Ethics Codes Don’t Make People Ethical 609.3
In the wake of a continual parade of scandals, there has been a lot of talk about codes of ethics. I’ve written dozens of codes for organizations and have a healthy respect for their value as an element of corporate culture, but I wince at the unreasonable expectations attached to them.
First of all, ethics codes don’t make people ethical. They don’t make bad people good. Nor do they make people with poor judgment wise. Ethics codes would not have prevented most of the bad behavior we’ve seen in recent years.
You see, there are two aspects to ethics: discernment (knowing right from wrong) and discipline (having the moral willpower to do what’s right). A code defines what’s right and acceptable and imposes sanctions on those who don’t follow it. But unless a code reinforces an established ethical culture, it won’t do much to assure that people will do what’s right.
It’s proper and prudent to clarify obligations under existing laws and to establish standards of conduct in areas not governed by law. In effect, ethics codes transform one perspective of a moral obligation into a binding rule.
For example, it’s helpful to set clear parameters for using e-mail, private information, or company property; for hiring or doing business with relatives; and for accepting gratuities. In more complex cases, codes can mandate disclosure or certification and forbid or restrict transactions such as loans and reimbursements that could create real or apparent conflicts of interest.
To the extent we need more clarity, we need more codes. To the extent we need more character, we need a lot more.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Subscribe
Comments
You said: "...ethics codes don’t make people ethical." I agree completely. It is good to have codes, to establish boundaries of good and acceptable behavior. But we need far more than the carrot; we also need a very effective stick.
You conclude: "To the extent we need more character, we need a lot more (codes of ethics)." (Parenthetical statement mine.) If people ignore codes for profit and power, I would add: "And to the extent we want codes of ethics to be effective, we need more (and more severe) punishments for violating them." This measure would call for more enforcement.
Thanks for the interesting post.
Posted by: Sam Martin | March 13, 2009 5:17 AM
I tend to disagree, Mr. Josephson.
First, an honor code should never be considered as a one-off approach to character education. No respectable institution or instructor would simply have students sign a piece of paper and assume to have resolved the issue of academic integrity. Honor codes support and supplement other approaches to ethics.
Second, my experience as a teacher tells me that many students do not understand what constitutes academic dishonesty. In this respect, honor codes should enlighten as well as structure student behavior.
Third, the argument that honor codes cannot create a culture of honesty applies equally well to CC!. If ethical education is not woven into the curriculum in a serious way by teachers, then it is unlikely to affect student behavior.
Finally, this question is not ultimately a normative but an empirical one. Many studies demonstrate that campuses with honor codes, while not free of all problems, tend to discourage academic dishonesty.
Posted by: Chris Freiler | March 14, 2009 8:28 AM
I am an ethics educator for professional societies, government entities and business. The following, which includes comments on ethics codes, was in response to the question listed below and has relevance beyond the legal profession.
Why are professionalism and ethics important to legal education and practicing lawyers?
To answer the above question, I wish to share my understanding and interpretation of the terms "professionalism" and "ethics."
The word professionalism first originated in a religious setting wherein a group of individuals “professed” to a standard of excellence different and apart from the general populace.* Today, the term typically includes several characteristics. They include:
Specialized skills
Community that is autonomous and self-regulating
Duty to the public
When we examine these characteristics, we can discern that they necessitate both competence and character. As Albert Flores points out in Professional Ideals, to be a professional means, in part, being committed to using professional skills and knowledge in morally acceptable ways for the benefit of society.”
Needless to say, there exist great differences of opinion as to what is beneficial to society or what will contribute to the common good. In addition, individuals differ on what is meant by the common good. Is it immediate family, the town in which we live, the company for which we work, the professional organization to which we belong, the planet as a whole?
If we are in agreement that professionalism incorporates behaving in morally acceptable ways for the benefit of society, then we cannot separate ethics from professionalism.
At its most fundamental level, ethics is about the decisions we make, the way we act toward one another, and the impact we have on the world around us. The study of ethics takes us on an internal journey and asks that we make informed decisions on these actions based on knowing and balancing our highest values so that we do the right thing.
One might posit that the Code of Professional Conduct dictates the ethical choices a lawyer must make. As many professionals know, it is not that simple. Aside from the fact that lawyers have many responsibilities (member of the legal profession responsible for upholding the law, representative of clients, third-party neutral and public citizen expected to seek improvement of the law). Aside from the increasingly complex ethical implications of the varying roles of the lawyer, this conundrum is amplified with the language of the code itself. We have shalls, shall nots, mays, and shoulds that define the lawyer's roles. While the code offers guidance and rules of reason, the rules do not, however, exhaust the moral and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules.
* "On Being a Professional, Morally Speaking" by Paul F. Camenisch
Posted by: robbie glantz | March 17, 2009 12:58 PM