Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right 522.2
"Two wrongs don’t make a right."
Most of us heard this axiom of ethics during childhood whenever we tried to dodge blame or punishment by bringing up someone else’s misconduct. For example, when accused of lying, the child either points out that his brother told a bigger lie last week or accuses his accuser of lying in the past.
In rejecting attempts to divert attention from and dilute responsibility for our actions, our parents were instilling a vital moral message: Each of us must be judged on and held accountable for our behavior, regardless of what others may have done.
A similar basic rule of ethics underlies the popular parental observation: "I don’t care what Nancy’s mom lets her do, you are not going out dressed like that."
Sadly, these childhood lessons about accountability are often ignored by adults who passionately defend themselves or others with emotionally appealing but logically irrelevant and morally inconsequential diversionary arguments.
Paris Hilton’s defenders claimed she shouldn’t be punished for driving on a suspended license since the city attorney’s wife also did so.
Defenders of President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s prison sentence point to ethically dubious pardons issued by President Clinton.
And, not surprisingly, scores of people convicted of obstruction of justice are using the Libby commutation to justify leniency in their cases. Paris Hilton’s sentence, President Bush’s commutation, and the propriety of each sentence imposed by a judge in an obstruction of justice case should be judged on their own merits.
Lady Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold because law and logic are to be administered objectively in a manner that ignores the identity, affiliations, or power of individuals being judged as well as the prejudices and preferences of those doing the judging.
It takes a disciplined mind to identify and ignore red herring arguments designed to distract us from honestly and objectively assessing each event.
And it takes character to apply our principles consistently, especially when it means accepting personal responsibility or acknowledging wrongdoing in those we support.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
What do you think of this commentary?

