A reader from Hawaii has, along with her brother, decided to put up for auction several valuable items that were left them by their father upon his death. Neither my reader nor her brother knew about many of these items that their father had in his possession before he died.
The father's sister, my reader's aunt, is now claiming that some of the items should have been hers, since her brother refused to cooperate in settling their parents' estate.
Their parents had not divided up their belongings in their wills, it seems, and left no indication as to what should be left to which child. Instead my reader's father and aunt had to go through the many items and try to divide them equitably.
"A number of things were divided between them," my reader writes. "But my father had easier access to the property, so he cleaned out the house. He then refused to meet with his sister and go through those items, which turned out to be the most valuable."
The sister consulted a lawyer at the time, but never pursued the issue. She has no intention of instituting legal action against my reader and her brother, but feels that they have a moral obligation to set matters right.
"All of this has been corroborated," my reader writes. "Learning of my father's deceitfulness has been awful news for my brother and me."
While she "feels" for her aunt and for her daughter, my reader's cousin, she also believes that the issue should have been settled by the previous generation, not by hers. She has considered giving her aunt a few valuable items, but wonders if that would open up a Pandora's box in terms of what her aunt believes she is entitled to.
"Am I morally obligated," she asks, "to share the auction proceeds with my aunt?"
My reader's predicament should serve as a lesson to any parents of multiple children: A carefully detailed will is essential. If no indication is made about how their assets should be divided upon their death, it can result in a rift among surviving children that stretches into subsequent generations.
In other words, my reader is wrong in thinking that her father's generation should have settled this issue. It was her grandparents who should have made clear how they meant their possessions to be allotted.
As to my reader's situation, her father has left two legacies to her and to her brother: the assets which they are now preparing to auction and the ethical obligation to set matters right with their aunt. In accepting the one legacy, they are ethically bound to accept the other.
That their aunt has no intention of pursuing whatever legal rights she may have is irrelevant. If my reader and her brother simply auctioned off the goods, divided the proceeds and moved on, they would be wealthier - but they would also be perpetuating the injustice wrought by their father, and presumably would further strain their relationship with their aunt and cousin.
My reader says that she is convinced that her father was in the wrong, that he unfairly took the most valuable goods after her grandparents' deaths and deprived her aunt of her fair share of the estate. Taking her at her word, I believe that she has not only an ethical obligation but also a wonderful opportunity to set things straight and to heal the rift between the two sides of the family.
The right thing for her to do is to discuss the issue with her brother and, if they agree that their father's actions were wrong, to try to find a way to make things right. She is wise to worry about a possible Pandora's box of new disputes, so it might be wise for them to consult a mediator and/or an attorney to help them come to an agreement with their aunt as to a fair recompense.
My reader and her brother are in the driver's seat here, and it is up to them to correct the sins of their father. How far they want to go remains to be determined, but my reader seems to be on the right road, ethically speaking.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
THE RIGHT THING: LIVING AS AN OPEN BOOK
A reader from Utah remembers a column I wrote, awhile back, about whether it ever is appropriate for a parent to read a child's e-mail.
My take on that issue was that a child's safety always trumps his or her privacy, meaning that it is indeed permissible on some occasions for parents to check their children's e-mail. I added, however, that a parent wanting to maintain trust with his or her children should make it clear ahead of time that their e-mail might be checked now and then.
Granted, such a warning might inspire a child to come up with alternative e-mail accounts, deceptive threads and other tactics to throw off a parent. Once violated, however, a bond of trust with a child is difficult to restore, so I think that laying out the ground rules ahead of time - regardless of whether the child likes those rules - is a good way to go.
My reader wants to know if I feel the same way about a romantic relationship between adults. He is in his early 60s, his girlfriend in her early 50s. He has never been married before, she's been married twice. Last summer the two bought a house together, and they are "talking marriage."
His girlfriend believes that everything in their relationship should be transparent, he writes - "an open book." He believes that there should be limits.
"Does a spouse or a significant other have the right to pore over a partner's e-mail?" he asks. "Is there privacy within a relationship?"
The two cases are not comparable. Most obviously, the difference between the relationship between a parent and a child and the relationship between two adults is that the former relationship is fundamentally unequal and, at least on the part of the child, involuntary. Because virtually all the power rests on one side of the equation, it's important that the rights of the other individual - the child - be spelled out and respected by both parties and, of course, by the law.
In the case of adults in a mutual relationship, the relationship is between equals and is entirely voluntary, and only one fundamental right applies: Whatever limits exist in a relationship must be agreed to by both parties. Neither partner has a "right" to rummage through the other's e-mail, nor a "right" not to have his/her e-mail rummaged through. The rules of their particular relationship must be mutually determined by the two of them.
In the case of my reader, the issue is not really privacy but the fact that he is uncomfortable with his partner's expectations where privacy is concerned. She places their relationship above either partner's right to privacy, he doesn't.
In the immediate matter at hand, in short, my reader is right: As long as he has not agreed to make his life "an open book," his partner isn't entitled to expect it to be so.
Since he and his partner are "talking marriage," however, he should be prepared to be honest with his partner and explain why this issue is so important to him - which, of course, means that he has to figure this out for himself. Does he want to keep secrets from his partner? Is he uncomfortable with the degree of closeness that she expects in a relationship? Is his own commitment to the relationship fundamentally different from hers?
They have bigger issues to work out, in short, than whether or not she checks his e-mail. If they can sort through them, I'd bet that he'll end up being OK with her seeing his e-mail and she'll be OK with not seeing it.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
My take on that issue was that a child's safety always trumps his or her privacy, meaning that it is indeed permissible on some occasions for parents to check their children's e-mail. I added, however, that a parent wanting to maintain trust with his or her children should make it clear ahead of time that their e-mail might be checked now and then.
Granted, such a warning might inspire a child to come up with alternative e-mail accounts, deceptive threads and other tactics to throw off a parent. Once violated, however, a bond of trust with a child is difficult to restore, so I think that laying out the ground rules ahead of time - regardless of whether the child likes those rules - is a good way to go.
My reader wants to know if I feel the same way about a romantic relationship between adults. He is in his early 60s, his girlfriend in her early 50s. He has never been married before, she's been married twice. Last summer the two bought a house together, and they are "talking marriage."
His girlfriend believes that everything in their relationship should be transparent, he writes - "an open book." He believes that there should be limits.
"Does a spouse or a significant other have the right to pore over a partner's e-mail?" he asks. "Is there privacy within a relationship?"
The two cases are not comparable. Most obviously, the difference between the relationship between a parent and a child and the relationship between two adults is that the former relationship is fundamentally unequal and, at least on the part of the child, involuntary. Because virtually all the power rests on one side of the equation, it's important that the rights of the other individual - the child - be spelled out and respected by both parties and, of course, by the law.
In the case of adults in a mutual relationship, the relationship is between equals and is entirely voluntary, and only one fundamental right applies: Whatever limits exist in a relationship must be agreed to by both parties. Neither partner has a "right" to rummage through the other's e-mail, nor a "right" not to have his/her e-mail rummaged through. The rules of their particular relationship must be mutually determined by the two of them.
In the case of my reader, the issue is not really privacy but the fact that he is uncomfortable with his partner's expectations where privacy is concerned. She places their relationship above either partner's right to privacy, he doesn't.
In the immediate matter at hand, in short, my reader is right: As long as he has not agreed to make his life "an open book," his partner isn't entitled to expect it to be so.
Since he and his partner are "talking marriage," however, he should be prepared to be honest with his partner and explain why this issue is so important to him - which, of course, means that he has to figure this out for himself. Does he want to keep secrets from his partner? Is he uncomfortable with the degree of closeness that she expects in a relationship? Is his own commitment to the relationship fundamentally different from hers?
They have bigger issues to work out, in short, than whether or not she checks his e-mail. If they can sort through them, I'd bet that he'll end up being OK with her seeing his e-mail and she'll be OK with not seeing it.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: THOU SHALL NOT STEAL
Of those readers who responded to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 66 percent believe that it is simply wrong to shoplift, regardless of the circumstances, while 34 percent agreed with Rev. Tim Jones, an Anglican priest in York, England, who told his parishioners that it is sometimes OK for people in extreme situations to shoplift.
"The moral imperative for us ... in making such judgments is to recognize that, in addition to taking an item, we are also taking someone else's autonomy," writes Sean O'Leary of West Virginia. "That is usually the significantly larger `taking.' Therefore the offsetting benefit must be immense indeed."
Susan Hammond of Mission Viejo, Calif., agrees.
"As a leader in a Christian church," she writes, "Jones should have appealed first to well-supplied members of his own congregation to help meet the needs of their fellow congregants. If they are all in need, then Jones should appeal to the wider Church for help."
Maggie Lawrence of Culpepper, Va., takes a firmer line.
"Oh, baloney!," writes Lawrence, who accuses this "so-called religious leader" of having forgotten that the commandment doesn't read: "Thou shalt not steal - unless, of course, you're, like, really desperate and you only steal from big corporations."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Friday, February 19, 2010
Business Ethics Stories on Video
For a project on which I served as content advisor, here are some short video clips containing various stories related to ethical decision-making in business. You can also view these by clicking on the image above.
You can find more information on the Harvard Management Mentor project from Harvard Business School publishing by clicking here. The business ethics module of this project contains extensive text and interactive tools to use in training managers.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
SOUND OFF: TEED OFF
A brouhaha is brewing among professional golfers.
