE HOOK-UPS
A majority of responding readers said that it would be wrong to use cable-television service that had inadvertently had been left connected when you moved into a new house. In an informal survey on my column's blog, only 15 percent said that it was OK to continue using the service without notifying the cable company, and 55 percent said that it was not OK. Still, 30 percent of those who considered it wrong admitted that, in that circumstance, they'd continue using it anyway.
Brenda Levy of Richmond, Va., is not one of those who would continue using the service.
"My integrity is worth more than the money I'd be saving," she writes.
"Why should one enjoy something that others are paying for?" asks Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C. "In the long run, thefts cost us all more."
Finally, one reader pointed out that it's not only unethical to continue to use the service, but also "a violation of law, and could subject the homeowner to criminal charges."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Brenda Levy of Richmond, Va., is not one of those who would continue using the service.
"My integrity is worth more than the money I'd be saving," she writes.
"Why should one enjoy something that others are paying for?" asks Patrick Burris of Charlotte, N.C. "In the long run, thefts cost us all more."
Finally, one reader pointed out that it's not only unethical to continue to use the service, but also "a violation of law, and could subject the homeowner to criminal charges."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
SOUND OFF: WHEN ARE KIDS OFF LIMITS?
Shortly after Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, announced his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, the pregnancy of her unwed, 17-year-old daughter made headlines. McCain's campaign and that of his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, agreed that candidates' children should be off limits to the media in their coverage of the election.
Do you think that the media crosses a line when it reports on candidates' children? Or is such coverage OK, once someone becomes a candidate for a public political office? Does the child's age make a difference and, if so, to what extent?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Do you think that the media crosses a line when it reports on candidates' children? Or is such coverage OK, once someone becomes a candidate for a public political office? Does the child's age make a difference and, if so, to what extent?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: THE FINANCIAL COMPANY YOU KEEP
I shouldn't have been surprised, really, when the letter came in the mail.
We had spent weeks in a mortgage-approval process, during which the financial institution had scrupulously examined various aspects of our financial wherewithal.
It was a painstaking and occasionally annoying process -- my wife gleefully learned, for example, that she has a credit score 30 points higher than my own. But the institution had a reputation for being rigorous in its due diligence about prospective borrowers. For instance, the day before closing it called the college where I teach to confirm that I hadn't been let go since the last time it had called ... two weeks earlier.
We were pleased to be doing business with a company that not only gave us a decent rate, but also had managed to stay above the fray in the recent subprime-mortgage crisis, which had come about in large part due to some institutions making loans to people whom they knew weren't likely to be able to afford their monthly payments.
But then, shortly before our first mortgage payment was due, we received a letter informing us that our mortgage had been sold to another lender. We knew that this was a possibility, of course, since it had happened to us in our prior home-ownership experience. But this time the mortgage was sold to Countrywide Home Loans, an institution that had been caught up in the subprime mess.
We learned this in late August, which is when we also learned that Indiana had joined four other states in suing Countrywide for its lending practices. When Connecticut announced that it was suing Countrywide earlier in August, its complaint said that Countrywide's lending practices were "oppressive, unethical, immoral and unscrupulous."
Given the choice, my wife and I would not choose to do business with an institution that has a reputation for any one of these things, let alone all four. But our original lender was perfectly within its legal rights to sell our mortgage to another lender.
"This is another collision of ethics and reality," says Steve Rhode, the founder of The Ethical Banker, a Web site focusing on ethics in financial services. "From a consumer point of view it is wrong, and I think a consumer could demonstrate that they have been harmed to be sold to a lower-quality lender."
He also points out, however, that any effort to undo the sale would be a costly legal battle in which the consumer would be significantly outgunned.
If we wanted to, we could try to refinance our mortgage with another lender, absorbing a higher interest rate and more closing costs. Even then, however, doing so couldn't ensure that the new lender wouldn't turn around and sell us right back to Countrywide.
"It's dishonest for an institution to advertise `We're here for you' when really you're nothing but an asset that can be bought and sold," says John Waggoner, author of Bailout: What the Rescue of Bear Stearns and the Credit Crisis Mean for Your Investments. "Expecting kindness from your mortgage lender is like expecting kindness from a soft-shell crab."
So what's the right thing for us, or other consumers in similar situations, to do?
There's some solace in knowing that Countrywide is under new ownership, having been purchased by Bank of America in July. There's also comfort in knowing that the scrutiny under which Countrywide now finds itself is likely to keep it from behaving as questionably as it allegedly did in the past.
This doesn't eradicate the past behavior, of course. And it's unconscionable that consumers don't have more say in choosing the lenders with whom they ultimately do business.
But if Countrywide is forced to clean up its own house, perhaps we can live with having it finance ours.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
We had spent weeks in a mortgage-approval process, during which the financial institution had scrupulously examined various aspects of our financial wherewithal.
It was a painstaking and occasionally annoying process -- my wife gleefully learned, for example, that she has a credit score 30 points higher than my own. But the institution had a reputation for being rigorous in its due diligence about prospective borrowers. For instance, the day before closing it called the college where I teach to confirm that I hadn't been let go since the last time it had called ... two weeks earlier.
We were pleased to be doing business with a company that not only gave us a decent rate, but also had managed to stay above the fray in the recent subprime-mortgage crisis, which had come about in large part due to some institutions making loans to people whom they knew weren't likely to be able to afford their monthly payments.
But then, shortly before our first mortgage payment was due, we received a letter informing us that our mortgage had been sold to another lender. We knew that this was a possibility, of course, since it had happened to us in our prior home-ownership experience. But this time the mortgage was sold to Countrywide Home Loans, an institution that had been caught up in the subprime mess.
