Ethics, Personal And Business

Government writes laws to define ethical conduct. Government is filled with some of our nations most vile offenders. Lawyers earn their living defending those that break it, and figuring out how to skirt it. Is a Code of Ethics, or a class thereon, of any significant difference?

Those that care will do what's right for reasons within themselves. Those that don't care will make decisions based on dollars alone.

A class won't change it.>>>

So then, what is the purpose of Any organization to even spout out about their distinguishable Code Of Ethics?

As you stated Paul, those that must proclaim loudest how they are superior in their moral fiber than the others give a tell-tale advertisement about themselves. Why do certifications then seem to have any merit at all?

I'll try to answer my own question.

At least it gives an individual or a group a bar to strive towards. Without outside influence, grown, nurtured and fully developed in an isolated vacuum from outside opinions, any level of self satisfaction and achievement aspiring towards a self proclamation of goal achievement would put that bar wherever that individual or group chooses to set it at.

So, lets not just look upon any particularly articulated Code, per se, but at what defines any one individual or organization as being an ethical entity.

Let's look at a few points that Ciak brought up: Violating laws or regulations enacted by a government whose authority has been established by law. Now this begs another question . If it is legal does that make it ethical or moral ? Is willfully misrepresenting or concealing a material fact in business if it is an insurance or contracting , or any business dealing.. in violation of a duty or obligation unethical. Why would aiding and abetting in the performance of any unethical practice be a problem ? Is it unethical to breach the confidential relationship with a client or with his principal. How would you handle it if it was illegal but still ethical in with your ethics or morality ?

In particular, the first sentence and it's points, I find to be very seemingly on mark, but would they be, really?

Does an established law, policy or any other such guideline determine how I, as an individual, should caste my opinion and blaze my own trail in life? Fluidity occurs way too often in laws and regulations to be the unifying guiding source. All those propositions provide, is that a certain vocal public or private voice has hammered their own viewpoints home diligently enough to enact their own ideology onto others, who for whatever reasoning, decline to speak out and against undesirable directives.

So then, just because a semblance of the surrounding cast of characters has enacted some policy for direction, that does bear directly upon whether or not, those that choose to follow those guidelines are acting ethically, now does it?

What if one were to say, well it just didn't feel right? Is that the shining beam towards a proper direction? I think that personal feelings are way too emotionally influenced by previous behavioral training in that individuals own vacuum to merit it worthy of true stand alone substance.

What about intelligence? Does a superior intellect imply a greater or lesser chance at success or failure? Does the innocent babe, who knows nothing about right or wrong yet, possess more aptitude towards ethics than a fully developed and nurtured adult? Conversely, does an extreme amount of intelligence belie that there may be more moral perversions and excuses to be self sustained, that they are entitled to be of a different character than the more common mold of other men?

How about Religions? Most, in their own mind and way of thinking, seem to be convinced that they uniquely strive for a higher ethical plateau than all of the others, so then, it would depend upon which side of the fence you were located in that comparison. What is ethical to one, would be caste in shame or at least doubt by another.

How about the law? Who's law? From which time period? Was slavery not once considered acceptable in this country, at least in part? Since we have our time machine, then why is our now current national stance on that not subject to criticism by those that still find that multi-level humanistic categorization to be an acceptable part of their culture? Or is it, but we do not hear the cries, due to silencing

The fact that someone ascribes superiority to themselves because of a written "code of ethics" is as valid as someone claiming their marriage is solid and good because of the words on their marriage license. In fact, the more someone talks to me of their honesty and ethics, the more red flags get waved in my mind. You know the drill. If someone starts using the word "honestly" every other sentence, it really implies to me that they are lying. If their statements were really honest, it would not be necessary to sell me on that by using the word.

Ed, you are referring to organizations that need to distinguish themselves from everyone else. Frankly, I couldn't care less if a member of such an organization had a code of ethics or a secret handshake. I WOULD care about whether that member was reliable, knowledgeable, and honest, but I would get that information from others who know the member and/or used his services. The fact that they "belong" tells me only that they paid money (dues) to be called a member. It's a form of laziness on the part of the consumer or user of services to rely on the "approval" or "authorization" or "official" designation as any indicator of quality. Buyer Beware.

Even if one is a member of an order (professional or religious), where rigorous vetting and training distinguish those who belong from everyone else, that is not a guarantee of anything. We all know of too many situations where the esteemed doctor was a quack, or a revered minister had feet of clay, or a renown public servant was determined to be an amoral opportunitist. Even if we look upon ourselves, how many can claim not to have done anything unethical? We are human, and as humans we fail often. The thing that distinguishes the really "good" people from the less good, is that the good ones fail slightly less often.

Are profitable contractors more or less ethical than those losing money? I can't make the relationship between profit and ethics. There are unethical profitable contractors that "earn" their money by cutting corners, just as there are ethical profitable contractors that earn their money because they are smart, efficient and well organized. There are also lots of ethical tradesmen going broke because they don't know basic business concepts.