Joining the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, which coordinates golf rules outside of North America, the United States Golf Association has ruled that using Ping Eye 2 wedges, clubs with specially cut grooves that improve golfers' play - don't ask me how, I'm no golfer - would no longer be permitted on the PGA Tour starting this year.
All well and good. Equipment specifications are a routine part of golf's rules. Because of a preexisting lawsuit, however, wedges made before 1990 were exempted from the new rule. Golfer Phil Mickelson, among others, has used a pre-1990 club for years, and initially planned to continue to do so, since it remained legal. After an outcry from other players, however, he decided not to use it until the rules are standardized, one way or the other.
Joe Read, a reader in Anaheim, Calif., wonders if the spirit of the regulation is as important as the letter of the law: Is it wrong for golfers to use pre-1990 clubs that may not be available to other golfers? Or is all fair as long as the rules are not violated?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: TRADING TIME FOR GIFTS
A reader from Westerville, Ohio, writes that he and his wife are planning a vacation at a resort in the southern United States. He has made their reservations with a national hotel chain that also happens to sell time shares.
After booking their room, he received a letter from the hotel inviting him and his wife to tour the property and listen to a three-hour sales pitch for the time-share properties. In exchange for their time, they would be compensated with their choice of gifts ranging from a certificate for a free dinner to tickets for a nearby amusement park.
The offer is not an uncommon one. Time-share owners often solicit vacationers with offers of a gift to sit through a sales spiel. Having been on the receiving end of such offers myself, and having accepted a few, I know that some salespeople put on more of a hard sell than others, hoping to convince prospects that they're being given an opportunity that they're not likely to come across again. Judging from how many offers are made, such urgency is unlikely, but it's the job of the salesperson to entice.
Only once did a salesperson give me his pitch and then try to weasel out of actually giving me the promised gift. I refused to leave without it and, perhaps weighing the possibility of being stuck with me in his office for the indefinite future, eventually he gave in.
My reader suggested to his wife that they attend the presentation, because he wanted one of the free gifts being offered. They can't afford to purchase and have no interest in owning a time share, however, so his wife thinks that it would be unethical to take the salesperson's time - and the gift - under false pretenses.
"My position is that we are being compensated for our time, nothing else," he writes. "Is it unethical to attend the presentation and accept the compensation when we have no intention of purchasing a time share? We've decide to abide by your decision."
Taking sides in an ethical dispute between husband and wife is not something I relish, but the question falls squarely within the turf of this column.
I'm with the husband on this one. The sellers made it clear that the gift was being offered in exchange for the couple's time, with no other strings attached. He and his wife are under no obligation to disclose that they have no intention of buying a time share before accepting the offer - and it might not make a difference if they did. A confident saleswoman may feel that, given the opportunity to make her pitch to a captive audience, she could convince even the most doubtful consumer to consider a purchase.
She might even be right: For a long time my plumber was dead set against time shares, but he went to many such sales presentations to get the free gifts and now owns two time shares. And is quite happy with them, he tells me.
The right thing for my reader and his wife to do is to weigh whether the gift is worth giving up three hours of their vacation to get it. If so, they can go ahead and do so with absolutely no guilt.
For my part, after sitting through a number of such presentations through the years, I still do not own a time share. I have, however, had several good meals paid for by people selling them.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, February 07, 2010
THE RIGHT THING: AN INDIAN-HEAD PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS
On his way home from work after a long day, a reader in New York stopped in a Subway sandwich shop in Penn Station to buy dinner. It was about 1 a.m.
While waiting for his order, my reader noticed that the shop had a "take a penny, leave a penny" container on its counter. Among the handful of Lincoln cents in the container, he saw an older Indian-head penny, "clearly worth much more than one cent."
On closer inspection he found it to be "fairly worn," with a mint date of either 1893 or 1898. Though in good condition for a coin that had been around for more than a century, it was clearly not a misplaced item from someone's collection.
He took it and replaced it with the three pennies he had received as change when buying his sandwich.
"Was it legitimate to take the penny, which the signs tell you to do, even though the implied purpose is limited to giving it to the cashier?," he asks. "Does it matter if that penny is worth 6 cents or $600?"
He writes that he has no idea of its value, given that he is not a coin collector. For the record, it was closer to 6 cents: As I started writing this column, two well-worn Indian-head pennies - which happened to be dated 1893 and 1898 - were up for sale on eBay at a starting price of 99 cents, with a couple of hours left to go on the auction.
My reader is not sure if he left the three pennies out of a sense of fairness, out of a sense of embarrassment at been seen taking something out of the container and walking off with it or out of some combination of the two.
Regardless of their age and the willingness of collectors to pay more than one cent for them, Indian-head pennies remain legal tender in the United States, with a value of one cent. If my reader had received the coin as part of his change, therefore, he could rightfully have pocketed it without concern. If the shop had accidentally given him a quarter instead of a nickel, though, it would clearly be the shop's - even if it were a century-old quarter now worth $100.
The penny container is a middle ground, however. It is provided as a courtesy to customers, but presumably it's stocked both by customers and by the shop. The penny in question might well have been dropped into the bin by someone who had received it in change and was therefore its rightful owner.
My reader adds that a contributing factor to his not telling the cashier about the coin was his assumption that, if he did, the cashier - who had no possible claim on it - would simply pocket the coin for himself. There was little likelihood that it would find its way back to Subway, even if the corporation were the rightful owner.
"If it's going to go to someone who doesn't own it," my reader figures, "it might as well be me."
If the shop been a family-owned business with the owner on the premises, he says, he would have considered drawing the owner's attention to the Indian-head cent.
The actual question, though, is whether my reader was right to keep the coin. The answer, yes or no, doesn't depend on who owns the store or whether the owner is on hand.
My answer: yes. There was nothing illegitimate about my reader's actions. The penny bin is not the store's property, per se, and customers are specifically invited to help themselves to a penny if they see fit. What they do with it may be assumed, but it is not specifically limited in any way.
The right thing for him to do was to leave at least one penny in place of the one he was taking, so that he did not diminish the container's usefulness to other customers. Since he actually left two extra pennies, he's in the clear.
While it might have been a nice gesture to report the discovery to the owner, if it was a family business or otherwise, my reader was under no obligation to do so. Kindness is an estimable value, but so is fairness - and fairness says that the penny was his, to keep or give away as he saw fit.
So he can enjoy his find with a clear conscience, knowing that, while I was writing this column, two coins similar to the one he found sold on eBay for $4.44.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)SOUND OFF: SAMPLE WITH ABANDON
Of the readers who responded to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 65 percent believed that it is OK to take a sample of a food product, even if you have no intention of ever buying the product being sampled, while 35 percent believed that such an action is wrong.
Bill Jacobson, of Cypress, Calif., sees nothing wrong with sampling with no intention of buying, arguing that the sampling process offers the store a raft of benefits.
"If retailers were to limit samples only to those who were intending to buy the sampled product coming in," he says, "they might as well forgo the samples altogether."
Eric McNulty of Brookline, Mass., also sees nothing wrong with sampling with no intention to buy, pointing out that such offers carry no implicit agreement to purchase anything.
Perhaps, he writes, the question should be "whether it is ethical to go to a store specifically to take advantage of the food samples without an intention to purchase. Some of those big-box stores offer considerable opportunities for grazing."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Bill Jacobson, of Cypress, Calif., sees nothing wrong with sampling with no intention of buying, arguing that the sampling process offers the store a raft of benefits.
"If retailers were to limit samples only to those who were intending to buy the sampled product coming in," he says, "they might as well forgo the samples altogether."
Eric McNulty of Brookline, Mass., also sees nothing wrong with sampling with no intention to buy, pointing out that such offers carry no implicit agreement to purchase anything.
Perhaps, he writes, the question should be "whether it is ethical to go to a store specifically to take advantage of the food samples without an intention to purchase. Some of those big-box stores offer considerable opportunities for grazing."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Monday, February 01, 2010
Ethical Dilemmas on Fox 25
Discussion with Gene Lavanchy this morning about everyday ethical dilemmas on "The Morning Show" on Fox 25, Boston's Fox affiliate. Also mention of Real Simple magazine's ethics quiz.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
SOUND OFF: LOOTER OR HERO?
In an article he wrote for the Web site True/Slant, Jerry Lanson - a colleague of mine at Emerson College - took issue with The New York Times for referring to "looting" at a collapsed grocery store in Haiti after the recent earthquake. Lanson questioned whether it counts as looting if you're acting to feed yourself and your family by taking food "that will rot in time from the shelves or floor of a collapsed grocery store." He went on to write, "One man's looter is another's humanitarian or mother or father."
Is it wrong to refer to those who took food from collapsed grocery stores in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake as "looters?" Or does the word accurately describe the action, regardless of the circumstances?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: CAN PAY, BUT WON'T
One of the byproducts of the recent financial turmoil has been a precipitous drop in home values in the United States. As a result some homeowners are finding that the value of their houses is less than the amount they owe on their mortgages.
A reader from West Virginia writes inquiring about the ethics of homeowners who default on mortgages that they can still afford to pay, but choose not to, because the underlying property values have dropped so precipitously that it is financially preferable simply to walk away.
"Is this kind of `strategic default' blameworthy because it constitutes a failure to keep a promise?" my reader asks. "Or, since the borrower is willing to accept the contractually mandated consequences of defaulting, is it simply a reasonable economic response to the invisible hand of the marketplace?"
