Ethics

Ethics

“Relativity applies to physics, not ethics”

— Albert Einstein quotes[1]

Before broaching the subject of ethics, it has to be
set in concrete that no one is perfect. We are all fallible human beings.
Fallible as we are, we can strive to do better. For that reason there is a need
to discuss the current ethics of globalization, the business community, and corporations.

According to Robert J. Samualson in his October 22,
2007 article The Downside Of Ambition: Breaking The Rules To Succeed, the National
Opinion Research
Center reported that 43 percent of the
people in the United States
said that ambition was the key to getting ahead in life. This was followed by
“hard work” at 38 percent, “a good education” at 36 percent, “natural ability”
at 13 percent, “knowing the right people” at 10 percent. Ambition is everything
in the United States.[2]

Recent
examples of ambition gone wrong are sited in Samualson’s article. Bill
Belichick, the New England Patriot U.S. football team’s coach, was
recently fined $500,000.00 USD for illegally videotaping an opponent’s defense
signals. Marion Jones, Olympic Track and Field contestant, admitted to taking
illegal enhancement drugs and had to forfeit three gold metals, and two bronze
medals won at the Sydney Olympics. William Learch, a trial lawyer, faces $8 million
USD in fines and penalties and a year in jail for hiring fraudulent plaintiffs
in cases against corporations.[3]

Samualson’s  article only scratches the surface. In an
example of predatory competition, Microsoft paid $15 billion dollars for a 1.5
percent of Facebook simply to thwart Google for buying into the social
networking site, according to Glenn Chapman’s, October 25, 2007 article Microsoft paying Facebook premium to thwart
Google: analysts.[4]
Frank Eltman in an article from October 29, 2007, NY Millionaires’ Slavery Trial Opens, recounts the events leading
up to the trial of Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, and his wife, Varsha
Mahender Sabhnani, 45, on a “12-count federal indictment accusing them
of conspiracy, involuntary servitude and other charges.” The couple has pleaded
not guilty in a case of “a pair of Indonesian women brought to the United States
to work as housekeepers were starved, deprived of sleep and repeatedly stabbed
and beaten by a millionaire couple ….”[5]
 

In a higher profile discussion, Laurie Kellman of the
Associated Press writes, on October 30, 2007, that the Attorney General
Nominee, Michael Mukasey, is unsure that waterboarding, “which simulates
drowning and is banned by the military” is illegal. President Bush, as reported
by Terence Hunt in an article of November 1, 2007, is in full support of Mr.
Mukasey even under the cloud of misgivings concerning torturing people to gain
information.[6]

Torture is extremely unreliable as a means to get
information out of people. Moreover this discussion is coming out of the highest
levels of the nation which initiated the ban on torture in the Eighth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United
States in 1787. Torture is also in violation
of international law under Article Five of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly adopted on December 10, 1948.
Such a ban goes even further back in history to English Bill of Rights of 1689
signed by King William III and Queen Mary II. The ban also appears in The
British Slavery Amelioration Act of 1798, Article Three of the European
Convention on Human Rights of 1950, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in 1982, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in 2000.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The legal sticking point is that the
torture has to be both cruel and unusual. If the punishment is not unusual, but
only cruel, it may be acceptable under the constitutional guidelines. The fact
that such things as stated above are completely morally reprehensible is
currently irrelevant.

The analogy, as told by a student at Tarrant County Community College’s
Nursing program, is as follows:

If I were to take a thin willow branch, and
cut if off, pull down the pants of the lawyers playing their word games and
whip them about the buttock and legs until the were bleeding, and then douse
them with salt water to heal the wounds and cause substantial permanent
scaring, it would be completely acceptable since such things were practiced as
a usual punishment. Its cruelty is not in question since it is not unusual.[7]

This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was attempting
to forbid in the United States
when the Eighth Amendment was penned.

Legal arguments notwithstanding certain acts are
immoral and unethical no matter how one plays with the words. As Albert
Einstein said, “Relativity applies to physics, not ethics.”

Within the discussion on the acquisition on wealth, which
is the goal of the business community, there is also a need to include a
discussion on the means to acquire that wealth. The discussion was codified by
Robert K. Merton in his 1938 thesis Social
Structure and Anomie.

A summation of his work on Anomie/Strain Theories of
Crime is best put by saying that when an individual values both the goals of
society and the institutional means to achieve those goals then that person is
socialized or civilized. Conversely, when either the means or the goals are no
longer valued by the individual, then the person is asocial, uncivilized,
radical, or revolutionary. When it comes to a fixation on wealth and an
abandonment of socially acceptable institutional means to acquire that wealth
then the individual is considered a criminal.

This is what happened with Enron’s Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. They decided that the
institutional means to wealth acquisition were defunct in the “new economy,”
and they became innovative with the standard accounting practices to generate
wealth through deception. This is also why the U.S. still stigmatizes the dying
régime of Castro in Cuba; Castro has not capitulated that the western
capitalistic model is superior to the defunct communist model, and the U.S. government
considers the Castro government a criminal element in the western hemisphere.
Castro has rejected the western social goals and the western institutional
means and could be considered a criminal for it.

While Merton argues effectively that most people are
in a state of balance between the goals of society (i.e. fine house,
comfortable vehicle, recreation time, family, abundant food, status among
peers, relative wealth) and the proscribed institutional means (i.e. morals,
mores, taboos, stigmas, lawfulness) to achieve those goals, that does not seem
to be the case today.

