Is it the Right Thing or the Wrong Thing to Do?
Copyright 2006 Tony Mase
Defined by Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, as "the
branch of axiology - one of the four major branches of
philosophy, alongside metaphysics, epistemology, and logic -
which attempts to understand the nature of morality; to define
that which is right from that which is wrong"...
Ethics is a hot topic nowadays.
Books, magazine articles and syndicated newspaper columns have
been written about it.
Entire audio programs and seminars have been built around it.
Recently, in a single month, not including tens of thousands of
related searches using the term, the word "ethics", in and of
itself, was searched on 37,111 times... just on the Yahoo Search
Network alone!
This quest "to define that which is right from that which is
wrong" isn't limited to individuals.
In an effort to determine "right" from "wrong", companies,
government agencies and institutions have brought in ethics
consultants, formed ethics committees and hired ethics
executives.
Now...
Quite frankly...
I don't understand what's so complicated about it.
As I see it...
Jesus, the Master Teacher, made this whole matter of ethics very
simple.
As a matter of fact, Jesus made it so simple even a child could
understand it.
In Chapter 7 of the book of Matthew, Jesus is quoted as saying:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to
you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the
prophets."
In Chapter 6 of the book of Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying it
this way:
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise."
In other words, as my dad used to say...
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Although some might find it a bit simplistic, this very simple
principle, best known as the Golden Rule, has served for many
centuries as the best definition of "that which is right from
that which is wrong."
Not long ago, I was following a story in a local newspaper that
illustrates just how far we've gotten away from this very simple
principle Jesus taught us.
The story went something like this...
In a nearby town, the local elected town council was about to
vote on a new contract with the police union.
Simple enough...
However...
One member of the town council had two close relatives, both of
who were police officers, who'd directly benefit from the terms
of the new contract.
When confronted with this fact by another town council member
before the vote, he said he felt, as an elected member of the
town council, he should vote on the new contract and that he
could be impartial.
As you might expect, some of his fellow council members agreed
with him while others did not.
This disagreement turned into several weeks of debate before the
issue of his voting on the new contract finally came to a vote.
What do you think happened?
That's right...
The town council vote was evenly divided. Half of his fellow
council members thought he should be allowed to vote on the new
police contract, the other half thought he shouldn't.
Now what?
Well...
The town council, after several more weeks of debate, voted to
send the issue to the town's "ethics commission" for an opinion
before voting on the matter again.
After debating the matter for several additional weeks and
consulting attorneys to "interpret" the town's "ethics code",
the ethics commission decided it couldn't render a opinion
because the town's ethics code didn't adequately address this
specific situation.
So...
A panel was formed to study the town's ethics code to see if it
needed to be revised and...
Guess what they needed to help them make that determination?
Why they needed...
"Ethics consultants", of course! :-)
Now...
This situation, which I stopped following at about this point,
would be downright hilarious if it wasn't being repeated, at
least to some degree, practically every day, in homes and
offices all around the world.
In my humble opinion, all this wasted energy, time and money,
which could have been put to *far* better use, could have been
easily avoided had this particular council member asked himself
this one simple question:
If I were an ordinary, taxpaying, citizen of the community, who
was not on the town council, would I want someone on the town
council voting on a new contract, which could cost me more money
if passed, in which he or she had a potential conflict of
interest?
The answer, I guess, is open to debate. However, the way I
understand the Golden Rule, my answer would be no and therefore,
had I been on this town's council, I would have removed myself
from voting on the new contract, if for no other reason than to
protect the peoples trust in local government.
When I was a kid, my dad, who served his fellow citizens as a
police officer for some fifty years before he passed on, once
told me, "if everyone just followed the Golden Rule, there'd be
no need for lawmakers, laws, police officers, lawyers, courts
and prisons."
I think he was right...
Thanks Dad! :-)