My reader is not asking whether a cost/benefit analysis justifies doing something illegal or dishonest, as one reader did recently after I wrote a column in which I held that falsifying or embellishing information given to a landlord is wrong. After that column appeared, one reader e-mailed: "I had a professor ... who once told me that `The cost of not lying on a resume exceeds the cost of lying.'"
His professor's point, that reader wrote, was that, if you don't lie in such circumstances, you're less likely to get the job. If you do lie, "then your cost is limited to losing the job you couldn't have gotten times the relatively low probability of being found out."
So, he concluded, "lying is the recommended policy."
From an ethical perspective, such a policy is bankrupt. "Whatever works" is no foundation for an ethical philosophy, and this approach is likely not only to land you in a job that you're incapable of doing well but also to deprive some qualified candidate of the job. Even if it works, which seems unlikely, it's still not close to ethical.
My West Virginia reader's question, however, makes no suggestion of lying or skirting the law. The practice he describes is unquestionably legal. The question is, is something ethical simply because it's legal?
If a homeowner cannot afford to make payments on her mortgage and cannot sell her house at a price that will yield enough cash to pay off the mortgage so that she can move on, she may be left with no choice but to default on the mortgage and turn over the house to the bank. There's obviously nothing wrong with this from an ethical standpoint.
A key component of my reader's question, however, is that he's talking about homeowners who "can still afford to pay, but choose not to." It may be a reasonable economic decision to walk away from the property - after all, who wants to get stuck making payments on something that's no longer worth what you're paying for it? - but is it ethically acceptable?
I think not. A mortgage agreement is not a promise to do one of two things, either to make the payments or to give up the house. It's a promise to make the payments, period. Giving up the house to the bank is a penalty for not keeping the promise, not one option within the promise.
In this regard the situation is comparable to the law: The fact that the law provides a penalty for, say, stealing someone's car doesn't mean that a person can ethically choose to steal the car if he is prepared to accept the penalty. The requirement of the law is not to steal the car, and the implied promise of citizenship is to obey the law, not to weigh the costs and benefits of breaking it.
Every mortgage comes with the risk that the value of the home may go down during the course of the mortgage, and the homeowner knows that going in. It's true that, for a number of years prior to the current crisis, home prices reliably increased, but there's never any guarantee of that.
The homeowner promised to make the payments, in return for which the bank advanced the purchase price of the house. The bank has lived up to its share of the agreement, and the right thing for the homeowner to do, if he can afford to make the payments, is to live up to his end.
From a practical point of view, to default on the obligation would wreak havoc on his credit rating - but, even if that weren't the case, he still has made a binding commitment. He should honor that commitment as long as he's financially able to do so.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
A reader from West Virginia writes inquiring about the ethics of homeowners who default on mortgages that they can still afford to pay, but choose not to, because the underlying property values have dropped so precipitously that it is financially preferable simply to walk away.
"Is this kind of `strategic default' blameworthy because it constitutes a failure to keep a promise?" my reader asks. "Or, since the borrower is willing to accept the contractually mandated consequences of defaulting, is it simply a reasonable economic response to the invisible hand of the marketplace?"
My reader is not asking whether a cost/benefit analysis justifies doing something illegal or dishonest, as one reader did recently after I wrote a column in which I held that falsifying or embellishing information given to a landlord is wrong. After that column appeared, one reader e-mailed: "I had a professor ... who once told me that `The cost of not lying on a resume exceeds the cost of lying.'"
His professor's point, that reader wrote, was that, if you don't lie in such circumstances, you're less likely to get the job. If you do lie, "then your cost is limited to losing the job you couldn't have gotten times the relatively low probability of being found out."
So, he concluded, "lying is the recommended policy."
From an ethical perspective, such a policy is bankrupt. "Whatever works" is no foundation for an ethical philosophy, and this approach is likely not only to land you in a job that you're incapable of doing well but also to deprive some qualified candidate of the job. Even if it works, which seems unlikely, it's still not close to ethical.
My West Virginia reader's question, however, makes no suggestion of lying or skirting the law. The practice he describes is unquestionably legal. The question is, is something ethical simply because it's legal?
If a homeowner cannot afford to make payments on her mortgage and cannot sell her house at a price that will yield enough cash to pay off the mortgage so that she can move on, she may be left with no choice but to default on the mortgage and turn over the house to the bank. There's obviously nothing wrong with this from an ethical standpoint.
A key component of my reader's question, however, is that he's talking about homeowners who "can still afford to pay, but choose not to." It may be a reasonable economic decision to walk away from the property - after all, who wants to get stuck making payments on something that's no longer worth what you're paying for it? - but is it ethically acceptable?
I think not. A mortgage agreement is not a promise to do one of two things, either to make the payments or to give up the house. It's a promise to make the payments, period. Giving up the house to the bank is a penalty for not keeping the promise, not one option within the promise.
In this regard the situation is comparable to the law: The fact that the law provides a penalty for, say, stealing someone's car doesn't mean that a person can ethically choose to steal the car if he is prepared to accept the penalty. The requirement of the law is not to steal the car, and the implied promise of citizenship is to obey the law, not to weigh the costs and benefits of breaking it.
Every mortgage comes with the risk that the value of the home may go down during the course of the mortgage, and the homeowner knows that going in. It's true that, for a number of years prior to the current crisis, home prices reliably increased, but there's never any guarantee of that.
The homeowner promised to make the payments, in return for which the bank advanced the purchase price of the house. The bank has lived up to its share of the agreement, and the right thing for the homeowner to do, if he can afford to make the payments, is to live up to his end.
From a practical point of view, to default on the obligation would wreak havoc on his credit rating - but, even if that weren't the case, he still has made a binding commitment. He should honor that commitment as long as he's financially able to do so.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Real Simple Ethics Quiz
Real Simple magazine features a column on everyday ethical challenges I wrote for the magazine's "Expertise" section.
On it's website, the magazine has developed an online quiz that corresponds to the column in the magazine.
You can take the online quiz by clicking here.
On it's website, the magazine has developed an online quiz that corresponds to the column in the magazine.
You can take the online quiz by clicking here.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
THE RIGHT THING: IT'S MY PARTY - SHOULD I PAY IF I DON'T WANT TO
You're at a party at your friend's house. Well, a reader of mine is at a party at her friend's house. It's a swell event, a birthday party for the friend's roommate.
All is going well until one of the party guests spills a drink on the friend's month-and-a-half-old netbook computer, which had set her back about $300. The spilling guest offers to pay to replace the netbook, but the friend really doesn't think that he can afford to do so. Five or six others at the party, including the roommate whose birthday is being celebrated, offer to chip in for a replacement.
"Is it ethical for my friend to actually take any money from anyone for a new netbook?" my reader asks. "My friend feels guilty about taking any money, and I'm conflicted as well, so we'd love to know what you think as an ethics expert."
My reader wonders if such offers are actually meant to be accepted, or if they are more of a courtesy.
"There really seems to be some kind of social pressure not to take money from friends," she writes.
The short answer to my reader's question is that there would be no ethical lapse if her friend took the money offered to replace the netbook, whether it came from the person who spilled the drink or from the group en masse.
If you wreck something, offering to replace it is the responsible thing to do. Other guests have no obligation to chip in - but they have no obligation not to and, if they make the offer and the friend accepts, it doesn't reflect poorly on anyone involved. The friend certainly is not under any obligation not to accept, and should not feel any shame if she does.
It's possible, of course, that the people offering to help out are secretly hoping that their offer will be declined, but we can't go through life looking gift horses in the mouth. We have to assume that, in general, our friends mean what they say unless we have good reason to suppose otherwise.
A good rule of thumb is that if your gesture to help out someone - financially or otherwise - is a hollow one, don't make it. Assume that what you say will be taken at face value, and don't make any offers you don't want to carry out.
The right thing for my reader's friend to do is to start by exploring other alternatives, however, before cashing in on the spiller's offer and/or that of other guests. I advised my reader that her friend might want to check to see whether this sort of damage might be covered by her apartment insurance or by the netbook's warranty. Her apartment insurance doesn't cover such an accident, as it turns out, and the warranty makes no mention of coverage for damage by water - or other beverage. It doesn't say that such damage would not be covered, however.
It might have been simpler to take the pooled funds from her guests and be done with it, but the right thing was for my reader's friend to check with the manufacturer to see if it might replace the netbook or repair it at minimal cost. Her friends' offer should be a last resort, not a first resort.
Ultimately, my reader reports, her friend ended up returning the netbook to the manufacturer and did indeed get a replacement under the warranty - "so it all worked out in the end without anyone having to pay. Hurrah!"
Hurrah, indeed.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
All is going well until one of the party guests spills a drink on the friend's month-and-a-half-old netbook computer, which had set her back about $300. The spilling guest offers to pay to replace the netbook, but the friend really doesn't think that he can afford to do so. Five or six others at the party, including the roommate whose birthday is being celebrated, offer to chip in for a replacement.
"Is it ethical for my friend to actually take any money from anyone for a new netbook?" my reader asks. "My friend feels guilty about taking any money, and I'm conflicted as well, so we'd love to know what you think as an ethics expert."
My reader wonders if such offers are actually meant to be accepted, or if they are more of a courtesy.
"There really seems to be some kind of social pressure not to take money from friends," she writes.
The short answer to my reader's question is that there would be no ethical lapse if her friend took the money offered to replace the netbook, whether it came from the person who spilled the drink or from the group en masse.