We learned this in late August, which is when we also learned that Indiana had joined four other states in suing Countrywide for its lending practices. When Connecticut announced that it was suing Countrywide earlier in August, its complaint said that Countrywide's lending practices were "oppressive, unethical, immoral and unscrupulous."
Given the choice, my wife and I would not choose to do business with an institution that has a reputation for any one of these things, let alone all four. But our original lender was perfectly within its legal rights to sell our mortgage to another lender.
"This is another collision of ethics and reality," says Steve Rhode, the founder of The Ethical Banker, a Web site focusing on ethics in financial services. "From a consumer point of view it is wrong, and I think a consumer could demonstrate that they have been harmed to be sold to a lower-quality lender."
He also points out, however, that any effort to undo the sale would be a costly legal battle in which the consumer would be significantly outgunned.
If we wanted to, we could try to refinance our mortgage with another lender, absorbing a higher interest rate and more closing costs. Even then, however, doing so couldn't ensure that the new lender wouldn't turn around and sell us right back to Countrywide.
"It's dishonest for an institution to advertise `We're here for you' when really you're nothing but an asset that can be bought and sold," says John Waggoner, author of Bailout: What the Rescue of Bear Stearns and the Credit Crisis Mean for Your Investments. "Expecting kindness from your mortgage lender is like expecting kindness from a soft-shell crab."
So what's the right thing for us, or other consumers in similar situations, to do?
There's some solace in knowing that Countrywide is under new ownership, having been purchased by Bank of America in July. There's also comfort in knowing that the scrutiny under which Countrywide now finds itself is likely to keep it from behaving as questionably as it allegedly did in the past.
This doesn't eradicate the past behavior, of course. And it's unconscionable that consumers don't have more say in choosing the lenders with whom they ultimately do business.
But if Countrywide is forced to clean up its own house, perhaps we can live with having it finance ours.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Right Thing Book Review
Connie Glaser wrote a review of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsiblity in Today's Business that appeared in bizjournals around the country on Monday.
In her review, she writes: "All too often, business writers focus solely on financial issues that affect bottom-line profitability. But New York Times syndicated columnist Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business, has carved out a successful career by focusing on personal responsibility in today's business world."
She continues: "The Right Thing is not the book to read if you want to unlock the secret to becoming a billionaire, a CEO, or even the most "successful" graduate of whatever B school you attended. But if you are interested in ethical behavior in the workplace, this may be the best book available for conscientious as well as fair-minded employees and bosses alike. Seglin addresses a variety of thorny issues that are familiar to both bosses and their employees -- and does so in a way that encourages the reader to ask, 'What would I have done?'"
You can read Glaser's complete review here and purchase copies of The Right Thing here.
[Thanks to Christopher Hennessy of Emerson College's Public Affairs Office for pointing out Glaser's review to me.]
In her review, she writes: "All too often, business writers focus solely on financial issues that affect bottom-line profitability. But New York Times syndicated columnist Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business, has carved out a successful career by focusing on personal responsibility in today's business world."
She continues: "The Right Thing is not the book to read if you want to unlock the secret to becoming a billionaire, a CEO, or even the most "successful" graduate of whatever B school you attended. But if you are interested in ethical behavior in the workplace, this may be the best book available for conscientious as well as fair-minded employees and bosses alike. Seglin addresses a variety of thorny issues that are familiar to both bosses and their employees -- and does so in a way that encourages the reader to ask, 'What would I have done?'"
You can read Glaser's complete review here and purchase copies of The Right Thing here.
[Thanks to Christopher Hennessy of Emerson College's Public Affairs Office for pointing out Glaser's review to me.]
Sunday, September 07, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: AN EASY FIX AND A DIFFICULT BILL
I recently received a letter from an 84-year-old widow in Bountiful, Utah, about a dispute she was having with her car dealer.
After her car's "check engine" light came on, she called her dealer's service department to seek help. On the gas cap is printed the warning: "A loose cap may turn on check-engine light." Instead of advising her to check her gas cap, however, the service-department representative told her to bring in her car.
The service department tightened her gas cap ... and charged her $52.39 for the procedure.
My reader, who has purchased multiple cars from the dealer in years past, thought that this was quite a bit to charge for tightening her gas cap, so she wrote to the service manager.
"Is your service department so in need of business," she asked, "that you do not help out loyal customers with a problem such as mine?"
A month passed with no answer. She wrote to the owner of the dealership, enclosing copies of her earlier letter and of the bill, and asked him if he deemed her letter worthy of a reply.
Another month passed, without any response from the service manager or from the owner, so she wrote to me.
I called the owner and told him about the situation. He said that he hadn't been aware of the matter -- which, given the size of his operation and the relatively small amount in question, is likely true -- but he took my reader's contact information. I e-mailed her to let her know that I had spoken with the owner.
She e-mailed back to let me know that the general manager of the dealership had called her. He had known nothing of her situation until the owner alerted him, he said, and, because he did not want unhappy customers, he was returning her $52.39.
"Of course they missed the whole point," she writes, "and that is that they did not reply to a customer's inquiry. Only when they got a call from a guy with The New York Times did they decide to get in touch with the old lady."
She's right, of course. Even if the dealership had retained the charge, explaining that it reflected the time it took a mechanic to check out her car, the right thing would have been to respond to her letter. Even better would have been to suggest in the first place that she try tightening her gas cap.
It's good ethics, basic civility and good business to treat customers fairly and responsively.
As the summer drew to a close and I was about to make a final pruning of the hedge around my house with the power clippers, I couldn't get them to work. I called my favorite hardware store -- Curry Hardware in Quincy, Mass. -- and asked if I could bring in the 2-year-old set of clippers for repair. The young woman on the phone asked the brand and then suggested that I loosen the bolts on the blades before bringing them in. It worked.