There are many models of how to make money. A monopoly tends to be artificially-constructed and designed to keep prices high by limiting product or access. On the other hand, you could have a product or service in high enough demand that the suppliers can't meet the demand, therefore buyers bid up the price to assure themselves of access. Profit itself is ethically-neutral, it's the manner in which it's made that determines if it was ethically, or fraudulently obtained.>>>

Great topic ED, prigz alluded to it . I think this generation needs parenting guides not just biological to guide the younger generations in the paths we have all ready traveled . The basics tenant you will be faced with difficult choices . The question is how will you know what is right or what is wrong. That is where the code is important. I still maintain we know instinctively what that is.>>>

Pirating and meandering are completely allowed. For, to have a diverse and open discussion, there should not be any restraints applied.

Errr, unless that goes against anyones Ethics, LOL.

I only have time to address one, but realy two points that Paul has made.

Some organizations with Steel Plated Codes Of Ethics and only to slightly touch on religion, so this does not drift too much into a completely Religious debate.

Lets take an unnamed, lets say, Contractors Organization who espouses Ethics. Is it ethical for the organization to lambaste all/most of their non-affiliated competition, by innuendo, that they are to be watched carefully and more highly scrutinized?

Is an emblem or Seal Of Approval on their affiliates websites, depicting them as Recommended or Referred or Approved in any such general terms justifiable, thereby passing hidden judgment against those not bearing these designations?

Is just the "Pledge" to a Code of Ethics any assurance that they will hold themselves higher than the rest of the non-approved, or should I say, non-paying members who decided to not belong n such an organization?

What then, makes a true and earnest dedication to that pledge to the Code? Who determines if it is followed and are there any repercussions if not?

What of any Religious group, who proclaims that there actions are sanctified by there righteous affiliation with the "Correct" Religion?

Are those that charge less than another contractor more or less ethical than the most profitable priced contractor? Or, are they naive and lost?

Are contractors who charge higher for trained on staff workers more ethical then? Are they right and justified to do so?

Since we are all contractors and price becomes a big criteria on how we are judged, does that state that the highest priced contractor is charging elicitly and dishonestly?

Or, is the contractor who uses uninsured, (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) subcontractors more of a cancer on the overall image?

But those contractors are able to provide a more affordable roofing contracting experience to their customers, so based on the pricing aspect, they are very good guys in the home owners eyes, aren't they?

Is it wrong for a salesman to know the ropes on how to ask properly and steer a client into agreeing with their roof system, by knowing that qualifying objections lead to an eventual Yes, to the contract, or should they let go and allow another contractor to scoop up the sale after they leave?

A bit too much rambling for one post, so I will shut up now.

Ed

>>>

Hi Ed,

Some of the most unethical organizations I have come across have a wonderful "code of ethics" featured on their sales materials and web sites. They say one thing, do something comepelely different. It can be somewhat refreshing to meet a company that you know is going to take advantage of the situation, and it doesn't pretend to do/be anything else. You may not like what they are doing, but at least they are honest about it.

I'm also sure you know people who say all the right things, but screw anyone they can get their sorry mits on.

In my opinion, the only ethics worth anything, are the ones one demonstrates through action. And those ethics are the ones where someone does the right thing, not the (take your pick) expedient/convenient/advantageous-to-you/gets-me-off-the-hook thing. But our whole culture is about escaping responsibility and accountability for our actions. In school we see "situational" ethics where Mom and Dad are OK with their kids' cheating because it gets them "further ahead" and "in this dog-eat-dog world, you do what you gotta do". Some branches of our organized religions have bent so far backward in helping people avoid feeling bad about their actions, that they have in effect given full and complete absolution to ANY action a "church-goes" may do.

You can't really discuss ethics of contractors or consumers or insurance companies, without putting those in context of the society in which each operates. Bluntly put, we have a "code-of-ethics", which Christians and Jews call the Ten Commandments. How many of our christian or jewish betheren actually follow them? I'd say, very few if any (and I include my imperfect self in that lot). I'm not sure what the Hindus, Muslims, Buddists, atheists and other religions use as their "code of conduct", but I'm sure few adherents come anywhere close to respecting most of them. Legislating ethics through a "code of conduct" is not more effective than legislating any form of human behaviour. We always find a reason to bypass it, avoid it, ignore it, etc., if we find that doing the prescribed thing (ie, the "right" thing) is inconvenient to us.

To answer your last question, I think the answer is in each of our hands. WE can choose to behave ethically, or not. If by our example others are inspired to do the same, then great. If not, we make the choice of living the way we believe we should, as opposed to living in a way forced on us by others. I know what my choice is.>>>

I find it better to start in a place that defines what are appartenly not ethical standards . It allows the discussion to form around the idea not platitudes . So here goes . Just a few Violating laws or regulations enacted by a government whose authority has been established by law. Now this begs another question . If it is legal does that make it ethical or moral ? Is willfully misrepresenting or concealing a material fact in business if it is an insurance or contracting , or any business dealing.. in violation of a duty or obligation unethical. Why would aiding and abetting in the performance of any unethical practice be a problem ? Is it unethical to breach the confidential relationship with a client or with his principal. How would you handle it if it was illegal but still ethical in with your ethics or morality ? I'll stop here for now . I hope I didn't pirate your thread ED ?

>>>