If you wreck something, offering to replace it is the responsible thing to do. Other guests have no obligation to chip in - but they have no obligation not to and, if they make the offer and the friend accepts, it doesn't reflect poorly on anyone involved. The friend certainly is not under any obligation not to accept, and should not feel any shame if she does.
It's possible, of course, that the people offering to help out are secretly hoping that their offer will be declined, but we can't go through life looking gift horses in the mouth. We have to assume that, in general, our friends mean what they say unless we have good reason to suppose otherwise.
A good rule of thumb is that if your gesture to help out someone - financially or otherwise - is a hollow one, don't make it. Assume that what you say will be taken at face value, and don't make any offers you don't want to carry out.
The right thing for my reader's friend to do is to start by exploring other alternatives, however, before cashing in on the spiller's offer and/or that of other guests. I advised my reader that her friend might want to check to see whether this sort of damage might be covered by her apartment insurance or by the netbook's warranty. Her apartment insurance doesn't cover such an accident, as it turns out, and the warranty makes no mention of coverage for damage by water - or other beverage. It doesn't say that such damage would not be covered, however.
It might have been simpler to take the pooled funds from her guests and be done with it, but the right thing was for my reader's friend to check with the manufacturer to see if it might replace the netbook or repair it at minimal cost. Her friends' offer should be a last resort, not a first resort.
Ultimately, my reader reports, her friend ended up returning the netbook to the manufacturer and did indeed get a replacement under the warranty - "so it all worked out in the end without anyone having to pay. Hurrah!"
Hurrah, indeed.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: LESS PAPER IN MUTUAL INTEREST?
Of the readers who responded to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 52 percent said that it was right for the Securities and Exchange Commission to continue to require mutual-fund companies to regularly send paper copies of prospectuses to investors in their funds, while 48 percent said that it was wrong if, as is generally the case, few investors actually read them.
"It is a mutual-fund company's responsibility to provide financial details in prospectuses," writes Jennie of Boston, "regardless of how many investors actually pay attention to them."
Susan H. observes that she "has received the half-inch-or-more-thick documents and allowed them to pile up without reading them," but still believes that "summaries of prospectuses should not be considered wasteful. It is in the court of the investor to decide if he wants to read them or not, but the companies should continue to provide them."
"E-mail is the way to go," another reader writes. "This huge bound book that I receive is not being utilized for the energy that it took to produce it ... Let's push this to eventually being paperless."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, January 17, 2010
SOUND OFF: THE NEED TO STEAL?
Shortly before Christmas the Rev. Tim Jones, an Anglican priest at the Church of St. Lawrence in York, England, caused a bit of an uproar when he told his parishioners that it is sometimes OK for people to shoplift.
Jones explained that it was "justified (only) if a person in real need is not greedy and does not take more than he or she really needs to get by," the Associated Press reported. He also stipulated that any such shoplifting be done only "at large national chain stores, rather than small family businesses."
The reverend later told the AP, "The point I'm making is that, when we shut down every socially acceptable avenue for people in need, then the only avenue left is the socially unacceptable one."
Given the kind of extreme situations that Jones cites, is shoplifting the lesser of two evils? Or is it simply wrong to shoplift, regardless of the circumstances?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Jones explained that it was "justified (only) if a person in real need is not greedy and does not take more than he or she really needs to get by," the Associated Press reported. He also stipulated that any such shoplifting be done only "at large national chain stores, rather than small family businesses."
The reverend later told the AP, "The point I'm making is that, when we shut down every socially acceptable avenue for people in need, then the only avenue left is the socially unacceptable one."
Given the kind of extreme situations that Jones cites, is shoplifting the lesser of two evils? Or is it simply wrong to shoplift, regardless of the circumstances?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: IT'S CRAFTY - BUT IS IT RIGHT?
A reader in Ohio is an active member of the craft group at her senior center. As a member of the group, she regularly purchases craft supplies for herself from a local business - and gets a 30-percent discount, so long as one of the specially assigned members of her craft group vouches for her purchase. She pays no sales tax, since the senior center is a not-for-profit entity that provides services to senior citizens and is therefore tax-exempt.
"I recognize that a business may sell its products to anyone at any price it likes," she writes, "but I think that, when individuals of a tax-free entity purchase materials for their own use, they should pay the sales tax."
She has raised her concerns with the people who run the craft group, only to be told that it is a long-standing practice that no one wants to address for fear of losing the discount.
"What do you think?," she asks.
My reader is correct that, while a business can decide how to offer discounts, it has to follow state regulations when it comes to collecting sales tax. That decision is made by the state, not by the individual business. Thus, while it's entitled to set its prices as it sees fit, it has to collect the appropriate sales tax for whatever it charges her.
Unless, of course, the purchase is made on behalf of a tax-exempt organization such as the senior center.
The heart of my reader's question is, is it legitimate for her to take advantage of the senior center's tax-exempt status in buying materials for herself?
My field is ethics, not nonprofit tax law, so it's possible that the State of Ohio might disagree with my opinion. But I think she raises a good question, one that shouldn't be brushed off by her companions at the senior center. Fear of losing a benefit by raising a concern about its legitimacy is hardly a strong ethical stance.
It seems to me that the central question here is what my reader is doing with the craft materials she gets at a tax-free discount price.
If she's buying them in bulk and reselling them on eBay, obviously it's an abuse of the system. It's also an abuse, though not as serious a one, if she's sharing the materials with friends who don't happen to be members of the senior center or simply using them for her own purposes.
If, however, she is using the materials for craft work that she does in connection with the senior center, I'd say it's entirely legitimate. Regardless of who technically owns the materials, they are obviously part and parcel of the group's work, and there's no reason that the senior center's tax-exempt certificate shouldn't apply.
The best way to make sure that everything is according to Hoyle would be for the senior center to purchase the materials itself, utilizing its tax-exempt status, and then resell them at cost to the members of the craft group. This approach would avoid even the appearance of abuse, and would ensure that individual members couldn't take unfair advantage of the center's status.
My reader did the right thing in raising the question with the craft-group organizers. The right thing for them to do is to examine the process to make sure that they are getting what they are entitled to - but also to make sure that they aren't running afoul of the law.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"I recognize that a business may sell its products to anyone at any price it likes," she writes, "but I think that, when individuals of a tax-free entity purchase materials for their own use, they should pay the sales tax."
She has raised her concerns with the people who run the craft group, only to be told that it is a long-standing practice that no one wants to address for fear of losing the discount.
"What do you think?," she asks.
My reader is correct that, while a business can decide how to offer discounts, it has to follow state regulations when it comes to collecting sales tax. That decision is made by the state, not by the individual business. Thus, while it's entitled to set its prices as it sees fit, it has to collect the appropriate sales tax for whatever it charges her.
Unless, of course, the purchase is made on behalf of a tax-exempt organization such as the senior center.
The heart of my reader's question is, is it legitimate for her to take advantage of the senior center's tax-exempt status in buying materials for herself?
My field is ethics, not nonprofit tax law, so it's possible that the State of Ohio might disagree with my opinion. But I think she raises a good question, one that shouldn't be brushed off by her companions at the senior center. Fear of losing a benefit by raising a concern about its legitimacy is hardly a strong ethical stance.
It seems to me that the central question here is what my reader is doing with the craft materials she gets at a tax-free discount price.
If she's buying them in bulk and reselling them on eBay, obviously it's an abuse of the system. It's also an abuse, though not as serious a one, if she's sharing the materials with friends who don't happen to be members of the senior center or simply using them for her own purposes.
If, however, she is using the materials for craft work that she does in connection with the senior center, I'd say it's entirely legitimate. Regardless of who technically owns the materials, they are obviously part and parcel of the group's work, and there's no reason that the senior center's tax-exempt certificate shouldn't apply.
The best way to make sure that everything is according to Hoyle would be for the senior center to purchase the materials itself, utilizing its tax-exempt status, and then resell them at cost to the members of the craft group. This approach would avoid even the appearance of abuse, and would ensure that individual members couldn't take unfair advantage of the center's status.
My reader did the right thing in raising the question with the craft-group organizers. The right thing for them to do is to examine the process to make sure that they are getting what they are entitled to - but also to make sure that they aren't running afoul of the law.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
THE RIGHT THING: HOW MUCH SHOULD A LANDLORD BE TOLD?
This past August one of my younger readers moved from Texas to Boston to begin a graduate-school program. Four months into the semester, he has failed to find housing.
His first living situation saddled him with two roommates who opted not to pay their share of the second month's rent. My reader covered the rent, spent the next three weeks fighting to get back the money they owed him and then moved out.
He rented a moving van and moved 40 miles west of Boston to Milford, Mass., where he stayed with a friend who had offered to put him up for a few weeks while he sought a more permanent apartment.
After two weeks of making the daily 40-mile commute to attend class, to work and to look for an apartment, my reader finally found one in a Boston neighborhood not far from his school. His new roommate had lived in the apartment for four years, and assured him that he "was not moving anytime soon."
My reader moved in on Nov. 1, and two weeks later the new roommate announced that he was moving in with his girlfriend.
When the landlord heard that his long-term tenant was moving out, he announced that he planned to raise the rent and no longer wanted to rent to college students. This left my reader without recourse, since the landlord's agreement was with the roommate who was moving out, not with him.
Now my reader is looking for apartment No. 3.
"Most landlords base their decisions on renting history," he writes. "While they can't legally discriminate based on race, religion, gender or sexuality, they can discriminate based on financial stability, work stability or any other characteristic that implies that a tenant will be a challenge _ too loud, too drunk, too weird."