Curry didn't get my money, but it has earned my loyalty.
My reader, however, may think twice before buying her next car from the same dealership, even though she's done business there for years.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
After her car's "check engine" light came on, she called her dealer's service department to seek help. On the gas cap is printed the warning: "A loose cap may turn on check-engine light." Instead of advising her to check her gas cap, however, the service-department representative told her to bring in her car.
The service department tightened her gas cap ... and charged her $52.39 for the procedure.
My reader, who has purchased multiple cars from the dealer in years past, thought that this was quite a bit to charge for tightening her gas cap, so she wrote to the service manager.
"Is your service department so in need of business," she asked, "that you do not help out loyal customers with a problem such as mine?"
A month passed with no answer. She wrote to the owner of the dealership, enclosing copies of her earlier letter and of the bill, and asked him if he deemed her letter worthy of a reply.
Another month passed, without any response from the service manager or from the owner, so she wrote to me.
I called the owner and told him about the situation. He said that he hadn't been aware of the matter -- which, given the size of his operation and the relatively small amount in question, is likely true -- but he took my reader's contact information. I e-mailed her to let her know that I had spoken with the owner.
She e-mailed back to let me know that the general manager of the dealership had called her. He had known nothing of her situation until the owner alerted him, he said, and, because he did not want unhappy customers, he was returning her $52.39.
"Of course they missed the whole point," she writes, "and that is that they did not reply to a customer's inquiry. Only when they got a call from a guy with The New York Times did they decide to get in touch with the old lady."
She's right, of course. Even if the dealership had retained the charge, explaining that it reflected the time it took a mechanic to check out her car, the right thing would have been to respond to her letter. Even better would have been to suggest in the first place that she try tightening her gas cap.
It's good ethics, basic civility and good business to treat customers fairly and responsively.
As the summer drew to a close and I was about to make a final pruning of the hedge around my house with the power clippers, I couldn't get them to work. I called my favorite hardware store -- Curry Hardware in Quincy, Mass. -- and asked if I could bring in the 2-year-old set of clippers for repair. The young woman on the phone asked the brand and then suggested that I loosen the bolts on the blades before bringing them in. It worked.
Curry didn't get my money, but it has earned my loyalty.
My reader, however, may think twice before buying her next car from the same dealership, even though she's done business there for years.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: ENDOWING TUITION
Readers were split about whether colleges and universities are ethically obliged to spend part of their endowments each year to make college tuition more affordable. According to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 50 percent of my readers think that colleges are obliged to do so, while 50 percent believe that colleges have no moral obligation to ease tuition pain.
"Public universities, founded by and for the people, would seem to have an ethical obligation to offer affordable college tuition to a portion of their citizenry," Eric Erickson of Minneapolis writes. "Private universities should have the option to decide whether or not to discount the value of their services."
Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C., counters.
"The endowments of colleges provide for allowing the institution to continue to exist and grow in these troubled financial times," he says, "not to provide tuition for needy students."
Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., concurs.
"Why should the state or federal government require anybody to do anything with funds that they privately and legitimately raised," Clutts asks, "as long as the contributors know how the money is being spent?"
Christopher Lincoln of Minnesota takes the same view, but with a cautionary note: "Private universities have the right to price themselves into oblivion," he writes.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Public universities, founded by and for the people, would seem to have an ethical obligation to offer affordable college tuition to a portion of their citizenry," Eric Erickson of Minneapolis writes. "Private universities should have the option to decide whether or not to discount the value of their services."
Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C., counters.
"The endowments of colleges provide for allowing the institution to continue to exist and grow in these troubled financial times," he says, "not to provide tuition for needy students."
Phil Clutts of Harrisburg, N.C., concurs.
"Why should the state or federal government require anybody to do anything with funds that they privately and legitimately raised," Clutts asks, "as long as the contributors know how the money is being spent?"
Christopher Lincoln of Minnesota takes the same view, but with a cautionary note: "Private universities have the right to price themselves into oblivion," he writes.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, August 31, 2008
The Right Thing: You Tell Me Yours
Writing in The Boston Globe in mid-August, Anne Baker and Jeannie M. Nuss began their article as follows: "The congregation of Temple B'nai Israel in Revere has a hero, although no one knows his name."
Earlier in the week members of the congregation, located not far from Boston, found that their place of worship had been "tagged" in red paint with anti-Semitic graffiti and swastikas.
The incident was reported to the local police, of course, which might have been the end of it.
As temple members congregated inside, however, a car pulled up to the synagogue, and a stranger got out and began to paint over the graffiti. The painter would not give reporters or temple officials his name and would not agree to have his picture taken. As the stranger painted, the rabbi told the reporters that the group meeting inside the temple was studying texts about honesty.
The rabbi reported that the painter appeared to be very thoughtful about the job he was doing. He had chosen paint that matched the color of the temple as closely as possible.
"To me that feels like a very loving act," the rabbi told The Boston Globe.
Reading the story of the neighborly painter who wanted no credit, I was reminded of an observation by psychiatrist/writer Robert Coles, one that I cite regularly in giving talks about the importance of doing the right thing regardless of whether doing so will result in personal gain: "Character," Coles writes in The Call of Stories: Teaching and the Moral Imagination (Houghton Mifflin, 1989), "is how you behave when no one is looking."
Many of us have made the decision to step up and take actions that should make us proud, particularly to help fix a wrong we didn't commit. On the other hand, we've also avoided going the extra mile to help another person or group unless we received something in return.
Now it's your turn to tell me your own tale. What one story from your life captures a moment when you stepped up to do the right thing, regardless of whether or not you received recognition for it? Or, conversely, if you were given the chance but passed up the opportunity, what would you like a chance to do over, regardless of whether you were going to get credit?