We have, as a result of the arguments of the late
1960s and the early 1970s counter culture, abandoned most institutional means.
In doing so, we have tossed aside the good with the bad. As the old saying
goes, we have, “tossed out the baby with the bath water.” We have gone so far
as to have rewritten the institutional means in such a way as to reinforce the
social goals.

This is the true root of the statement made by the
late Jerry Falwell when he said “Labor unions should study and read the Bible
instead of asking for more money. When people get right with God, they are
better workers,” and “I think we ought to take the shackles off business and
get rid of outfits like OSHA.”[8]
This has nothing to do with anything within the Christian context. It has
everything to do with the political leanings of tax-exempt religious
organization dabbling in the political arena. Such statements reinforce the
social goals of giving status and acceptance to the goals of the corporate
entities which enable and empower the religious institutions.

This politicalization and corruption of the religious
institutions has led directly the loss of credibility of those institutions.
This is nothing new. As pointed out by John W. Blassingame in The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the
Antebellum South the church teachings of the 1830 were a general
condemnation of the institution of slavery, by the 1850s it had morphed into a
neutral or supportive stance for slavery as a biblically acceptable
institution.[9]

This type of corruption has opened up all sorts of
venues for wealth building which are contrary to any classical institutional means.
Vices which, while in existence, were once taboo are now seen as normal,
acceptable, recreational activities, and a proper means to the acquisition of
wealth. Even morally upstanding citizens will support vice if it means that
they can make a living from it. Moreover, especially in regards to the
corruption of religion as a institutional form of control, the constant
condemnation from God for sinful behavior where sin is rewarded by society has
greatly undermined the credibility of the institution to exert control within
society.

If greed is good, and the corporations are in the
business of satisfying that greed, then gambling, pornography and black market
sales must equally be acceptable since they support the primary objective of
the social goal, which ise. wealth acquisition. If that is the goal, then all
other means are limiting only insofar as one does not violate the legal
prohibitions against victimless crimes. Such prohibitions are only as good as
the people’s willingness to adhere to them. When people are no longer willing
to adhere to them, the institutions hold only the sway of the threat of
punishment in a vague and nebulous way. The punishment is only a deterrent to
getting caught in a prohibited activity rather than forming a positive value
that the prohibited activity is wrong or objectionable. The law is no longer a
deterrent, and morality is no longer a deterrent. Institutional means are in
collapse. The seven deadly sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath – or anger
– envy, and pride) are now virtues. God does not punish sinners; society
rewards them with wealth. The idea that such will be punished in heaven is
negated by the doctrine of faith which absolves all sins and allows any action
to go unchecked … so long as one is not caught by the authorities. This latter
fact is pointed out in A
Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence proposed by Mark C.
Stafford and Mark Warr.[10]

As pointed out by Neil Howe, co-author of The
Fourth Turning and a number of other books on the current generation, in
PBS’ Generation Next, violent crimes
are diminishing, however, larceny in the form of fraud and identity theft are
on the increase. The fixation on wealth by any means has trumped social goals
of personal integrity and honor. This can be seen in such internet sites as
MeOnYou, AdultFriendFinder, Alt.Com, MarriedDateLink, MarriedCafe, OKCupid,
AffairMatch, and SexSearchCom. All of them promote promiscuity and three of the
eight specifically support, in concept at least, extramarital affairs. Sites
such as Facebook, and MySpace are only a slight variation on this theme.[11]

The internet sites listed above support once taboo
activities with blatant abandon. While it is still taboo to openly engage in
such activities, it is no longer taboo to supply the means, under the guise of
a social network. While some individuals still stay within the institutional
means to acquire wealth, predatory competition is seen as acceptable, normal,
and preferred. We condemn sexual predators, as such should be, but reward
economic predators. All that matters is the acquisition of wealth by any means
necessary. This can only be termed predatory competition.

Many argue against this observation, however, Bill
Gates was richly rewarded for his predatory practices. Microsoft is the giant
it is today by consuming what it wished, consolidating its marketplace, and
destroying anyone who opposed its will. They went so far as to have actually
threatened to sue a teenager in California
for producing a parody t-shirt of Bill Gates with the Borg head-gear from StarTrek: The Next Generation with the
caption “Resistance is  Futile.”[12]
The teenager subsequently ceased production of the parody t-shirt.

The success of Microsoft on the grand economic scale
has undermined the ideal of fair competition, and has stifled the advancement
of the computer industry. Their size and predatory competitive nature has
diminished the flavor of what could be within that one small segment of the
economy. The economy as a whole is faltering due to the lack of institutional means
which define what is acceptable and what is not.

Since stocks, stock splits, and revenue can be
counted and measured, and fairness cannot, the economic discussion focuses on
wealth acquisition, productivity, and opportunity cost. All that is left is an
economic Darwinism model of the survival of the richest. This is not only the
tone of the economic debate regarding economic opportunity, but it is the tone
of the debate regarding access to adequate health care. Everything centers on
who has the most money. Those who have will live; those who have not will die.
One suspects that many of the world’s wealthiest honestly believe the rest of
the population not only will die, but should
die. In a functional society this is considered unethical, but it is the ethic
at play today.

