It’s been said that the line between childhood and adulthood is crossed when we move from saying, “It got lost” to “I lost it.” Indeed, being accountable and understanding and accepting the role our choices play in the things that happen are crucial signs of emotional and moral maturity. That’s why responsibility is one of the main pillars of good character.

Many people have been seduced by the Peter Pan philosophy of refusing to grow up and avoiding the burdens implied in being accountable. Yes, responsibility sometimes requires us to do things that are unpleasant or even frightening. It asks us to carry our own weight, prepare and set goals, and exercise the discipline to reach our aspirations. But the benefits of accepting responsibility far outweigh the short-lived advantages of refusing to do so. No one makes his or her life better by avoiding responsibility. In fact, irresponsibility is a form of self-imposed servitude – to circumstances and to other people.

Responsibility is about our ability to respond to circumstances and to choose the attitudes, actions, and reactions that shape our lives. It is a concept of power that puts us in the driver’s seat.

The grand panorama of the potential of our lives can only be appreciated when we begin to be accountable and self-reliant. Responsible people not only depend on themselves but show others that they can be depended on. This breeds trust, and trust is a key that opens many doors.

If you want more control over your life and the pleasures, prerogatives, and power of freedom and independence, all you have to do is be responsible.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Suppose Amy’s bonus depends on achieving aggressive sales goals, and she knows she can pump her numbers by instructing Bob, a subordinate, to ship goods that weren’t ordered to a large customer.

Whether she will choose to engage in this scheme and order Bob to participate, and whether Bob will do so, is not only a matter of personal character but of corporate culture.

Decisions of employees like Amy and Bob are strongly influenced by their perceptions of the company’s character and operational values. In most organizations, you get what you reward and encourage what you allow.

Amy is more likely to avoid deceptive conduct if she believes that integrity and honesty are ground rules rather than rhetorical ornaments and that she’ll be more severely sanctioned for deceptive conduct than for missing her numbers. Similarly, Bob is more likely to say no to his boss if he’s convinced the company wants him to and will support him if he does.

In today’s precarious environment, leaders have a duty to assess their organization’s culture and do whatever is needed to strengthen or create a sustainable ethical environment that generates trust and promotes honesty, fairness, and unflinching accountability as well as legal compliance.

This can’t be accomplished by lofty rhetoric or even strict ethics codes. Words and rules must be translated into expectations and made believable by modeling from senior executives and by adopting performance-review criteria, compensation systems, and promotion decisions that reward ethical judgments and punish ethical shortcuts.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Is it time to leave Michael Vick alone or impose more sanctions on him for his involvement in dogfighting and executing innocent animals?

The question is not whether I or others outraged by his actions should forgive him. We don’t have the moral authority to forgive someone for sins committed against others.

The primary issue is justice, fairness, and mercy.

Lots of folks believe justice demands that, in addition to the criminal penalties already imposed, he should be banned from football and be a social outcast, subjected to contempt and condemnation for the rest of his life. Many believe decent people should have nothing to do with him.

I disagree.

Although I found his conduct revolting and despicable, I believe in the principle of proportionality, that every punishment should fit the crime. I also believe that even people who have done very, very bad things (drug dealers, white-collar crooks, child molesters, etc.) and ruined the lives of others are entitled to a second chance.

I know some would like the law to impose much stiffer penalties, but those imposed reflect the legislature’s view on the seriousness of the crime.

I don’t think it’s fair to enhance a penalty just because a person is rich or famous or if some think him arrogant and unrepentant.

No one has ever paid a steeper price for similar crimes and sins. His 18-month prison sentence was unprecedented. He lost and gave away millions of dollars. His reputation has been shattered. And I believe the continuous and often vicious attacks, whether justified or not, have inflicted real and serious emotional pain.

He shouldn’t be getting any awards or be held up as a victim or hero, but heaping endless punishment on him is unjustified cruelty. Enough already.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Last week I talked about Michael Vick’s reinstatement into the NFL, his courage award, his cash and community-service donations, and the Humane Society’s decision to use him as a speaker.

The commentary evoked scores of passionate, wildly divergent opinions. That’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, many comments were filled with name-calling, accusations, and outrage. So instead of light, we got heat. That’s a bad thing.

Why do so many of us assert and defend our views as if our lives depended on it? Why is it so hard to truly listen to and consider opposing points of view with an open mind?

On complex issues, people rarely agree on even the basic facts, let alone their interpretation. Our point of view is strongly influenced by our experiences, and many disagreements are rooted in the priority we assign to different values. When we take time to understand this, we often realize that everyone who disagrees with us is not necessarily a fool or scoundrel.

The willingness to seek understanding of all points of view on an issue and the willingness to change one’s mind are important qualities of intelligence and character.

I initially decided not to interject my personal thoughts on the Vick issue because my opinion is not inherently more valuable than any other, and since there was so much legitimate controversy, I saw no value in taking sides.

Then I realized my hesitation was partially due to my desire to avoid losing credibility with those who are bound to disagree. That’s not an acceptable reason to refuse to engage in discourse.

So tune in tomorrow. Some of you will be disappointed or dismayed, but I hope you don’t become disconnected.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

As a former law professor, I know all about loopholes. I trained young attorneys to find omissions and ambiguities in wording to find a perfectly legal way to evade the clear intent of contracts and laws.

Although I’m not anymore, I used to be comfortable with this technique. After all, that’s what lawyers are paid to do. And, despite public disdain for lawyers, it’s precisely what most clients want and expect when they hire a lawyer.

The fact is that long-standing traditional assumptions about the adversary system do justify the search for and use of legal loopholes. But strategies to evade the spirit of promises and laws put our integrity on a slippery slope.

Further down that slope is the willingness to fabricate facts, lie about true intent, or falsely deny knowing or remembering things. These are fundamentally lies. They’re dishonest and unethical in litigation, business transactions, and personal relations.

For example, a common ploy to evade limits on campaign contributions is to donate funds in the name of minor children. But falsely representing that the children actually exercised control and independent judgment isn’t just being clever, it’s fraud. The same is true for workers who falsely claim to be sick to take a day off work or to evade no-strike laws, parents who misrepresent their address to get their child in a better school or fudge their child’s age to qualify for a discount, and executives who backdate documents.

Exploiting loopholes is bad enough, but lying crosses the line.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.