Last year, after I asked readers to send me their stories, I received numerous compelling stories about the ethical quandaries they had found themselves battling. So I'm asking you again to send me your stories. Provide as much detail as possible, but keep your submission to no more than 300 words. I'll run some of these stories in an upcoming column. Those whose stories are used in that column will receive a copy of my book, The Right Thing (Smith Kerr, 2006).
Include your name, address and telephone number, and submit your story by Oct. 13, 2008, to: rightthing@nytimes.com or "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Earlier in the week members of the congregation, located not far from Boston, found that their place of worship had been "tagged" in red paint with anti-Semitic graffiti and swastikas.
The incident was reported to the local police, of course, which might have been the end of it.
As temple members congregated inside, however, a car pulled up to the synagogue, and a stranger got out and began to paint over the graffiti. The painter would not give reporters or temple officials his name and would not agree to have his picture taken. As the stranger painted, the rabbi told the reporters that the group meeting inside the temple was studying texts about honesty.
The rabbi reported that the painter appeared to be very thoughtful about the job he was doing. He had chosen paint that matched the color of the temple as closely as possible.
"To me that feels like a very loving act," the rabbi told The Boston Globe.
Reading the story of the neighborly painter who wanted no credit, I was reminded of an observation by psychiatrist/writer Robert Coles, one that I cite regularly in giving talks about the importance of doing the right thing regardless of whether doing so will result in personal gain: "Character," Coles writes in The Call of Stories: Teaching and the Moral Imagination (Houghton Mifflin, 1989), "is how you behave when no one is looking."
Many of us have made the decision to step up and take actions that should make us proud, particularly to help fix a wrong we didn't commit. On the other hand, we've also avoided going the extra mile to help another person or group unless we received something in return.
Now it's your turn to tell me your own tale. What one story from your life captures a moment when you stepped up to do the right thing, regardless of whether or not you received recognition for it? Or, conversely, if you were given the chance but passed up the opportunity, what would you like a chance to do over, regardless of whether you were going to get credit?
Last year, after I asked readers to send me their stories, I received numerous compelling stories about the ethical quandaries they had found themselves battling. So I'm asking you again to send me your stories. Provide as much detail as possible, but keep your submission to no more than 300 words. I'll run some of these stories in an upcoming column. Those whose stories are used in that column will receive a copy of my book, The Right Thing (Smith Kerr, 2006).
Include your name, address and telephone number, and submit your story by Oct. 13, 2008, to: rightthing@nytimes.com or "The Right Thing," New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: FREE PAPERS
Many years ago a reader put a quarter in a newspaper-vending machine to purchase a paper. It wasn't until she closed the lid that she realized that she had accidentally taken two papers.
What was the right thing for her to have done: 1. Put the extra newspaper on top of the vending machine? 2. Put another quarter into the vending machine and either put back the extra newspaper or simply open and close the door? 3. Keep the extra newspaper and chalk it up to good fortune? Or something else?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
What was the right thing for her to have done: 1. Put the extra newspaper on top of the vending machine? 2. Put another quarter into the vending machine and either put back the extra newspaper or simply open and close the door? 3. Keep the extra newspaper and chalk it up to good fortune? Or something else?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, August 24, 2008
THE RIGHT THING: THE LOVE IS GONE, THE CASH REMAINS
Relationships, especially when they fall apart, can be costly ... and complicated.
Six years ago, after she had left her live-in boyfriend of five years, one of my readers learned this the hard way.
"I was the sole support during most of the time I lived with him," she writes. "Stupid me made his house payments, paid the bills, supported his drinking habit, bought new tires for his truck."
She also made a few of his child-support payments, and figures that she spent thousands on his expenses through the course of the relationship.
When she left, her soon-to-be ex took $800 out of a savings account they held jointly.
"I found out when my statement came in the mail," she writes.
He promised that his mother would pay back the money, which never happened, so my reader took all of her money out of the joint checking and savings accounts they held. The bank told her, however, that while either of them could close the accounts permanently, her name could not be taken off either account unless her ex-boyfriend also agreed to have her name removed.
He hasn't done so, though she has repeatedly asked him to remove her name from the accounts and warned him that, if he didn't, she would take out any money he put into the accounts. She never has followed through on that threat, though.
Recently, however, she discovered that there was a little more than $1,000 in the joint checking account and $6,000 in the joint savings account. She told her story to the bank teller, who told her that the money was technically hers, since her name is on the accounts. He suggested that she close the accounts and pocket the money.
She was tempted, my reader admits, but "my conscience got the better of me."
Several days later, however, she withdrew $800 from the account, recovering the money that her ex had taken when they broke up.
"An eye for an eye," she reasons.
She plans to allow a month to pass so that her ex will see the next bank statement, "get the picture" and close the accounts. But she admits that the rest of the money is pretty tempting.
"The $7,000 would help me recoup some of my losses," she writes.
She's torn. Should she give him one month to close the account with her name on it? Or should she take the money and close out the account herself?
"Ethically," she asks, "what's your take on this?"
The $800 was hers to recover, since her ex took it without her permission after their relationship had ended.
Tempting as it may be to empty his coffers to even the score, however, there is no ethical justification for such an action unless, during the relationship, there was a specific agreement that she would be repaid for whatever money she doled out on his behalf.
Absent such an agreement, the right thing for my reader to do is to contact her ex, let him know that she took $800 from their account to repay the "unauthorized loan" and tell him that, if he doesn't close the account, she will.
If she does close the account, she should get the balance in the form of a bank check and send it to him. Then she can finally close the books on this failed relationship.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Six years ago, after she had left her live-in boyfriend of five years, one of my readers learned this the hard way.