It is self-evident that the current forms of ethics
are not working. We know that the current, rather lopsided, distribution of
wealth will lead to higher crime. Many cities are already seeing this at the
local levels. Street crime does not make national news as it is so common that
it is not newsworthy. Such stories may dance across the local news channel, but
the national news cannot be bothered so long as it has a major war to cover. We
lost more people to street crime and violence than were lost in the war.

This increase in violence can be seen in the
statistics coming out of Washington
D.C. Even given the current urban
renewal effort, called gentrification, a creation of functional neighborhoods,
the statistics are still telling. In Washington
D.C. (a city of 581,000 as of
2006) the crime became so severe that Police Chief Ramsey declared a “Crime
Emergency” in July of 2006.[13]

This region of the United States has the strictest gun
control laws of any state. No one can own an assembled, loaded, functioning hand
gun in their home in Washington
D.C., and there is no provision
for canceled handguns. These laws have been in effect since 1976.

In Washington
D.C., in 2004, there 36
homicides, 47 rapes, 386 robberies, and 615 aggravated assaults. Aggravated
assault is an assault where a deadly weapon is used.

In Chicago where the possession of a hand gun is all
but outlawed, there were 628 murders in 2000, 666 murders in 2001, 647 murders
in 2002, 598 murders in 2003, 448 Murders in 2004, 449 Murders in 2005, and 452
murders in 2006.[14]

Neil Howe’s observation that violent crime is lower
now than in the boomer generation may simply be a matter of statistics.
According to Terrie E. Moffitt’s Pathways
in the Life Course of Crime,[15]
most crime is committed by young men between the ages of 15 and 30. Currently
this is a lower percentage of the population than existed from 1960 to 1975.
Taking into account that only a small percentage of criminal activity is
violent in nature, then in today’s society violent crime would be down due to
the fewer number of boys and men who would commit such crime. There is an
anomaly in these numbers as well. We have more people in court control, due to
the “get tough” and “zero tolerance” policies of the politicians. Given these
as numerical facts, it becomes hard to argue that the current generation is
more civilized, and less violent than any previous generation. The higher
percentage incarcerated in the system may actually indicate just the opposite.
The excess of the 1960s may have spawned a more lawless generation needing
harsher supervision.

When you see what is being done in the name of
success or winning, one has to wonder if any ethics exist in the business
community at all. The criminality within the capitalistic system is systemic.
Only those who are in denial because they have managed to function within the
system, often by manipulating, appeasing, or appealing to the lowest common
denominator, are in denial about the obvious dark side of the system. The Enron, Tyco, MCI failings of
2001 and 2002 are not isolated incidents, they are indications of the general
rejection of the institutional means as observed by Merton.

Arguments in favor of the current system are useless
in deflecting the bullets flying in opposition to the system. Unfettered greed
has a predilection of initiating violence.[16]
Such activities as street crime, and its bigger brother, terrorism, are the
ultimate grotesque expression of predatory competition. When the institutional means
upholding the sanctity of human life are done away with, then murdering the
competition is completely acceptable. This is especially true when the murder
is sanctioned by the state or the highest religious order of a given society.

Inclusive in this lack of respect for human life is
paying sub-standard wages which in no way keeps up with the cost of living,[17]
mortgage interest rates at abnormally high levels well above prime ranging into
the double-digits of unsecured credit card loans, the inability to afford
adequate safe housing by other means, the neglect of land-lords for their
occupied properties, unsafe working conditions, inadequate health insurance and
special treatment at state run facilities for celebrities and those in power[18],
inadequate disability insurance, forfeiting the pension obligations through
bankruptcies and other means[19].
Add to this list the economic conditions which force two income families to be
dependent upon the state while the state is abdicating any responsibility to the
family, and the causality of criminal behavior is evident. The abandonment of
any social responsibility is inclusive in the argument of individual
responsibility, isn’t it?

In a very bizarre situation developed within the
context of unethical behavior, is an observation by Industrial
psychologist David Willings as far back at 1981.[20]

“Job performance
is not a significant factor in promotability. Social acceptability, the ability
to fit in, to think as the rest of management thinks; these are the factors
which make a person promotable.

The gifted employee is not readily promotable. This idea that the gifted will
get ahead anyway, and if they do not, they were not really gifted, has no basis
in fact.”

The current
system not only discriminates against the working class but also excludes the
best and brightest of society based on minimal social criteria. If one can hire
a coach, or get counseling, there is a solution to gifted discrimination, but
if one is disenfranchised by the idiot culture which we have addressed already,
then there is no money to pay for services needed to attain successful
integration with the society of the dullards.

This
occurred in World War II, and in 1957 with the opening of the Space Race. It
also occurred in a lesser degree with the explosion in technology in the 1990s.
Once the digital replaced the mechanical, gifted adults who brought in the
digital age were tossed on the trash heap. It must be noted that HTML, the key
creation which made the internet possible was not developed by the corporations,
it was developed by Tim Berners-Lee, and Robert Cailliau,[21]
at CERN,[22]
a think tank in Switzerland.