My reader doesn't see himself as falling into any of those categories, describing himself as quiet, professional and responsible, and adds that he makes every effort "to amend any behavior that might result in a complaint of some sort."
Even so, when he begins explaining his rental history in Boston, his potential landlords seem to fall silent.
"I get the feeling that they see me as a risk," he writes.
Because his recent bout of instability seems to him not at all his own fault, my reader is tempted to lie about his rental history. He could tell prospective landlords that he's been commuting from west of Boston, using his friend as the perfect "planted" reference and omitting any reference to the first two apartments.
"But my frustration about my current predicament makes me want to confess my experiences," he writes. "Somehow I want them to know that, if they intend to rent me their apartment, I expect a certain amount of integrity that I have not seen in my previous situations."
My reader has every reason to expect a landlord to treat him with integrity. That's one reason it's better to have a formal lease with a landlord, rather than an informal agreement with a fellow renter: The lease is a contract that the landlord must honor in every detail. The informal agreement is worth no more than the paper it isn't printed on.
He should not lie to a landlord to secure housing, however. It's OK not to fill in the landlord on every sordid detail of the past few months, but not to misrepresent himself or his recent living arrangements. Using his friend in Milford as a reference is fine, so long as the friend doesn't lie about the living arrangement - say, by suggesting that my reader has been there for significantly longer than he actually has.
If it's more effective to provide references from when he lived in Texas, my reader should do that.
Renters want stable housing at a fair price, while landlords want responsible tenants who pay their rent on time. These aren't incompatible desires. The right thing is for my reader to be honest, and to limit the discussion to the basic facts - denouncing other landlords isn't a good way to make a landlord want him as a tenant.
He's entitled to expect a landlord to honor whatever commitment he makes, and he'll be well advised to get that commitment in writing.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
His first living situation saddled him with two roommates who opted not to pay their share of the second month's rent. My reader covered the rent, spent the next three weeks fighting to get back the money they owed him and then moved out.
He rented a moving van and moved 40 miles west of Boston to Milford, Mass., where he stayed with a friend who had offered to put him up for a few weeks while he sought a more permanent apartment.
After two weeks of making the daily 40-mile commute to attend class, to work and to look for an apartment, my reader finally found one in a Boston neighborhood not far from his school. His new roommate had lived in the apartment for four years, and assured him that he "was not moving anytime soon."
My reader moved in on Nov. 1, and two weeks later the new roommate announced that he was moving in with his girlfriend.
When the landlord heard that his long-term tenant was moving out, he announced that he planned to raise the rent and no longer wanted to rent to college students. This left my reader without recourse, since the landlord's agreement was with the roommate who was moving out, not with him.
Now my reader is looking for apartment No. 3.
"Most landlords base their decisions on renting history," he writes. "While they can't legally discriminate based on race, religion, gender or sexuality, they can discriminate based on financial stability, work stability or any other characteristic that implies that a tenant will be a challenge _ too loud, too drunk, too weird."
My reader doesn't see himself as falling into any of those categories, describing himself as quiet, professional and responsible, and adds that he makes every effort "to amend any behavior that might result in a complaint of some sort."
Even so, when he begins explaining his rental history in Boston, his potential landlords seem to fall silent.
"I get the feeling that they see me as a risk," he writes.
Because his recent bout of instability seems to him not at all his own fault, my reader is tempted to lie about his rental history. He could tell prospective landlords that he's been commuting from west of Boston, using his friend as the perfect "planted" reference and omitting any reference to the first two apartments.
"But my frustration about my current predicament makes me want to confess my experiences," he writes. "Somehow I want them to know that, if they intend to rent me their apartment, I expect a certain amount of integrity that I have not seen in my previous situations."
My reader has every reason to expect a landlord to treat him with integrity. That's one reason it's better to have a formal lease with a landlord, rather than an informal agreement with a fellow renter: The lease is a contract that the landlord must honor in every detail. The informal agreement is worth no more than the paper it isn't printed on.
He should not lie to a landlord to secure housing, however. It's OK not to fill in the landlord on every sordid detail of the past few months, but not to misrepresent himself or his recent living arrangements. Using his friend in Milford as a reference is fine, so long as the friend doesn't lie about the living arrangement - say, by suggesting that my reader has been there for significantly longer than he actually has.
If it's more effective to provide references from when he lived in Texas, my reader should do that.
Renters want stable housing at a fair price, while landlords want responsible tenants who pay their rent on time. These aren't incompatible desires. The right thing is for my reader to be honest, and to limit the discussion to the basic facts - denouncing other landlords isn't a good way to make a landlord want him as a tenant.
He's entitled to expect a landlord to honor whatever commitment he makes, and he'll be well advised to get that commitment in writing.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: TO BOW OR NOT TO BOW
In November, when he visited Emperor Akihito of Japan, President Barack Obama bowed as he shook the emperor's hand. Of the readers who responded to an informal poll on my column's blog, 72 percent believed Obama to be right in honoring Japanese tradition by bowing, while 28 percent believed him to be wrong.
"Obama's gesture was a respectful and inoffensive nod to diplomatic protocol," writes Rick Kenney of Hampton, Va., "and he was right to honor Japanese tradition by bowing."
On the other hand, Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C., believes that "the president, as the head of the United States, should bow down to no one."
"Give me a break!," writes Joe Read of Anaheim, Calif. "Anyone who thinks that a mutual bow between leaders intending to show respect to one another is a sign of subservience by either one of them must be very insecure and is certainly off-base. A slight bow, nod or tip of the cap is not genuflecting or kneeling and kissing his ring!"
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"Obama's gesture was a respectful and inoffensive nod to diplomatic protocol," writes Rick Kenney of Hampton, Va., "and he was right to honor Japanese tradition by bowing."
On the other hand, Charlie Seng of Lancaster, S.C., believes that "the president, as the head of the United States, should bow down to no one."
"Give me a break!," writes Joe Read of Anaheim, Calif. "Anyone who thinks that a mutual bow between leaders intending to show respect to one another is a sign of subservience by either one of them must be very insecure and is certainly off-base. A slight bow, nod or tip of the cap is not genuflecting or kneeling and kissing his ring!"
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, January 03, 2010
SOUND OFF: SAMPLING ETHICS
Many big-box retailers and supermarkets set up stations at which customers can taste food samples, obviously hoping to convince them to buy a particular product. It's not uncommon for a customer to be able to get a sample of soup, meat, snack food, dessert and a small beverage during a single visit.
Not everyone will care for the sample enough to want to buy the product, of course, but is it OK to sample even if you have no intention of ever buying, say, the smoked-apple turkey sausage or the brown-sugar crumble pecan pie? Or is it wrong to use up the store's samples if you know that you won't even consider a purchase?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: GIVING, BUT TO WHOM?
What's the right thing to do when it comes to donating money to charitable organizations?
A reader from North Carolina is torn about how to allocate the money he gives. He has categorized his typical giving into three groups - causes for the needy, political causes and "other," which encompasses contributions to organizations such as the U.S. Olympics Committee, the Boy Scouts and the United Services Organizations. He doesn't consider himself a religious person, and none of his money goes to a church, synagogue or mosque, but he has given to some church-supported organizations.
The question is how to divide what he can afford to give between those three groups. It's a tricky one because, like the rest of us, he doesn't have enough to give what he'd like to every cause he deems worthy.
"I know it boils down to one's individual preferences," he writes, "but can you offer a perspective?
"For example, let's say that I have $1,000 to give to whatever organizations I see fit," my reader continues. "I could give it all to the impoverished, the blind or any number of disadvantaged people in this country or others."
It might seem fair to divide the money equally among all deserving organizations, but each day's mail brings him about a dozen requests from such groups. If he were to split the $1,000 among all of the organizations he'd like to help, each would get about $10 before his money ran out.
"That's a lot of inconvenience and postage," he writes, "unless I pay online by credit card, which I'm disinclined to do."
In the bigger picture, however, my reader wonders if his money might have a greater impact in the long run if he donated it to political causes, individual politicians or organizations that promote those politicians.
"The elected politician's vote might benefit many more people over the long haul," he explains, "making my $10 contribution to a starving child in Africa almost irrelevant."
My reader's concerns show the importance of making thoughtful, intelligent choices in the causes to which we choose to donate. It's admirable to give to charity, but it's more admirable to do so intelligently, with awareness of who and what you're supporting. That the values of the recipient should match those of the donor is clear, but there's more to it than that.
Web sites such as www.charitynavigator.org do a good job of detailing how much of a charitable organization's budget is used for overhead costs. For those who want to dig deeper on not-for-profits based in the United States, Web sites such as www.guidestar.org provide access to a not-for-profit's 990 Form, a document filed with the Internal Revenue Service that gives a detailed breakdown of the organization's income and expenditures, such as the salaries of its top administrators.
As for his question, he's right that this is ultimately a question of individual preference. While it is praiseworthy to give to charity, there is no ethical imperative to do so _ someone who does not give to charity at all is not unethical. Assuming that one does give to charity, however, there is no ethical imperative to do so "fairly." The millionaire who leaves her entire fortune to the Girl Scouts has not acted unethically in not giving half to the Salvation Army.
To guide him in discovering his true preference, I suggested a simple test for my reader: Ignoring the process by which he decided what to give, he should simply total all that he has given and how it breaks down between the various choices. How comfortable is he with the outcome?