"I was the sole support during most of the time I lived with him," she writes. "Stupid me made his house payments, paid the bills, supported his drinking habit, bought new tires for his truck."
She also made a few of his child-support payments, and figures that she spent thousands on his expenses through the course of the relationship.
When she left, her soon-to-be ex took $800 out of a savings account they held jointly.
"I found out when my statement came in the mail," she writes.
He promised that his mother would pay back the money, which never happened, so my reader took all of her money out of the joint checking and savings accounts they held. The bank told her, however, that while either of them could close the accounts permanently, her name could not be taken off either account unless her ex-boyfriend also agreed to have her name removed.
He hasn't done so, though she has repeatedly asked him to remove her name from the accounts and warned him that, if he didn't, she would take out any money he put into the accounts. She never has followed through on that threat, though.
Recently, however, she discovered that there was a little more than $1,000 in the joint checking account and $6,000 in the joint savings account. She told her story to the bank teller, who told her that the money was technically hers, since her name is on the accounts. He suggested that she close the accounts and pocket the money.
She was tempted, my reader admits, but "my conscience got the better of me."
Several days later, however, she withdrew $800 from the account, recovering the money that her ex had taken when they broke up.
"An eye for an eye," she reasons.
She plans to allow a month to pass so that her ex will see the next bank statement, "get the picture" and close the accounts. But she admits that the rest of the money is pretty tempting.
"The $7,000 would help me recoup some of my losses," she writes.
She's torn. Should she give him one month to close the account with her name on it? Or should she take the money and close out the account herself?
"Ethically," she asks, "what's your take on this?"
The $800 was hers to recover, since her ex took it without her permission after their relationship had ended.
Tempting as it may be to empty his coffers to even the score, however, there is no ethical justification for such an action unless, during the relationship, there was a specific agreement that she would be repaid for whatever money she doled out on his behalf.
Absent such an agreement, the right thing for my reader to do is to contact her ex, let him know that she took $800 from their account to repay the "unauthorized loan" and tell him that, if he doesn't close the account, she will.
If she does close the account, she should get the balance in the form of a bank check and send it to him. Then she can finally close the books on this failed relationship.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: THE LOWDOWN ON SHIPPING MARK-UPS
As long as the shipping cost is made known to the buyer, is it wrong for online-auction sellers to charge customers more than it actually costs to ship the items? According to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 65 percent of my readers think that there is nothing wrong with excessive charges, as long as the details are disclosed, while 35 percent think that such a practice is wrong.
"Shipping charges are a profit center for virtually every cataloger or retailer, online or off," writes Eric McNulty of Brookline, Mass. "As long as the costs are clearly stated, there is no issue."
"I firmly believe that `shipping' costs should reflect only that -- the cost of shipping," writes Nancy Ludt of Huntington Beach, Calif., who sells needlework items on eBay to supplement her income. "Not man-hours, not supplies, but postage rates only."
"Often people forget the `handling' part of `shipping and handling,"' writes Tom Van Huss of Tustin, Calif. "Packing items for shipping can be time-consuming and can require materials that cost money."
"I do not buy from people who charge me for shipping and handling," writes Azra Daniel Francis of Windsor, Ontario.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Shipping charges are a profit center for virtually every cataloger or retailer, online or off," writes Eric McNulty of Brookline, Mass. "As long as the costs are clearly stated, there is no issue."
"I firmly believe that `shipping' costs should reflect only that -- the cost of shipping," writes Nancy Ludt of Huntington Beach, Calif., who sells needlework items on eBay to supplement her income. "Not man-hours, not supplies, but postage rates only."
"Often people forget the `handling' part of `shipping and handling,"' writes Tom Van Huss of Tustin, Calif. "Packing items for shipping can be time-consuming and can require materials that cost money."
"I do not buy from people who charge me for shipping and handling," writes Azra Daniel Francis of Windsor, Ontario.
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, August 17, 2008
SOUND OFF: CABLE NEWS
You move into a new house. Before you have a chance to call your local cable-television company to activate your service, you hook up your television and find that the cable service is already active. You wait a month, thinking that perhaps you'll be billed, but two months pass without a bill, then three.
Is it OK to keep getting the service without notifying the cable company? And, even if you don't think it's OK, would you continue to use the service anyway without notifying the cable company?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Is it OK to keep getting the service without notifying the cable company? And, even if you don't think it's OK, would you continue to use the service anyway without notifying the cable company?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: LOSERS KEEPERS, FINDERS WEEPERS
Yesterday I was at a local big-box hardware store to purchase some things we needed for our house. Among these was a large trash barrel, the really big kind with wheels and a handle that can be wheeled out to the curb on trash-pickup day.
The checkout clerk lifted off the cover of the barrel, either to make sure that another clerk hadn't mistakenly placed valuable goods inside or to confirm that my wife and I weren't trying to sneak out with more than we had paid for. We paid up, loaded the barrel into the back of our car and went on our way.
We made another stop at another store to pick up some other stuff that we needed, including a wiffleball, a wiffleball bat and some tennis balls. My wife had the efficient thought to carry these loose items inside the new trash barrel. When she lifted off the barrel's cover, however, she found that we had inadvertently been given two lids for the one trash barrel. Apparently the clerk never thought that we might be trying to filch goods on the outside of the barrel, rather than on the inside.
It was the store's mistake, of course, and we were quite a way from the big-box store where we had purchased the barrel. It would be a nuisance to make the trip to return the cover, so we returned home with it.
A few months ago a reader found himself in a similar predicament: He had brought his car into his dealership for repair of a problem with his car lights, which were not turning off and thus were burning out his car's battery. He lives 40 miles from the dealership, so he had his wife follow him in her car to drive him back after he'd left his car at the dealership.