All of this is part and parcel of the general trend
of “making bricks without straw,” to site an illustration from the biblical
history of the Jews. Culturally that illustration has been a long standing, and
now abandoned, illustration of oppressive working conditions. That is where we
are today. People are told to be self-sustaining adults who take care of
themselves, and yet the majority (roughly 98% of the total global population)
has none of the basic resources to be self-sustaining. Those who are proponents
of the individualist view are often the same people who do everything in their
power, at all levels of the competitive drive, to deprive others of basic
economic resources. While it may uphold some acknowledgement of the Darwinist
approach to the social order, it is not ethical in any classical sense, nor is
it wise. Once imbalance is achieved towards the side of greed, an equal and
opposite action will occur to restore some semblance of balance. It may be an
equally unequal response, but it will be a response.

The opposite action can be political action, legal
action, or collective violence against those seen as the transgressor. As it
has been noted, “The Guillotine was invented to execute officials. Far too many
of the French Nobility met their fate at the humane blade because they refused
to pay heed to the needs of the peasants.”[23]

Arguments to the contrary are short sighted, unrealistic
wishful thinking by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo
in favor of the unethical treatment of others. Moreover, it makes very little
difference if the business community rationalizes their collective action
within the dark light of the Capitalistic system. Eventually as the situation
becomes more and more untenable for the majority some sort of change will
occur.

Human beings are
not frogs, to use the cultural metaphor popularized by George Barna.[24]
When the water gets hot enough, collective action will occur to balance the
disparity in the social condition. Again, sighting Coercion Theory’s axiom,
where official indifference is a form of coercion, trapping the individual or
group within an abusive situation, violence can be considered a justifiable
means to alleviate the abuse.[25]
This situation becomes dangerous for anyone in the public service sector. Where
law enforcement, is pressed in to support the status quo, where the status quo is
seen abusive, then the peace officer becomes servant of the abuser and not an
impartial referee of acceptable public action. The peace officer becomes a
target for reprisal. Where the media is seen as supporting an abusive system,
then such bias is seen as an aid to the abuser, and the media representatives
are equally at risk of violent reprisal. Assurance in both cases is
meaningless. People have predictable behavior in given situations.

Constant coercion, according to Colvin’s study, leads
to “weak, alienated social bond … perceived control deficit with feelings of
debasement” and “some potential for a righteously enraged assault or homicide.”[26]
His reasoning is that people, who experience chronic, constant coercion in the
way of bullying and abusive control, don’t generally have a propensity towards
crime. They have a tendency to conform to the behavior in such a way as to
avoid pain. However, as pointed out there is some potential for threatening
behavior and murder.

The question lies in what is the trip mechanism that
takes a cowed individual from a passive conformist to become a fighter. The
trip point hides in the observation of dissociation with the current social
structure. That is the key that has to be understood. The person under constant
coercion is looking for deliverance; when he or she is give hope of change,
then the natural reaction is to use whatever means are necessary to cause that
change. Colvin himself does not draw this conclusion; it is suggested by
sociologists who are currently studying the Russian Revolution of 1917.

In an NPR broadcast aired in the late 1990s/early
2000s, a team of sociologists determined that revolutions occurred when people,
en masse, decided that they had a hope of a change for the better. Colvin’s
work, as well as Merton’s, supports this conclusion. As such, unethical
treatment of people does have a hard wired, inbred, retaliatory response.
Merton noted that when people reject the social goals, and then institutional
means, revolution occurs.[27]

There is an old Chinese proverb that says, “Give a
man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for
a lifetime.” This is the axiom used by those who propound the all but defunct
concept of Compassionate Conservatism.

Compassionate Conservatism never materialized in the U.S.
The idea of teaching people to fend for themselves degraded into a school yard
bully sessions where people who challenged the status quo were mistreated,
degraded, and disenfranchised for simply asking for an explanation. The
questions remain:

1.    
What good is teaching a man to fish when he
lives in a wasteland and there is no “fishing hole”?

2.    
What good is teaching him to fish when the cost
of a line, hook, pole, and bate are so exorbitant because fishing has become
the domain of the wealthy (who do not need to fish to eat) that the subsistence
fisherman cannot afford them?

These questions are good metaphors for what is
budding in the United States
today. People who achieve some form of post-secondary education are left
without opportunity to apply those skills unless they are socially acceptable
to some corporate culture. All the training in the world is useless if there is
no way to achieve a reasonable income from the training.

The following table shows the cost of becoming a
Commissioned Security Officer in Texas,
and the time it takes to recover that investment at $10.00 an hour. $10.00 an
hour is in no way an adequate rate of pay for a family of four in Texas. The basic pay for
most contract security officers working for private, non-government clients is less
than $10.00 an hour. Base on the current guideline, that income is one paycheck
above the poverty threshold after having invested $1,300.00 in additional
training. This is the real world in the real Texas today.

When George W. Bush ran for office in 2000, the
people of the United States
were promised an ethical and moral government run with decorum, dignity and
honor. We were promised a government without scandal, without illicit liaisons,
without a “Frat House” carnival atmosphere. There was the promise of compassionate
conservatism under the catch phrase “a hand up, not a hand out.” What did we
get? We got an inventory of scandals too numerous to site here. To see how compassionate
conservatism has played out all one has to do is to listen to Mike Savage[28]
or Rush Limbaugh.

Anyone who does not goose-step with the conservative
agenda is subject to a diatribe of name calling, not to mention misinformation,
as if public debate has been replaced with junior high pre-fight ritualistic baiting.