In 2009, my reader tells me, he gave "considerably more" than the hypothetical $1,000, and it broke down to 47 percent for the needy, 43 percent for political causes and 10 percent for "other."
There's nothing wrong with this per se. Upon looking it over, however, my reader found himself really uncomfortable with the current breakdown, "preferring by far to contribute to those who are in need."
The right thing for my reader - and other generous donors - to do is to distribute their donations in the way that leaves them the most comfortable with the outcome. No formula is better or worse than another. This is, as he says, about feelings.
In my reader's case, that means giving more to those who are in need. Another donor might invest more in political action.
They both stack up well by any ethical measure.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
A reader from North Carolina is torn about how to allocate the money he gives. He has categorized his typical giving into three groups - causes for the needy, political causes and "other," which encompasses contributions to organizations such as the U.S. Olympics Committee, the Boy Scouts and the United Services Organizations. He doesn't consider himself a religious person, and none of his money goes to a church, synagogue or mosque, but he has given to some church-supported organizations.
The question is how to divide what he can afford to give between those three groups. It's a tricky one because, like the rest of us, he doesn't have enough to give what he'd like to every cause he deems worthy.
"I know it boils down to one's individual preferences," he writes, "but can you offer a perspective?
"For example, let's say that I have $1,000 to give to whatever organizations I see fit," my reader continues. "I could give it all to the impoverished, the blind or any number of disadvantaged people in this country or others."
It might seem fair to divide the money equally among all deserving organizations, but each day's mail brings him about a dozen requests from such groups. If he were to split the $1,000 among all of the organizations he'd like to help, each would get about $10 before his money ran out.
"That's a lot of inconvenience and postage," he writes, "unless I pay online by credit card, which I'm disinclined to do."
In the bigger picture, however, my reader wonders if his money might have a greater impact in the long run if he donated it to political causes, individual politicians or organizations that promote those politicians.
"The elected politician's vote might benefit many more people over the long haul," he explains, "making my $10 contribution to a starving child in Africa almost irrelevant."
My reader's concerns show the importance of making thoughtful, intelligent choices in the causes to which we choose to donate. It's admirable to give to charity, but it's more admirable to do so intelligently, with awareness of who and what you're supporting. That the values of the recipient should match those of the donor is clear, but there's more to it than that.
Web sites such as www.charitynavigator.org do a good job of detailing how much of a charitable organization's budget is used for overhead costs. For those who want to dig deeper on not-for-profits based in the United States, Web sites such as www.guidestar.org provide access to a not-for-profit's 990 Form, a document filed with the Internal Revenue Service that gives a detailed breakdown of the organization's income and expenditures, such as the salaries of its top administrators.
As for his question, he's right that this is ultimately a question of individual preference. While it is praiseworthy to give to charity, there is no ethical imperative to do so _ someone who does not give to charity at all is not unethical. Assuming that one does give to charity, however, there is no ethical imperative to do so "fairly." The millionaire who leaves her entire fortune to the Girl Scouts has not acted unethically in not giving half to the Salvation Army.
To guide him in discovering his true preference, I suggested a simple test for my reader: Ignoring the process by which he decided what to give, he should simply total all that he has given and how it breaks down between the various choices. How comfortable is he with the outcome?
In 2009, my reader tells me, he gave "considerably more" than the hypothetical $1,000, and it broke down to 47 percent for the needy, 43 percent for political causes and 10 percent for "other."
There's nothing wrong with this per se. Upon looking it over, however, my reader found himself really uncomfortable with the current breakdown, "preferring by far to contribute to those who are in need."
The right thing for my reader - and other generous donors - to do is to distribute their donations in the way that leaves them the most comfortable with the outcome. No formula is better or worse than another. This is, as he says, about feelings.
In my reader's case, that means giving more to those who are in need. Another donor might invest more in political action.
They both stack up well by any ethical measure.
c.2010 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, December 27, 2009
THE RIGHT THING: THE INSIDE WORD GETS OUT
A reader in New York recently began working for a major media company. Like most big companies, he reports, his company is "filled with political intrigue and behind-the-scenes maneuvering."
My reader recently discovered a Web site that appears to be operated by current or former employees of his company. It explores the workings of his company in great detail and, while almost all of the posters to the site do so anonymously, "they clearly know the people and issues they're writing about firsthand."
In some cases, my reader believes, the information on the Web site might be useful to him in his career with the company. In all cases, however, he finds the Web site fascinating.
"It gives you the story behind decisions that sometimes seem unexplainable," he says, "and a much better idea of what's going to happen in the future than the official releases by the company."
The Web site can be viewed by the general public, including the company's competitors. It's filled with accounts of confidential meetings and personal criticism of "people who can't answer back."
"While most of the stuff I saw there I knew to be true from my own experience," my reader writes, "there's really no way to be sure if a given bit of information is legit."
Still, my reader has been advised by colleagues that almost everybody in the company visits the Web site regularly and that senior management is well aware of it and takes advantage of its information.
"To not read it is to handcuff yourself within the company," one of my reader's colleagues told him.
While intrigued, however, my reader is not sure about the ethics of the situation.
On the one hand, he recognizes that the Web site is akin to water-cooler talk at work.
"This is stuff that employees used to say to each other at a bar after work," he writes. "The only thing that's new is the wide scope of it, via the Internet. But that feels like a big difference to me."
His company's thorough ethics guidelines don't address the situation at all, so he's torn.
"Is it ethical to even read the postings on the site?" he asks. "Is it ethical to let them influence the way I go about my job? Is it unethical for people to post there and, if so, does that make reading it unethical?"
Having examined the Web site myself, I think there's nothing wrong with my reader reading the material there and using it for whatever purposes he may find helpful.
If the site's posters were stealing proprietary information - internal financials, human-resources documents and so on - then they would have crossed an ethical line, not to mention a legal one. But if their postings are based on their own experiences, as my inspection of the site suggests, it seems fair play for them to raise these issues on the site. One man's food for thought may be another man's gossip, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning it over the water cooler ... or over the Internet.
If it's ethically acceptable for them to make the postings, there is nothing unethical about my reader reading them, so long as he does so on his own time and weighs each one with a healthy dose of skepticism. If tempted to do some posting himself, he should bend over backward to make sure that nothing he posts could be construed as proprietary.
Whether he should let the site's postings influence the way he does his job is a question less of ethics than of common sense. As he points out, there is no way to be sure how much of the information is legitimate. I'd advise him to confirm anything he finds there with more reliable sources before he hangs his career on it.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
My reader recently discovered a Web site that appears to be operated by current or former employees of his company. It explores the workings of his company in great detail and, while almost all of the posters to the site do so anonymously, "they clearly know the people and issues they're writing about firsthand."
In some cases, my reader believes, the information on the Web site might be useful to him in his career with the company. In all cases, however, he finds the Web site fascinating.
"It gives you the story behind decisions that sometimes seem unexplainable," he says, "and a much better idea of what's going to happen in the future than the official releases by the company."
The Web site can be viewed by the general public, including the company's competitors. It's filled with accounts of confidential meetings and personal criticism of "people who can't answer back."
"While most of the stuff I saw there I knew to be true from my own experience," my reader writes, "there's really no way to be sure if a given bit of information is legit."
Still, my reader has been advised by colleagues that almost everybody in the company visits the Web site regularly and that senior management is well aware of it and takes advantage of its information.
"To not read it is to handcuff yourself within the company," one of my reader's colleagues told him.
While intrigued, however, my reader is not sure about the ethics of the situation.
On the one hand, he recognizes that the Web site is akin to water-cooler talk at work.
"This is stuff that employees used to say to each other at a bar after work," he writes. "The only thing that's new is the wide scope of it, via the Internet. But that feels like a big difference to me."
His company's thorough ethics guidelines don't address the situation at all, so he's torn.
"Is it ethical to even read the postings on the site?" he asks. "Is it ethical to let them influence the way I go about my job? Is it unethical for people to post there and, if so, does that make reading it unethical?"
Having examined the Web site myself, I think there's nothing wrong with my reader reading the material there and using it for whatever purposes he may find helpful.
If the site's posters were stealing proprietary information - internal financials, human-resources documents and so on - then they would have crossed an ethical line, not to mention a legal one. But if their postings are based on their own experiences, as my inspection of the site suggests, it seems fair play for them to raise these issues on the site. One man's food for thought may be another man's gossip, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning it over the water cooler ... or over the Internet.
If it's ethically acceptable for them to make the postings, there is nothing unethical about my reader reading them, so long as he does so on his own time and weighs each one with a healthy dose of skepticism. If tempted to do some posting himself, he should bend over backward to make sure that nothing he posts could be construed as proprietary.
Whether he should let the site's postings influence the way he does his job is a question less of ethics than of common sense. As he points out, there is no way to be sure how much of the information is legitimate. I'd advise him to confirm anything he finds there with more reliable sources before he hangs his career on it.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: OPRAH'S KAROAKE MOMENT
Of the readers who responded to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, 52 percent believed that Oprah Winfrey was wrong to remove singer BeBe Winans from her talk show after several viewers complained about his appearing when domestic-violence charges brought against him by his ex-wife are still pending.
Winfrey had banned singer Chris Brown from her show after he battered the singer Rihanna, his girlfriend at the time, so the viewer complaints led to Winans being removed from the show. Several promotions showing Winans, as well as one of the taped shows, had already aired.