Two days later the dealer called and said that the car had been fixed, so my reader rode back with his wife. He picked up his car and was relieved to be charged only $200. As they were leaving, however, his wife noticed that his taillights were not working. She called him on his cell telephone, and they drove back to the dealer and left the car again.
This occurred several times, resulting in many trips back and forth to the dealership. Eventually the dealer said that it would cost $1,200 to fix the problem.
The car was 10 years old so, instead of paying for the fix, they drove the car only in the daytime for the next week. The following weekend they traded in the car to purchase a new model.
As they were cleaning out the old car, however, they found many long screwdrivers and other tools that had been left in it by the dealership's mechanics.
"We kept them in return for the $200 we paid for a car that was never fixed," my reader reports. "Right or wrong?"
Wrong. As right as he may have been to be annoyed, the errant screwdrivers didn't belong to him. The right thing would have been to return them. Someone else's bad actions don't justify inappropriate actions in retaliation.
Since the dealer really didn't fix the problem for which my reader paid the $200, the right thing for the dealer to do is to refund his money.
And, in spite of the nuisance factor, as soon as I finish writing this column, I'm going to do the right thing and return the trash-barrel lid that isn't mine to keep.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
The checkout clerk lifted off the cover of the barrel, either to make sure that another clerk hadn't mistakenly placed valuable goods inside or to confirm that my wife and I weren't trying to sneak out with more than we had paid for. We paid up, loaded the barrel into the back of our car and went on our way.
We made another stop at another store to pick up some other stuff that we needed, including a wiffleball, a wiffleball bat and some tennis balls. My wife had the efficient thought to carry these loose items inside the new trash barrel. When she lifted off the barrel's cover, however, she found that we had inadvertently been given two lids for the one trash barrel. Apparently the clerk never thought that we might be trying to filch goods on the outside of the barrel, rather than on the inside.
It was the store's mistake, of course, and we were quite a way from the big-box store where we had purchased the barrel. It would be a nuisance to make the trip to return the cover, so we returned home with it.
A few months ago a reader found himself in a similar predicament: He had brought his car into his dealership for repair of a problem with his car lights, which were not turning off and thus were burning out his car's battery. He lives 40 miles from the dealership, so he had his wife follow him in her car to drive him back after he'd left his car at the dealership.
Two days later the dealer called and said that the car had been fixed, so my reader rode back with his wife. He picked up his car and was relieved to be charged only $200. As they were leaving, however, his wife noticed that his taillights were not working. She called him on his cell telephone, and they drove back to the dealer and left the car again.
This occurred several times, resulting in many trips back and forth to the dealership. Eventually the dealer said that it would cost $1,200 to fix the problem.
The car was 10 years old so, instead of paying for the fix, they drove the car only in the daytime for the next week. The following weekend they traded in the car to purchase a new model.
As they were cleaning out the old car, however, they found many long screwdrivers and other tools that had been left in it by the dealership's mechanics.
"We kept them in return for the $200 we paid for a car that was never fixed," my reader reports. "Right or wrong?"
Wrong. As right as he may have been to be annoyed, the errant screwdrivers didn't belong to him. The right thing would have been to return them. Someone else's bad actions don't justify inappropriate actions in retaliation.
Since the dealer really didn't fix the problem for which my reader paid the $200, the right thing for the dealer to do is to refund his money.
And, in spite of the nuisance factor, as soon as I finish writing this column, I'm going to do the right thing and return the trash-barrel lid that isn't mine to keep.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, August 10, 2008
SOUND OFF: POLLING FOR ANSWERS
Since black Americans running for state or national office regularly poll higher than their actual vote totals, I asked readers if it is ever OK to lie to a pollster. Readers were split, according to an unscientific poll on my column's blog: 59 percent said that it was a breach of ethics to misrepresent yourself to a pollster, 27 percent said that it was not and 14 percent said that it was unethical, but that they would do it anyway.
"Reluctance to reveal racial prejudice in an opinion poll is just an extension of political correctness foisted upon us by the liberal left," writes Gary Denys of Chatham, Ontario. "It's not unethical. It's only human nature to protect oneself."
Another reader writes that he first voted in the 1976 U.S. presidential election, and has nursed a grudge ever since.
"The TV networks were voicing their projections before the West Coast polls closed," he writes. "The news outlets revealed a breathtaking lack of ethics."
Ever since, he has taken his cue from the late newspaper columnist Mike Royko, who, during the 1984 U.S. presidential election, urged people to join him in "a noble cause" and lie to pollsters.
But H. Watkins Ellerson echoes the opinion of the majority of readers: "It is always unethical to misrepresent oneself to anybody," he writes. "One may (courageously) remain silent or otherwise evasively dissemble without lying."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Reluctance to reveal racial prejudice in an opinion poll is just an extension of political correctness foisted upon us by the liberal left," writes Gary Denys of Chatham, Ontario. "It's not unethical. It's only human nature to protect oneself."
Another reader writes that he first voted in the 1976 U.S. presidential election, and has nursed a grudge ever since.
"The TV networks were voicing their projections before the West Coast polls closed," he writes. "The news outlets revealed a breathtaking lack of ethics."
Ever since, he has taken his cue from the late newspaper columnist Mike Royko, who, during the 1984 U.S. presidential election, urged people to join him in "a noble cause" and lie to pollsters.
But H. Watkins Ellerson echoes the opinion of the majority of readers: "It is always unethical to misrepresent oneself to anybody," he writes. "One may (courageously) remain silent or otherwise evasively dissemble without lying."
