I was surfing Digg today and because this blog is about the merging of business, technology, and ethics… I found this gem of ethical equivocation. With statements like:
Well, for me, I try to game the system – as ethically as I can.
and what if you run up against an ethical wall? Well, she applies…
Whatever personal charm I have, I employ, to greater or lesser effect depending upon my target’s receptiveness.
and when that doesn’t work, she continues with another gaming of the system:
And yes, in support of my cause, I usually roll out whatever sob story I’ve got to tell, so long as it’s reasonably true, and I acknowledge that others may have equal or even greater needs.
Coming from a self-declared ethics blogger, “reasonably true” should not be a phrase one partakes of. Somehow I doubt that this person acknowledges that others may have equal or even greater needs while she’s trying to get out of serving jury duty. Not with reinforcing statements like the fact that she tries to game the system. If she was a true ethicist, she’d take it in stride, turn the duty into an opportunity for discovery, write a story about it, or a series of stories, apply the process to some other situation. But, this gaming of the system to get out of jury duty is an ethical equivocation; I tell whatever story as long as it is reasonably true.
If you are so ethical, stand firm, balanced, and measured that when you make a decision you are deciding the fate of a person. A human being that might be completely wronged in the case being brought against them, or supporting the rights of the victim and the outcome doled out to the defendant if found guilty, but instead… you game the system. Identical to someone who ends up in court when they know they’ve committed the crime they are charged with and simply are looking to game the system and hope for jury nullification or a sympathetic and charismatic jury member who can sway others to their incorrect assessment.
You’ve done a disservice to a victim who may not be made whole by a bad jury, you’ve done a disservice to a defendant who is wrongly charged, you’ve done a disservice to the ethicist who seeks out dilemmas to find a real solution as to why a particular decision is made. Mostly, you’ve done a disservice to yourself, because although you have made it back to work on time, you have made yourself a much smaller person.
And I don’t think you should be labeled an ethics anything. Finally, I’ll leave you with this segment of her “About Everyday Ethics” blurb:
How do we best respond to those around us in a way that leaves us feeling good about ourselves and confident our behavior has done no harm?
You’ve done harm, you’ve removed yourself from performing a public good. You’ve also done no good, which should be as important as doing no harm, to an ethicist doing their job.