Several years ago, when my daughter Carissa was about to enter her first gymnastics competition, I wrote her a letter expressing my hopes and goals for her athletic experience. Here’s a revised version:

I know you’ve worked hard to prepare yourself to compete and how much you want to win. That’s a good goal. You will always get the best out of yourself when you strive for victory.

But winning is not the only goal or even the most important one. What’s most important is to have fun and learn. I want you to love the sport so much that you find pleasure in the effort itself and in the friendship of your teammates and other competitors.

I want you to know you can do well – no matter who takes home the medals – if you do your best. And you will be a winner if you keep getting better. I want you to pursue excellence with all your heart, not to please me or your mom or anyone else, but to experience the joy of accomplishment.

If you wobble, keep going. If you fall, get up and continue. No matter what happens, keep your head high. Don’t give up or give in. If things don’t go your way, don’t cry, whine, or make excuses.

Always conduct yourself in a way that brings honor to your team, your coaches, your family and, above all, yourself. I want you to be a model of good sportsmanship, treating the sport, its rules, your teammates, other competitors, and judges with respect.

But most of all, I want you to know how proud of you I am.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

A high school football coach wrote to tell me his team was going to the state finals, but he was troubled. An English teacher had caught three of his players cheating on an exam they had to pass to remain eligible. He told the coach he had passed them anyway, “for the good of the school.”

The coach realized if his players had not really passed the test, they were ineligible and, according to league rules, all games in which they had played must be forfeited, and his team must be disqualified from the finals.

The coach asked me, “What good would it do to report the ineligibility?” The players who committed the act would be devastated, and the ones who didn’t would be unfairly denied their shot at the championship. Parents, players, and others would be furious. The English teacher would get in big-time trouble, and he, the coach, might lose his job. “Wouldn’t the greater good be accomplished if I just kept quiet?” he asked.

Of course not. Although it would take great moral courage to do the right thing – play by the rules and let the chips fall where they may – I told him that’s precisely what he should do.

There were many stakeholders involved (people who would be affected by the decision), and the coach was duty-bound to use his teaching platform to send an unequivocal positive message about honor and integrity. Failing to do so would deprive another team of its right to go to the finals. Looking the other way would undermine his credibility.

It’s a high price to pay, but as the years go by, the decision to pursue the path of honor will be an enduring gift to his players and community.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.

Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.

So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.

Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.

But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put their firm’s interests above their own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.

Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Long ago, I entered law school wanting to do good. I left more concerned with doing well.

In an atmosphere dominated by raging competitive instincts, persuasive rationalizations, and real economic pressures, cynicism drowned out idealism. My notion of the legal system as a grand forum for the pursuit of truth and justice was reduced to the idea that, in the end, it was just an adversarial game with a less noble purpose: win!

But it’s not just lawyers who are vulnerable to mission drift.

The idealistic drive of people who enter politics to pursue their personal version of the public good can be crushed or converted by real politics. It’s not easy to solve complicated problems in a world dominated by clashing convictions, limited resources, out-sized egos, and consuming personal ambitions. And so, the acquisition and retention of power, initially the means to an end, becomes the end itself – the measure of success is winning.

If you’re involved in youth sports, you too may be the victim of mission drift.

Is youth sports really a recreational and educational activity designed to allow children to have fun and develop valuable life skills, or is it just an early field of combat teaching the lesson that it, in the end, it’s just about winning?

These questions are probed in a challenging online assessment designed by the Josephson Institute to identify the core beliefs and values of the parents who support their children’s involvement in sports and the coaches and other adults who administer the programs.

Take a look at the survey at www.charactercounts.org/sports.

I suspect some of you will find a gap between your ideals and the reality you create or condone.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

My brother Barry is among the majority of commentators on the blog who disagree with my position that opposition to the plans regarding the Muslim Mosque and Community Center in New York is un-American. We debated the issue via a series of emails. Here are key excerpts:

Barry: Frankly, I don't think that we are obligated to take the supporters of the mosque at face value when it comes to their "intent," and even if it were reasonable to do so, a mosque at Ground Zero certainly could be (and would be) reasonably perceived by many to symbolize something very, very different (and something very, very negative). At best, the plan to build a mosque and Muslim community center at Ground Zero is ill-conceived, insensitive, and politically naive.