One evening in 2003 while listening to a local talk
jockey, Greg Knapp of KLIF Dallas, we were told that there was no recession
under Ronald Reagan. Millions of listeners now hold that as truth. Yet the Reagan
Recession of 1982 is historical fact:

[In 1982] the United States was experiencing its
worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent
of those 50 years earlier. By November 1982, unemployment reached, nine million,
the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second
highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and
poor became homeless.[29]

Within the discussion of Anomie by Merton, how can
this asocial behavior be explained? The neo-conservatives came to power through
“innovation”, the rejection of institutional means to achieve the social goal.
This innovation is not quite within the acceptable norms of the institutional means
which existed prior to the November 2000 election. The neo-conservatives know
that any honest discussion concerning their ascent to power will broach the
topic of criminal fraud. This is apparent in their overly aggressive, bullying
response to anyone who questions their goals and the methods of achieving their
goals. This is supported, again by Sykes and Matza’s work in identifying Techniques of Neutralization in the Condemnation of the Condemners.

A fourth technique of neutralization would
appear to involve a condemnation of the condemners or, as McCorkle and Korn
have phrased it, a rejection of the rejecters. The delinquent shifts the focus
of attention from his own deviant acts to the motives and behavior of those who
disapprove of his violations. His condemners, he may claim, are hypocrites,
deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal spite. This orientation towards
the conforming world may be of particular importance when it hardens into a
bitter cynicism directed against those assigned the task of enforcing or
expressing the norms of the dominant society.[30]

It is interesting to note that this, from the work
done in 1957, is considered delinquent
behavior and is the predominant approach used by the neo-conservative talk show
hosts around the United
States today. One might be tempted to
observe that the juvenile delinquents have taken over the airways of the United States.
This cannot be a shock since, as one study from the early 2000s put it,[31]
most people do not emotionally mature past the age of 14. This would mean the
talk show jocks are functioning at a juvenile level. It seems to be indicated
by their behavior and rhetoric. The attacks become personal and the discussion,
if it can be called such, descends into the realm of a school yard brawl.[32]
This achieves a number of aims. It defers the question and leaves it
unanswered. It shifts the attention from the topic desperately needing to be
answered to personalities. It calls into question the credibility of the person
asking the question. It also, all important in the commercial media, makes for
grand entertainment for the populace who has embraced pseudo-gladiatorial
games.

One of the “cat calls” in the neo-conservative
arsenal is an exasperated, “You (he/she/they) just don’t get it.” To “get it”
is tantamount to being on the inside of the discussion or being part of the
“in” crowd. If someone doesn’t “get it” they are not cool, hip, with it, fresh
or whatever the current term is for having the insider’s track in the cultural
dialogue. The point where the argument may become a dialogue is where the
person who does not “get it” admits that the conservative dogma is not
comprehensible. A calm reply of, “No, I don’t get it,” usually ends the string
of insulting barbs unless the conservative is a bully looking for a fight.

The admission that the conservative perspective is
mysterious when viewed within classical institutional means can open dialogue.
However, it is interesting to note, that frequently, the conservative will have
no further dialogue to input. The reason for this are discussed a little later
within a expanded look at Colvin’s work. The conservative dogma in light of
institutional means is pretty much insupportable. It cannot be supported by
social science, and it cannot be supported within the religious writings which
are often used as a justification for the actions taken, and the attitudes
held. One would presume that if the United States is a Christian nation
that the teachings of Jesus would be held in high esteem. The teachings of
Jesus are dismissed as the rambling of lunatic liberal Christians. One would assume
that loving Jesus would mean paying more heed to the teachings of Jesus than a
politically active preaching using the tax exempt pulpit for the gain of the
GOP and the furtherance of the political agenda meant to increase its personal
status and wealth.

Within this matrix the liberals are not without fault
either. They adhere to the ideal of the classical institutional means as
prescribed by enlightenment, but are unable to explain how those institutional
means remain relevant within the current globalized marketplace. Moreover, they
tend to pay lip service to institutional means but follow the course of action
more akin to the conservative approach: the acquisition of wealth through any
means so long as they get their share of the resources. This usually manifests
in a general apathy and indifference towards any real changes and improvement
in society. Digging deeper in the liberal psychology one finds that many
liberals are deeply vested in the status quo and don’t want change so they can
reap the rewards of the capitalist system which they decry so vehemently.

If the conservative agenda is one of innovation, that
is the altering of institutional means to achieve the socially acceptable goals,
 then the liberal is engaged in some form
of ritualism. This is understandable given that the aging baby boomer
population (born between 1945 and 1964[33])
has seen the limits of liberalized policy. The later boomers, according to Philip
Marchand,[34]

are “… more scared and nervous he’s likely
to be about [the economic] situation. This accounts for the profound
conservatism often found among students [in 1979]. Most of these students are
aware that the unemployment rate for the age group fifteen to twenty-four is
around fifteen per cent. Most of them are aware that the older brothers and
sisters have had serious problems getting the jobs they were trained for in
university.”

Today’s liberal is dutifully adhering to the training
and teaching during the rebellious days of the late 1960s and early 1970s,
without having the heart to make systemic corrections. As the baby boomers near
the end of their lives, they really don’t want changes which may cause loss.
This again indicates a functionality which is locked at the safety level of Maslow’s
hierarchy.