"Sounds like Oprah Winfrey used situational ethics," one reader writes. "She was willing to have Winans on the show until viewers protested."
"There was definitive and very public proof of what happened with Chris Brown," another reader writes. "She shouldn't have put him on until the case was heard and charges dismissed."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Winfrey had banned singer Chris Brown from her show after he battered the singer Rihanna, his girlfriend at the time, so the viewer complaints led to Winans being removed from the show. Several promotions showing Winans, as well as one of the taped shows, had already aired.
"Sounds like Oprah Winfrey used situational ethics," one reader writes. "She was willing to have Winans on the show until viewers protested."
"There was definitive and very public proof of what happened with Chris Brown," another reader writes. "She shouldn't have put him on until the case was heard and charges dismissed."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, December 20, 2009
SOUND OFF: MUTUAL INTERESTS
Last January the Securities and Exchange Commission enabled mutual-fund companies to begin sending a summary prospectus to their investors, rather than the full-blown prospectuses that they had previously received. As anyone who has invested in mutual funds knows, these prospectuses regularly arrive in the mail. And, as the vast majority of investors also know, the prospectuses almost invariably remain unread, resulting in reams of paper and postage wasted on a service that isn't used.
Given some high-profile investment meltdowns and scams during the past couple of years, investors should expect to receive and should be expected to pay attention to comprehensible information about the stuff in which they're investing. Most don't, though. Is it right for the SEC to continue to require these companies to regularly send these paper documents? Or is it wrong to require mutual-fund companies to send the prospectuses if few recipients read them?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Given some high-profile investment meltdowns and scams during the past couple of years, investors should expect to receive and should be expected to pay attention to comprehensible information about the stuff in which they're investing. Most don't, though. Is it right for the SEC to continue to require these companies to regularly send these paper documents? Or is it wrong to require mutual-fund companies to send the prospectuses if few recipients read them?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: WHEN TO FOLD 'EM
One of my readers has been playing in the same weekly poker game for more than 10 years - "same guys, same place, same middling stakes," he writes - but these days it isn't the same. One of his poker buddies is showing signs of mental confusion, and his game has deteriorated.
"It was never good," my reader writes, asking that his name not be used to protect "the sanctity of the table." "Now it's worse."
The other player is losing money every week, a couple of hundred dollars each time.
"When I suggested to the guy who runs the game, an old friend of his, that perhaps we shouldn't be playing with him," my reader reports, "I was told that he enjoyed the game and who was I, or anyone, to deprive him of that?"
The whole thing makes my reader queasy, but he doesn't want to give up the game, which he also enjoys.
"So what's the ethical thing to do?," he asks.
It can be harrowing, of course, to watch a friend's mental health deteriorate. My reader's plight is compounded by the fact that he may be taking advantage of his friend's diminished faculties at the poker table. It's one thing to realize that a friend can't think as sharply as before, quite another to be pocketing a few bucks as a result.
Given the hand he's been dealt, my reader did the right thing by expressing his concerns to the game organizer, especially since he's an old friend of the player in question. When faced with a tough ethical choice, it's usually a good idea to consult with others who might be closer to the situation or who might be able to suggest alternative ways to respond.
But now that the organizer has made clear that he has no plans to cut off his weakened friend, my reader has a new choice to make. Should he continue on in the game, knowing that he might win a hand or two at the expense of a guy who's no longer at his best, or should he walk away?
So long as the aging player is aware enough of his surroundings to understand that he's losing consistently, there's no obligation for my reader to protect him. If he chooses to continue to play in a game in which he's no longer able to compete, that's his decision.
Therefore, at the moment, the question is simply one of my reader's feelings: Does the joy he gets from playing with his longtime poker buddies outweigh the uneasiness he feels about one player's situation? If the answer is yes, he should continue to play with a clear conscience. If the answer is no, he should withdraw from the game, also with a clear conscience.
Even if he continues in the game, however, this isn't a one-time decision. If the other player's capabilities continue to deteriorate, at some point my reader may want to reopen the issue with the game's host or to talk to some of the other players to get their sense of whether it's time to cut the fellow off.
For now, my reader reports, he has decided that, having spoken his piece, he will continue playing because the game brings joy to him and apparently also to his struggling friend.
In fact, shortly after our initial e-mail exchange, I heard from my reader again.
"Last night," he wrote, "my `diminished' player went on an insane rush - full houses, flushes, trips and quads falling into his fist with astounding regularity - and he won a couple of hundred bucks. Sure, he called his full houses `straights' and he gibbered, but he still won."
As it turns out, a good chunk of his winnings came from my friend's pocket.
"Sharp old me managed to lose about $160," he writes. "But that's poker."
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
"It was never good," my reader writes, asking that his name not be used to protect "the sanctity of the table." "Now it's worse."
The other player is losing money every week, a couple of hundred dollars each time.
"When I suggested to the guy who runs the game, an old friend of his, that perhaps we shouldn't be playing with him," my reader reports, "I was told that he enjoyed the game and who was I, or anyone, to deprive him of that?"
The whole thing makes my reader queasy, but he doesn't want to give up the game, which he also enjoys.
"So what's the ethical thing to do?," he asks.
It can be harrowing, of course, to watch a friend's mental health deteriorate. My reader's plight is compounded by the fact that he may be taking advantage of his friend's diminished faculties at the poker table. It's one thing to realize that a friend can't think as sharply as before, quite another to be pocketing a few bucks as a result.
Given the hand he's been dealt, my reader did the right thing by expressing his concerns to the game organizer, especially since he's an old friend of the player in question. When faced with a tough ethical choice, it's usually a good idea to consult with others who might be closer to the situation or who might be able to suggest alternative ways to respond.
But now that the organizer has made clear that he has no plans to cut off his weakened friend, my reader has a new choice to make. Should he continue on in the game, knowing that he might win a hand or two at the expense of a guy who's no longer at his best, or should he walk away?
So long as the aging player is aware enough of his surroundings to understand that he's losing consistently, there's no obligation for my reader to protect him. If he chooses to continue to play in a game in which he's no longer able to compete, that's his decision.
Therefore, at the moment, the question is simply one of my reader's feelings: Does the joy he gets from playing with his longtime poker buddies outweigh the uneasiness he feels about one player's situation? If the answer is yes, he should continue to play with a clear conscience. If the answer is no, he should withdraw from the game, also with a clear conscience.
Even if he continues in the game, however, this isn't a one-time decision. If the other player's capabilities continue to deteriorate, at some point my reader may want to reopen the issue with the game's host or to talk to some of the other players to get their sense of whether it's time to cut the fellow off.
For now, my reader reports, he has decided that, having spoken his piece, he will continue playing because the game brings joy to him and apparently also to his struggling friend.
In fact, shortly after our initial e-mail exchange, I heard from my reader again.
"Last night," he wrote, "my `diminished' player went on an insane rush - full houses, flushes, trips and quads falling into his fist with astounding regularity - and he won a couple of hundred bucks. Sure, he called his full houses `straights' and he gibbered, but he still won."
As it turns out, a good chunk of his winnings came from my friend's pocket.
"Sharp old me managed to lose about $160," he writes. "But that's poker."
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, December 13, 2009
THE RIGHT THING: WHEN A PARENT NEEDS HELP, BUT DOESN'T WANT IT
A reader writes that her mother is 77 years old, her father 85. Both suffer from dementia.
Her mother has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. She shuffles when she walks and has forgotten how to crawl, which makes it difficult for her to get onto her knees in order to stand up after she has fallen to the ground.
"Her falls are soft lands so far," my reader writes, "but it is only a matter of time before she breaks a hip."
She is not a neat eater, but my reader is simply glad that her mother is eating at all.
Currently my reader's father retains responsibility for his wife's care, because he won't accept help from the caretakers his daughter has hired to help him.
Her father has always been "very judgmental" of other people and their appearance, and often quite vocal about it.
"I usually tell him that it is not a crime to be fat or disheveled or any nationality other than Caucasian," my reader writes.
Lately my reader's father has become verbally abusive toward his wife. As time progresses and her condition worsens, he grows more frustrated with the situation. In his wife's presence he expresses his frustration to his daughter about her mother's limitations and peculiarities _ how she wets the furniture or spills her drinks, can't walk right or is always packing to go somewhere when there is nowhere to go.
"He rolls his eyes and acts superior to her," my reader writes. "He is quite demeaning to her."
She interrupts her father during his outbursts and tells him that he is being rude to her mother, but within minutes he forgets and resumes his diatribe.
"I would like to shock him by being very rude to him," she writes, "but he would forget in minutes and start again. Perhaps, if I do it often enough, he might eventually get the point."
My reader feels a responsibility to respect her parents, and wonders when her effort to protect one of her parents from the other becomes a moral responsibility.
I don't know that being rude to her father in the hope of teaching him a lesson is a sound solution. As she says, her father may not remember the earlier episodes, let alone register the message that she is trying to send indirectly. There's also the risk that my reader's rudeness might become a vehicle for her own frustrations, rather than a means to an end.
The end of life brings with it many indignities and awkwardnesses, and with them come new ethical obligations and new perspectives on older ones. The obligation to respect one's parents is still there, but it takes new forms when a parent is struggling with dementia or extreme physical problems. If respecting one's parents conflicts with doing what is best for them, obviously their best interests must take priority.
In this case, if my reader believes her mother to be in danger, whether through abuse or through neglect, she is ethically obliged to protect her. Her obligation to respect her father does not extend to allowing him to bully her mother, especially when his doing so is clearly as much a symptom of his own disease as of his personality.