Moreover, neither the builders of the mosque, you, nor anyone else can define what the mosque would truly be a symbol of -- things are symbolic of what they are reasonably understood to be symbolic of. In this case, regardless of whether the true intent was genuinely to promote unity or something else positive, putting a mosque where the Twin Towers once stood is a powerful symbol (even if an unintentional one) that the terrorists have won by clearing out a symbol of American might (and values?) by violence so that it can be replaced with a symbol of Islam. And to many, for Americans to tolerate that would be much more a symbol of American weakness, stupidity, and gullibility than a re-affirmation of American ideals of pluralism.

If the Muslim community wants to show its sorrow, regret, and rejection of terrorism, it should erect a powerful and completely unambiguous expression of such beliefs (or, perhaps, a powerful, completely unambiguous symbol of American values), not something that is, at best, a self-serving mixed message and, at worst, a symbol of something the complete opposite of the purported message.

Michael: Presumably, the folks building the mosque and community center are American citizens. I do not think there is ANY doubt that they have a Constitutional right to build where they want and I refuse to assume bad faith because they are Muslims and they all act in bad faith.

I believe in the spirit of our Constitution and the notions of due process and respect for others regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion, and I am convinced the attitudes supporting the prejudice against Muslims are fundamentally unconstitutional, un-American, and unethical.

Barry: Trying to focus the issue on whether at least part of the objections is based on racism (or, more accurately, anti-Muslim animus), which I concede is unquestionably part of the basis for the objections, ignores my primary points:

(1) While I don't believe that the supporters of the project are required to explain why building the mosque and community center on the site is anti-terrorist and/or pro-American, they have apparently chosen to do so. If, as I believe, the professed motives make no sense, I would categorize them as false, if not intentionally duplicitous.

Michael: It makes sense on several levels: 1) an affirmative effort to make it clear that all Muslims are not terrorists, 2) genuinely believing that Muslims died in 9/11, helped rescue folks, and serve in the Army, etc. justifies not accepting the emotional prejudice reaction 3) folks like Mayor Bloomberg and I accept this as a valid and right gesture that as Americans we should welcome.

Barry: (2) Regardless of the true motivations, building a mosque at Ground Zero sends a message which is diametrically opposed to the professed point of building it. At best, doing so is counterproductive and stupid -- and just because they have the right to be stupid, doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for being stupid.

Do you remember the scene in the movie Gandhi in which a Hindu man comes to Gandhi and asks him how he could avoid hell after murdering a Muslim child? Gandhi tells him to find a similar parentless Muslim boy and raise him as Muslim. No, I am not suggesting that there is an equivalency between the Hindu who went to Gandhi (who, himself, was the direct murderer of the Muslim boy) and any Muslim who was not personally responsible for 9/11; rather my point was that to the extent that a Hindu wants to atone for an injury to a Muslim (whether due to direct guilt or as a way of symbolically distancing himself from co-religionists who were guilty), he should do so by helping Muslims or building a monument to Muslims or Islam, not by building a Mandir or ashram. Likewise, if Muslims want to distance themselves from 9/11, building a mosque is simply the wrong way to do it.

Furthermore, proceeding in face of vehement opposition (whether or not that opposition is fair or not, or based on prejudice or not) is like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda (the character played by Kevin Kline) literally putting a gun to the head of Archie (the character played by John Cleese) in order to get Archie to accept Otto's "apology" for an earlier wrong. I'm sorry, but no matter how sincere Otto may have been, one has to "apologize" in a manner acceptable to the "injured party,” and when that doesn't happen, it is neither an apology, atonement, nor a symbol of solidarity. At the very least, it shows a high degree of insensitivity.