According to XINHUA online “The United States leads
in mental illness globally with 46 percent of Americans suffering mental
disorders ranging from anxiety, depression to substance abuse in their lifetime
…[35]
“ This was reported by the Washington Post. This has been echoed in Medscape Today’s article on Depression and Minorities by Jerrold F.
Rosenbaum, MD and Amy E. Judy.[36]
While such documentation may be met with skepticism, honest evaluation by
competent members of the psychiatric community is needed. The U.S. predilection towards excusing criminal
behavior for gain is destroying the mental health of the citizens of the United States.
According to Colvin’s Crime and Coercion,
constant coercion produces specific social-psychological outcomes:[37]

·     
High level of self-directed anger.

·     
Rigid self-control, based on constant fear of a
painful response.

·     
External locus of control.

·     
Low self-efficacy.

·     
Weak, calculative social bond.

·     
Strong modeling for coercive behavior.

·     
Perception of a control deficit accompanied by
resignation.

And it produces given and specific behavioral
outcomes:

·     
Low probability of criminal behavior.

·     
Low probability of pro-social behavior.

·     
High probability of mental health problems, such
as chronic depression.

·     
Some potential for a righteously enraged assault
or murder.

While constant coercion may produce a crime free
world, it is also a highly depleted environment when it comes to creativeness
for good will and a compassionate, and appropriate, competition within the
marketplace.

Colvin’s use of the phrase “Low probability of
criminal behavior” is a bit misleading as crime in this case is specific to the
edicts of those who are forcing the behavior on others. Crime in such cases is
defined as volition of cultural goals by institutional means.[38]

The observable “external locus of control” is what we
see expressed within the conspiracy theories in existence today. However, it is
also in the resignation that the system cannot change and will not change.
“They” are in control and “we” cannot do anything about it. This is echoed in
the “perception of a control deficit accompanied by resignation.” When added to
the “strong modeling for coercive behavior” the subject becomes coercive and
perpetuates, and often worsens, the coercion of others. This coercive behavior
is the source of the nation’s mental disorders and the cause of the
conservative’s inclination toward bullying behavior. Having been bullied into
accepting the system as it exists, they will bully others into accepting the
system as it exists without questioning the validity of the system. In our case,
the system is capitalism. Coercion includes but is not limited to official indifference.
This includes indifference and apathy towards others who are suffering economic
hardship due to the ineffective or selfish distribution and allocation of
resources. The “I’ve got mine, screw you!” attitude is coercion. Moreover, it is probably the shortest route to
eventual warfare.[39]

Essentially what occurred following the November 7,
2000 general election was a bloodless revolution of conservative baby boomers
and their generation X[40]
allies. Both the cultural goals of a kinder society within the capitalist
framework and the institutional means[41]
were tossed aside. What we have seen since December 13, 2000 is not what was
promised by George W. Bush. If “the president of the United
States is the president of every single American, of
every race and every background[42]”,
then we have been missing what that means to the people of the United States.
What we have seen is a cold, callous, administration which favors only the
winners in the economic competition.

This is more a manifestation of the collective
conservative version of the counter culture of the 1960s and 1970s. Everything that has occurred since the
November 2000 election has been a manifestation of a conservative revolution.
To document all that has occurred since the conservative revolution is a work
best suited for another time. It is sufficient within this discussion to note
that it did happen, and what we have today is a result of that revolution.
Cronyism, nepotism, and the stratification of socioeconomic levels are so
common in today’s marketplace that they are core values within the current
expression of institutional means. Whether or not this has hurt the U.S.
society depends on one’s view of no-bid government contracts, security services
provided through private organizations like Blackwater, corporate influences on
the government at the expense of the citizens, and the return, for all intents
and purposes, to the social goals and institutional means of 1902, as
dramatized in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.

If the loss of 100 years of progress is acceptable,
then this society, and the inevitable criminality of the privileged, is
nirvana. If it is not acceptable, then the conservative revolution of November
2000 needs to be viewed as a failed social experiment, and we need to address
where we are heading as a nation without the posturing and name calling.

The discussion, if there is one, needs to be based on
what works and what doesn’t. A critical eye needs to be cast on how we define
what works. Is it good for a society that a few should amass wealth through
means which are essentially harmful and, as such, criminal, even if acceptable
and legal? Are there other goals in a society comprised of 300 million people
who are being neglected in pursuit of the primary goal? Moreover, how do we
justify that being intelligent and gifted are now liabilities.

We give lip service to intelligence and education,
but define it within the narrow parameters of what the business community deems
of value to the corporation. That is a very narrow pathway. They control the
allocation of economic resources.

It is at this point that we need to look at the
warnings of economist Joseph Schumpeter.

“Schumpeter believed that capitalism would
be destroyed by its successes. Capitalism would spawn, he believed, a large
intellectual class that made its living by attacking the very bourgeois system
of private property and freedom so necessary for the intellectual class’s
existence. And unlike Marx, Schumpeter did not relish the destruction of
capitalism. He wrote: ‘If a doctor predicts that his patient will die
presently, this does not mean that he desires it.’ ”[43]

This is seen in the E.U. today. While the E.U. is still filled with
innovative ideas, it lacks the will necessary to engage in the “creative
destruction” (another term coined by Schumpeter) necessary to push the
capitalistic system forward. As one observer put it, the E.U. is like a museum
where the children can look but not touch.