Check out other opinions here, or post your own by clicking on "Comments" or "Post a comment" below.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business and The Good, the Bad, and Your Business: Choosing Right When Ethical Dilemmas Pull You Apart, is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: DO I DARE TO EAT A LEMON?
Once a week a woman in Cypress, Calif., takes a stroll to the local liquor store to get her exercise and to buy her weekly Lotto ticket. While on her constitutional, she regularly passes some lemon trees whose branches extend their fruit out over the sidewalk directly in her path.
"I've never picked a lemon," she writes, "but I've asked my husband and he says that it would be wrong. If the owner of the tree was in his backyard, I could ask him for a piece, but usually that's not the case.
"Those luscious lemons just call out to me at times," she writes.
But picking a piece of fruit from the tree could be considered stealing, she admits.
"Is it illegal," she asks, "or could the owner sue me for taking a piece of fruit?"
Actually, it's the owner of the tree who could find himself on the wrong side of the law: "The City of Cypress does not have ordinances against picking fruit from a tree that overhangs a public sidewalk," says Khuong Truong, a code-enforcement officer for the city, but it does have one that "disallows vegetation to grow into or over the public right of way -- including alleys, sidewalks and streets -- to the extent that passage of pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles is impeded."
Such conditions fall under the category of "public nuisance" and, if the lemon trees' owner lets their branches grow so unruly that they block the passage of pedestrians with their alluring fruit, he could be charged with violating the municipal code.
Supposing that there were no law to keep my reader from plucking a lemon, however, is it right for her to do so, knowing that the tree belongs to someone else?
No. Her inclination to ask the owner's permission is correct. If he's not there, she should wait for an opportune moment when he happens to be in his yard to ask him.
Or, if she simply can't resist the tart temptation, she should knock on his door and make the request. She'd have to be pretty hungry for the fruit to do that, but it's the right course of action if her desire tugs strongly enough.
The owner of the trees should make sure to keep them pruned so as to be in compliance with the city's code. Letting them grow wildly out over the sidewalk, within reach of passing pedestrians, not only plants temptation in their path but also could cost the owner if the city decides to cite him.
There may not be a city rule prohibiting her from taking a piece of low-hanging fruit, but my reader knows that the tree and its fruit belong to someone else. Even if the owner is wrong to leave the fruit so close to her grasp, it's still his tree. She should do the right thing and ask his permission.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"I've never picked a lemon," she writes, "but I've asked my husband and he says that it would be wrong. If the owner of the tree was in his backyard, I could ask him for a piece, but usually that's not the case.
"Those luscious lemons just call out to me at times," she writes.
But picking a piece of fruit from the tree could be considered stealing, she admits.
"Is it illegal," she asks, "or could the owner sue me for taking a piece of fruit?"
Actually, it's the owner of the tree who could find himself on the wrong side of the law: "The City of Cypress does not have ordinances against picking fruit from a tree that overhangs a public sidewalk," says Khuong Truong, a code-enforcement officer for the city, but it does have one that "disallows vegetation to grow into or over the public right of way -- including alleys, sidewalks and streets -- to the extent that passage of pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles is impeded."
Such conditions fall under the category of "public nuisance" and, if the lemon trees' owner lets their branches grow so unruly that they block the passage of pedestrians with their alluring fruit, he could be charged with violating the municipal code.
Supposing that there were no law to keep my reader from plucking a lemon, however, is it right for her to do so, knowing that the tree belongs to someone else?
No. Her inclination to ask the owner's permission is correct. If he's not there, she should wait for an opportune moment when he happens to be in his yard to ask him.
Or, if she simply can't resist the tart temptation, she should knock on his door and make the request. She'd have to be pretty hungry for the fruit to do that, but it's the right course of action if her desire tugs strongly enough.
The owner of the trees should make sure to keep them pruned so as to be in compliance with the city's code. Letting them grow wildly out over the sidewalk, within reach of passing pedestrians, not only plants temptation in their path but also could cost the owner if the city decides to cite him.
There may not be a city rule prohibiting her from taking a piece of low-hanging fruit, but my reader knows that the tree and its fruit belong to someone else. Even if the owner is wrong to leave the fruit so close to her grasp, it's still his tree. She should do the right thing and ask his permission.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, August 03, 2008
SOUND OFF: SHOULD COLLEGES FOOT THE BILL?
With a $1.1 billion endowment, Berea College in Kentucky accepts only low-income applicants who pay no tuition. Berea is unusual in its mission, but there is increased pressure for all colleges and universities with large endowments to spend a set percentage each year to make college tuition more affordable. Tax-exempt foundations are required to spend 5 percent of their endowments each year, and some argue that colleges and universities should be required to do the same.
As reported in The New York Times, Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) said that large, tax-free endowments "should mean affordable education for more students, not just a security blanket for colleges."
Are colleges and universities ethically obliged to spend part of their endowments each year to make college tuition more affordable? Or are they morally, as well as legally, entitled to do what they like with their money?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
As reported in The New York Times, Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) said that large, tax-free endowments "should mean affordable education for more students, not just a security blanket for colleges."
Are colleges and universities ethically obliged to spend part of their endowments each year to make college tuition more affordable? Or are they morally, as well as legally, entitled to do what they like with their money?
Post your thoughts here by clicking on "comments" or "post a comment" below. Please include your name, hometown, and state, province, or country. Readers' comments may appear in an upcoming column. Or e-mail your comments to me at rightthing@nytimes.com.
You can also respond to the poll about this question that will appear on the right-hand side of the blog until polling is closed.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Today's Business (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of The Right Thing, a Web log focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need answered? Send them to rightthing@nytimes.com or to "The Right Thing," The New York Times Syndicate, 500 Seventh Avenue, 8th floor, New York, NY 10018. Please remember to tell me who you are, where you're from, as well as where you read the column.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: BY THE BEAUTIFUL, BUDGET-BREAKING SEA
Given all the planning involved in orchestrating a family vacation, it's surprising that there aren't businesses specializing solely in vacation planning for weary parents. Add another family to your planned vacation, and the logistics become even more entangled.