Michael: The insensitivity may be to the depth of genuine bigotry underlying much of the opposition and an underestimation (of which I am guilty as well) of how many smart and decent people would jump on the anti-Muslim passions.

Barry: (3) I agree that it is unreasonable, unfair, and "racist" to simply assume the all Muslims are liars, but if it’s true [as one YouTube video argues] that Islamic culture views duplicity as a perfectly acceptable tactic in the struggles against non-Muslims, is it unreasonable to give less credence to followers of Islam than to those from cultures who place a relatively higher societal value on truth?

Michael: I do not accept the taking of isolated quotations from individuals we know nothing about as statements that represent the mainstream of the culture or religion. There are many horrible passages in the Old Testament and many rabbis, priests, and popes who have said things that do not represent the core of their religions. It is like taking the comments of any Congressman/woman and concluding it represents the American point of view.

Barry: A fair point. Furthermore, there is no question that all Muslims have had to bear prejudice on account of the actions of some, and there can be no doubt that this is unfair, dangerous, and un-American. Still, can it be denied that the deafening silence of both individual Muslims and the Muslim community as a whole has lent credence to the belief that it is a matter of "them" vs. "us"?

Yes, many individual Muslims do preach brotherhood and tolerance and speak out against terrorism, but do they do so as frequently or vehemently as they should, especially when elsewhere their co-religionists literally dance in the streets to "celebrate" 9/11 and similar attacks? Doesn't the openness and extremity of the "wrong" responses by "bad" Muslims call for equally open and strong condemnations by "good" Muslim's to make clear what side they are on? Is it surprising or unreasonable that a failure to speak out clearly is taken as at least tacit approval of terrorism?

Michael: There may be powerful inside pressures and concepts of loyalty and unity explaining the relative silence which I agree is disturbing), but concluding consent from silence in this context is a stretch and another violation of our fundamental principles.

Barry: I do not dispute the constitutional right of the Muslim community to build a mosque and related buildings at Ground Zero, but rather both the sincerity of the professed motives and especially the wisdom of doing so. In the end, the issue is much like the question of whether the Nazis should have been allowed to march through Skokie -- maybe (indeed, probably) it cannot or should not be prohibited, but that doesn't mean that people have to like it or that those who act stupidly or irresponsibly (despite their right to do so), can't or shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

Michael: In the Nazi case the bad motives and the personal beliefs of the individual marchers were of little doubt, but it is our reaction that is more important than their motivation. I think the decision to allow such marches is a high point in American law and tradition while allowing the internment camps of the Japanese was a low point. I am much more concerned with our reaction. Even if the Muslims involved are as bad as the Nazis we should be un-intimidated and undeterred from supporting their right in this great land to be obnoxious.

Terry and his dad Glen were walking along the shore and came upon a scorpion struggling in the tide, trying to get back to the sand. Glen tried to scoop the creature up, but the scorpion stung him and fell back into the tide. Glen tried again and was stung again.

Terry said, "Dad, leave him alone! He’s not worth saving."

But Glen tried one more time. This time he was successful and threw it onto the sand.

Terry said, "Why waste time on an ornery critter who’s too stupid to know it’s being helped?"

Glen answered, "Son, the scorpion stings by instinct. It’s his nature. I chose to help him because that’s my nature."

Glen was teaching his son a profound moral lesson about being human. Like other species, we’re born with an instinct for survival and a disposition towards selfishness. Yet, blessed by a sense of compassion and the power to reason, we also have an instinct to think and act beyond our self-interest.

Human nature is complex. It’s as much in our nature to be kind, loving, and generous as it is to be cruel, selfish, and dishonest. We can nurture or ignore our nobler instincts.

Some people act like scorpions. Trapped by negative instincts and response patterns, they think it’s their nature and hide behind the belief, "That’s the way I am."

No one is born with good or bad character. We’re born with the capacity to have either, to choose our ultimate nature. When we choose to be good, we are good.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.