Her desire to respect her father's wishes and his role as her mother's husband is honorable, but it is incumbent on the daughter to do what is best for both parents, even if that means contradicting them or going against their own preferences.
If it becomes clear that his own medical issues make it impossible for her father to protect and care for his wife, my reader has a responsibility to shoulder that burden and ensure that every precaution is taken to protect her mother. If that means separating them or compelling her father to accept outside help, that is tragic but still the right thing to do.
We all have a moral responsibility not to stand by and do nothing if we see someone in danger and can do anything to help. That's all the more true - if also all the more complicated - if the person in question is a parent.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Her mother has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. She shuffles when she walks and has forgotten how to crawl, which makes it difficult for her to get onto her knees in order to stand up after she has fallen to the ground.
"Her falls are soft lands so far," my reader writes, "but it is only a matter of time before she breaks a hip."
She is not a neat eater, but my reader is simply glad that her mother is eating at all.
Currently my reader's father retains responsibility for his wife's care, because he won't accept help from the caretakers his daughter has hired to help him.
Her father has always been "very judgmental" of other people and their appearance, and often quite vocal about it.
"I usually tell him that it is not a crime to be fat or disheveled or any nationality other than Caucasian," my reader writes.
Lately my reader's father has become verbally abusive toward his wife. As time progresses and her condition worsens, he grows more frustrated with the situation. In his wife's presence he expresses his frustration to his daughter about her mother's limitations and peculiarities _ how she wets the furniture or spills her drinks, can't walk right or is always packing to go somewhere when there is nowhere to go.
"He rolls his eyes and acts superior to her," my reader writes. "He is quite demeaning to her."
She interrupts her father during his outbursts and tells him that he is being rude to her mother, but within minutes he forgets and resumes his diatribe.
"I would like to shock him by being very rude to him," she writes, "but he would forget in minutes and start again. Perhaps, if I do it often enough, he might eventually get the point."
My reader feels a responsibility to respect her parents, and wonders when her effort to protect one of her parents from the other becomes a moral responsibility.
I don't know that being rude to her father in the hope of teaching him a lesson is a sound solution. As she says, her father may not remember the earlier episodes, let alone register the message that she is trying to send indirectly. There's also the risk that my reader's rudeness might become a vehicle for her own frustrations, rather than a means to an end.
The end of life brings with it many indignities and awkwardnesses, and with them come new ethical obligations and new perspectives on older ones. The obligation to respect one's parents is still there, but it takes new forms when a parent is struggling with dementia or extreme physical problems. If respecting one's parents conflicts with doing what is best for them, obviously their best interests must take priority.
In this case, if my reader believes her mother to be in danger, whether through abuse or through neglect, she is ethically obliged to protect her. Her obligation to respect her father does not extend to allowing him to bully her mother, especially when his doing so is clearly as much a symptom of his own disease as of his personality.
Her desire to respect her father's wishes and his role as her mother's husband is honorable, but it is incumbent on the daughter to do what is best for both parents, even if that means contradicting them or going against their own preferences.
If it becomes clear that his own medical issues make it impossible for her father to protect and care for his wife, my reader has a responsibility to shoulder that burden and ensure that every precaution is taken to protect her mother. If that means separating them or compelling her father to accept outside help, that is tragic but still the right thing to do.
We all have a moral responsibility not to stand by and do nothing if we see someone in danger and can do anything to help. That's all the more true - if also all the more complicated - if the person in question is a parent.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
SOUND OFF: DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DID
Of those readers responding to an unscientific poll on my column's blog, only 38 percent believed that it was right for Washington and Lee University to invite Jayson Blair to speak at its Journalism Ethics Institute. Blair, a former New York Times reporter, has tried to shift careers to become a "life coach" since his fabrications and plagiarism wreaked havoc on his readers, his colleagues and the newspaper itself.
The majority of readers - 69 percent - considered the invitation to be ill placed.
"The major issue is that he was proven to be a liar and a con artist, which naturally provides grounds for wondering whether any advice he might offer now would be trustworthy," writes Shmuel Ross of Brooklyn, N.Y. "While my instinct is to pick up a pitchfork and torch and join the mob calling for the plagiarist to be burned, I'm not really in any position to make that call. I don't envy those who are."
Cynthia Dodd of West Haven, Conn., backs the university.
"His honest look into his own struggle can help people realize that any person, brilliant or not, white or black, rich or poor, can be sidelined because of a mental illness and, until a person comes to terms with the disease, they are often unaware that they are even sick," she writes. "I am very proud to think that a university would allow this lecture to go on."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
The majority of readers - 69 percent - considered the invitation to be ill placed.
"The major issue is that he was proven to be a liar and a con artist, which naturally provides grounds for wondering whether any advice he might offer now would be trustworthy," writes Shmuel Ross of Brooklyn, N.Y. "While my instinct is to pick up a pitchfork and torch and join the mob calling for the plagiarist to be burned, I'm not really in any position to make that call. I don't envy those who are."
Cynthia Dodd of West Haven, Conn., backs the university.
"His honest look into his own struggle can help people realize that any person, brilliant or not, white or black, rich or poor, can be sidelined because of a mental illness and, until a person comes to terms with the disease, they are often unaware that they are even sick," she writes. "I am very proud to think that a university would allow this lecture to go on."
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 (Smith Kerr, 2006), is an associate professor at Emerson College in Boston, where he teaches writing and ethics. He is also the administrator of http://www.jeffreyseglin.com, 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," New York Times Syndicate, 630 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Sunday, December 06, 2009
SOUND OFF: TAKE A BOW
When he visited Emperor Akihito of Japan in November, President Barack Obama bowed as he shook the emperor's hand. The State Department said that diplomatic protocol mandated the bow, which is a traditional Japanese courtesy, but some in the United States protested that an American president should never bow to any foreign leader. Republican Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate, labeled the bow "offensive."
Assuming that the gesture was in fact dictated by protocol, was it nonetheless wrong for Obama to bow to Akihito? Or was he right to honor Japanese tradition by bowing?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Assuming that the gesture was in fact dictated by protocol, was it nonetheless wrong for Obama to bow to Akihito? Or was he right to honor Japanese tradition by bowing?
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 with 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," New York Times Syndicate, 620 Eighth Ave., 5th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
THE RIGHT THING: WE WISH NEARLY ALL OF YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS
"Holidays can be so good, and yet so bad!," writes a reader from southern California. "If families get along, great, it's all wonderful. But what about if they don't?"
Some members of my reader's family have asked that she not invite a particular other family member to holiday gatherings because, well, they can't stand that person.
"They hate this person so much," she writes, "that they want to X them out of holiday gatherings in my home."
My reader is torn about how to respond. She still has treasured memories of good times spent with this family member in the past, and says that it "tears my soul" to think about excluding this person. Nonetheless she's convinced that it would likely be better to do so, because her life with the rest of her family - including those who live under the same roof - means more to her than anything.
"I should mention," she continues, "that this person is not perfect. They like attention and speak louder than they should. They like to have people listen to them. They talk too loud during movies at the theater and embarrass me. They don't take no for an answer. And, above all, they come back and talk to you when you have asked them to leave."
She refers to the family member as "them," rather than as "he" or "she," because she doesn't want to write anything that might help acquaintances identify the person if they should happen to see this column.
"Is it ethical for people to ask to eliminate a family member from gatherings," she asks, "just because everyone doesn't get along with them?"
My reader's question is easily answered. It's far more difficult, however, to provide a solution to her problem.
There is nothing unethical about her family members asking her not to invite a particular other member of the family. It may be rude or ungenerous, but it's not unethical. They have every right to ask, the same way they have the right to ask my reader to invite an extra guest. And my reader has the same right to honor their request or to turn them down. It's her house and her party, so she gets to call the dance.
So, should she invite the objectionable relative? That's not so easily answered.
Certainly most of us have, through the years, known someone whose behavior and manners make us prefer not to have to deal with them unless we absolutely have to. If that person is a relative, well, it's even more unpleasant, because there are certain to be some family occasions at which his/her presence is unavoidable.
When we can't escape spending time with that person, most of us find a way to be gracious, regardless of our discomfort, and save our spleen to be vented after we're safely back home from the party. It would be wrong for us to allow our discomfort with that one person to turn us into someone who is equally obnoxious - or, worse yet, even more obnoxious - by deliberately being rude or hurtful. It's fine to ask someone not to do something that makes you uncomfortable, but to respond by trying to make them equally uncomfortable is to become the same type of person we loathe being around.
I can't answer my reader's question because it isn't an ethical question - she won't be ethically wrong whether she does or doesn't invite the problem relative. It's a question of her feelings. There is no perfect solution here. She's going to have regrets either way, and only she can decide which way will leave her feeling better about the situation.
The right thing for my reader to do is to make the decision with which she feels most comfortable. If her fond memories and her loyalty to her problem relative are so strong that she wants him/her at the party and is willing to put up with his/her dislikable qualities, then an invitation is in order. If those feelings are outweighed by her concern for the comfort of the rest of her family, she should let the problem relative find somewhere else to celebrate the holidays.
Whatever she decides, she should tell her family members and close the subject, rather than inviting further discussion. She's the hostess, so it's her call.
Hopefully they will do the right thing and honor her decision, even if it means having to be on their best behavior with a family member who they simply wish would go away.
c.2009 The New York Times Syndicate (Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)