Vacations can be costly, no doubt about that: The American Automobile Association's annual vacation-costs survey has pegged the 2008 average cost for two adults traveling together in North America at $244 a day for lodging and meals. That's a far cry from the $13 it averaged in 1950, when AAA first started tracking vacation costs. Even adjusting for inflation, that $13 would equal only $118 in today's dollars. And that's skipping travel costs, which fuel-price hikes have made higher than ever for drivers and air travelers alike.
In other words, when something goes wrong with your vacation planning, it can be expensive.
Back in January a family of three from Ohio agreed to rent a beach house for a week with a family of six with whom they were friends. They planned well ahead of their targeted June rental date. The first family's share -- for two of the house's six bedrooms, one for the husband and wife and the other for their son -- was going to be $1,648.
In April, however, the second family called to let them know that their son would be sharing a bedroom with the son of the first family.
"We expected to receive a $413 refund for half of our second bedroom," the mother of the family of three writes.
Less than two weeks before the vacation, to further complicate matters, the first family unexpectedly lost a parent, the son's grandparent. A week later another grandparent was suddenly hospitalized. That evening the first family called the second family to let them know that they wouldn't be making the trip. They asked if the second family might be able to find another couple to help recoup the cost. The family of six said, "no," and told their friends that they were sorry that they wouldn't be able to come along on the trip.
"End of story," the mother writes.
As you may guess, she's wondering whether her family ought to be refunded any money, given that the other family ended up having the whole beach house to itself.
My short answer: no.
However unfortunate the turn of events was for the first family, the second family is under no ethical obligation to refund any money unless either party could find a last-minute substitute who would take the first family's place and pay its share of the bill for the beach house.
If the agreement was that the $1,648 would cover the cost of two bedrooms, the first family was indeed entitled to be reimbursed when it lost half of one bedroom to the other family's son, and indeed the $413 has been refunded. In that case, the first family's loss was the second family's gain -- and the change was at the instigation of the second family.
If the second family had decided that it needed the whole house and, on that basis, had told the first family that it couldn't be accommodated, obviously a full refund would have been due the first family.
As it is, however, the first family was unable to enjoy the time it had paid for due to what are generally called "acts of God." They aren't the second family's fault, and there's no reason that the second family's finances should bear the brunt of the first family's bad luck. It's understandable that the first family chose not to come, of course, but it was their choice and not the second family's.
It would be the right thing -- not to mention generous and compassionate -- if the second family made every effort to find a replacement family who could offset some or all of the first family's costs. There is no ethical obligation to provide such a replacement, though, especially with less than two weeks to do it in.
Bottom line: Even if they had the whole house to themselves, it wasn't through their doing and they shouldn't be expected to cover the additional costs.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Vacations can be costly, no doubt about that: The American Automobile Association's annual vacation-costs survey has pegged the 2008 average cost for two adults traveling together in North America at $244 a day for lodging and meals. That's a far cry from the $13 it averaged in 1950, when AAA first started tracking vacation costs. Even adjusting for inflation, that $13 would equal only $118 in today's dollars. And that's skipping travel costs, which fuel-price hikes have made higher than ever for drivers and air travelers alike.
In other words, when something goes wrong with your vacation planning, it can be expensive.
Back in January a family of three from Ohio agreed to rent a beach house for a week with a family of six with whom they were friends. They planned well ahead of their targeted June rental date. The first family's share -- for two of the house's six bedrooms, one for the husband and wife and the other for their son -- was going to be $1,648.
In April, however, the second family called to let them know that their son would be sharing a bedroom with the son of the first family.
"We expected to receive a $413 refund for half of our second bedroom," the mother of the family of three writes.
Less than two weeks before the vacation, to further complicate matters, the first family unexpectedly lost a parent, the son's grandparent. A week later another grandparent was suddenly hospitalized. That evening the first family called the second family to let them know that they wouldn't be making the trip. They asked if the second family might be able to find another couple to help recoup the cost. The family of six said, "no," and told their friends that they were sorry that they wouldn't be able to come along on the trip.
"End of story," the mother writes.
As you may guess, she's wondering whether her family ought to be refunded any money, given that the other family ended up having the whole beach house to itself.
My short answer: no.
However unfortunate the turn of events was for the first family, the second family is under no ethical obligation to refund any money unless either party could find a last-minute substitute who would take the first family's place and pay its share of the bill for the beach house.
If the agreement was that the $1,648 would cover the cost of two bedrooms, the first family was indeed entitled to be reimbursed when it lost half of one bedroom to the other family's son, and indeed the $413 has been refunded. In that case, the first family's loss was the second family's gain -- and the change was at the instigation of the second family.
If the second family had decided that it needed the whole house and, on that basis, had told the first family that it couldn't be accommodated, obviously a full refund would have been due the first family.
As it is, however, the first family was unable to enjoy the time it had paid for due to what are generally called "acts of God." They aren't the second family's fault, and there's no reason that the second family's finances should bear the brunt of the first family's bad luck. It's understandable that the first family chose not to come, of course, but it was their choice and not the second family's.
It would be the right thing -- not to mention generous and compassionate -- if the second family made every effort to find a replacement family who could offset some or all of the first family's costs. There is no ethical obligation to provide such a replacement, though, especially with less than two weeks to do it in.
Bottom line: Even if they had the whole house to themselves, it wasn't through their doing and they shouldn't be expected to cover the additional costs.
c.2008 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)