Within the dialogue of what is wrong with the United
States, Robert Jensen wrote that the U.S. has become a nation of the
clinically narcissistic.[44]

DSM-IV describes the disorder as “a pervasive
pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack
of empathy” that can be diagnosed when any five of these nine criteria are met:

1.    
a
grandiose sense of self-importance.

2.    
preoccupied
with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance,        beauty, or ideal love.

3.    
believes
he or she is special and unique.

4.    
requires
excessive admiration.

5.    
sense
of entitlement.

6.    
interpersonally
exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve      his or her own ends.

7.    
lacks
empathy.

8.    
often
envious of others or believes that others are envious of him         or her.

9.    
shows
arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Narcissistic tendencies to self-aggrandize are not
unique to the United States,
of course. But given the predominance of U.S. power in the world, we should
worry most about the consequences of such narcissism here.

If that is a valid critique, and it fits within the
parameters of the mental health of the nation, then the E.U. has a very
different form of the same illness. The E.U. is fixated on their “grandiose
sense of self-importance” for what they were,
and not who they are. They resemble
the old high-school quarterback sitting in a seedy bar reminiscing about the
glory days of passing the game winning touch-down as he awaits his next
assignment at the local day labor agency. As the world passes the E.U. by, it
dreams of what it once was.

As far as Schumpeter’s warning about the death of capitalism
at the hands of the intellectual class living off the fat of the capitalistic
system, his view is limited to the rising trend of the late 1940s. It is not
the fat intellectual who now condemns capitalism, nor, for that matter the
proletariat of Marx’s vision, but the disenfranchised of the current globalized
trend.

These disenfranchised individuals do not want the
destruction of capitalism, but look for opportunity to engage freely in the
system. They want to express what Schumpeter called the unternehmergeist
(entrepreneur-spirit) so vital in keeping capitalism alive. That spirit today,
however, is caught up in providing vice as a viable service. It is lacking in
vision and inventiveness.

We have a narcissistic fixation of image over
substance and a predatory protectionism of that image. Our current image is that
we are a productive nation.

This creates an environment where economic resources
and opportunity are hampered at the local level, and where predatory
competition can get out of control. This out of control predatory competition
is essentially the root cause of all levels of criminal activity. The question
then becomes: how do we put controls on predatory competition?

We have looked at Colvin’s coercion matrix at the
extreme: constant, Coercive. While it does match what is happening in many corporations
in the United States
today, he does not write from a doomed perspective. He addresses the outcome of
the Consistent, non-coercive environment. Colvin says, “This is a non-coercive
type of control in which strong social support of both expressive and
institutional needs are provided.”[45]  This type of control, writes Colvin,
“utilizes a combination of normative and remunerative control.”

It produces the following social-psychological
outcomes:

·     
Low anger.

·     
High self-control, based on internalization of
norms.

·     
Internal locus of Control.

·     
High self-efficacy.

·     
Strong, positive, moral social bond.

·     
No modeling for coercive behavior.

·     
No perceived control deficit or control surplus
(control balance).

And it produces the following behavioral outcomes:

·      Generally non-criminal, non-delinquent.

·     
Strong tendency to engage in pro-social behavior
….

Pro-social behavior is not what we have in the United States today.

The idea that corporations have to be coercive in
order to compete in the capitalistic system is in error. It flies in the face
of basic human behavior, the known science of psychology, the facts presented
in criminology, and basic common sense. Common sense, as we pretty much
understand, is not common. Maybe in the business community quid pro quo is
misconstrued as something for nothing, or the most amounts of labor and
resources for the least amount of wages, but the human dynamic demands a
certain reasonable exchange rate for services which allow survival within the
economic environment. Paying someone poverty level wages, and doing all that
can be done to squeeze them for basic necessities are not contained within the quid
pro quo ideal. Something for something implies that the something given in
exchange for services is of equal value. If corporations conspire to impoverish
their employees, then the exchange is unequal and criminal in nature. As such
it is unethical.

John C. Maxwell is an internationally
recognized leadership expert, speaker, and author who has sold over 13 million
books. His organizations have trained more than 2 million leaders worldwide.
Dr. Maxwell is the founder of EQUIP and INJOY Stewardship Services. Every year
he speaks to Fortune 500 companies, international government leaders, and
organizations as diverse as the United States
Military Academy
at West Point and the National Football
League. A New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week best-selling
author, Maxwell was named the World’s Top Leadership Guru by
Leadershipgurus.net. He was also one of only 25 authors and artists named to
Amazon.com’s 10th Anniversary Hall of Fame. Three of his books, The 21
Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Developing the Leader Within You, and The 21
Indispensable Qualities of a Leader have each sold over a million copies.[46]

John C. Maxwell is one of the prominent business
leaders today who should be required reading at any level of business
education. From what we see in business during these past six years, one can
only presume that he has been completely ignored recently. Before delving into
a discussion of his work in Ethics 101:
What Every Leader Needs to Know it is worth noting his credentials.

His bachelor’s degree is from Ohio Christian
University. He holds a
Masters of Divinity from Azusa
Pacific University.
His Doctorate in Ministry is from Fuller Theological Seminary.

With these kinds of credentials one would think that
Dr. Maxwell is a darling of the Religious Right. A search on the web reveals no
connection between Dr. Maxwell and the Religious Right. Why? As a speculative
guess, one might conclude that the teachings of Dr. Maxwell and the religious
branch of the neo-conservatives do not mesh. Dr. Maxwell teaches from a
position of classical institutional means, and that is not the position of the
Religious Right.

According to John C. Maxwell, “There’s no such thing
as business ethics – there’s only ethics.”[47]

This is where we come full circle. When this report
began we established that the writings of antiquity, taken literally, do not
function well within the reality of our non-agrarian, post-modern economic
model. However, again as stated, they do give us insight as to what has worked
in principal for thousands of years. Those writings do give us the history of
what has worked and what has not worked over some six to ten thousand years of
human struggle. This is where Maxwell draws his inspiration for the lessons in
ethical behavior.

Henry Adams, and history professor at Harvard, has
stated that “Morality is a private and costly luxury.”[48]
Maxwell’s response to this is, “… in today’s culture of high debt and me-first
living, ethics may be the only luxury … people are living without!”[49]
Based on what we have seen thus far in this report, that is a valid assessment
of the situation in the U.S.
today.

To reiterate Maslow’s work, “The lower the needs in
the hierarchy, the more fundamental they are and the more a person will tend to
abandon the higher needs in order to pay attention to sufficiently meeting the
lower needs.”[50]
This is cited from ChangingMinds.Org and repeats what we discussed previously
from Wikipedia. The ChanginMinds.Org article goes so far as to give this piece
of advice:

To distract people from higher needs,
threaten their lower needs. It is no surprise that poison has been effectively
used to bring down kings and princes without necessarily killing them.[51]

This reaffirms much of the previous discussion on
this topic. It also gives a hint on what the corporations have been pulling over
on the people of the United
States. As we see in Maslow’s hierarchy, the
fear of loss is lower on the motivational scale than ethics, as such it
represents a much stronger drive. Rationalized, however, it can be said that
human beings are still responsible for the decisions they make and the actions
they take. This is well within the conservative mantra of Crime as a Rational Choice. We can still make the choice to pay the
price for ethical actions even in an amoral capitalistic system.

According to Maxwell there are three basic reasons
for ethical dilemmas:

1.    
We do what is convenient.[52]

2.    
We do what we must to win.[53]

3.    
We rationalize our choices with relativism.[54]

Of the latter, he writes, “Where our decisions were
once passed on ethics, now ethics are based on our decisions.”[55]
In a recent discussion with a branding expert, it was revealed that laying off
tens of thousands of people is now considered responsible and ethical. It begs
the question, in light of the reality of the business community and the corporations,
responsible and ethical to whom? Not the individuals who are laid off, then
rehired as contract labor at much lower rates. Not the community who has
suffered a loss in expendable income to support the community. Not the
consumers who are still being charged at the pre-layoff levels. How do you
defend that the “savings” are not passed on to the consumer? How can you defend
that in the wake of massive layoffs that the prices are raising? The situation
has gotten so bad that even George W. Bush chastised corporate executives for
the excessive bonus checks they were writing themselves, and the Corporate
Boards of Directors for allowing such actions to occur. This was reported in The
Wall Street Journal.[56]
 Moreover, “the bottom 50% earned
12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13%
share in 2000.”[57]
 

So what is the solution to the ethical dilemma?
According to Maxwell, it is the Golden Rule. Other religions mirror the same
sentiment, here are a few:[58]

·     
“And if thine eyes be turned towards
justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.”
Epistle to the Son of the Wolf — Bahá’í
Faith[59]

·     
“This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do
naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you”.
Mahabharata, 5:1517 “—Brahmanism

·     
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself
would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18—Buddhism

·     
“And as ye would that men should do to
you, do ye also to them likewise.” Luke 6:31, King James Version. –
Christianity

·     
“Do not do to others what you do not
want them to do to you” Analects 15:23 – Confucianism

·     
“Do for one who may do for you, that you
may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110
Translated by R.B. Parkinson. — Ancient
Egyptian (dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever
written).

·     
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others
what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517 – Hinduism

·     
“Don’t do things you wouldn’t want to
have done to you, British Humanist Society—Humanism

·     
“None of you [truly] believes until he
wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Number 13 of Imam
“Al-Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths.” – Islam

·     
“A man should wander about treating all
creatures as he himself would be treated. “Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 – Jainism

·     
“What is hateful to you, do not to your
fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” Talmud,
Shabbat 31a. – Judaism

·     
“All things are our relatives; what we
do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One.” Black Elk —
Native American Spirituality

·     
“The law imprinted on the hearts of all
men is to love the members of society as themselves.” — Roman Pagan Religion

·     
“The heart of the person before you is a
mirror. See there your own form” – Shinto

·     
“Don’t create enmity with anyone as God
is within everyone.” Guru Arjan Devji 259 – Sikhism

·     
“The basis of Sufism is consideration of
the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s
heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no
sin exists but this.” Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi
Sufi Order. – Sufism

·     
“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own
gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” T’ai Shang Kan
Ying P’ien. – Taoism

·     
“We affirm and promote respect for the
interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.” Unitarian
principles. – Unitarian

·     
“An it harm no one, do what thou
wilt” (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody,
including yourself). – Wicca

·     
“One going to take a pointed stick to
pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”
— Yoruba: (Nigeria)

·     
“Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do
not do unto others.”  Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 – Zoroastrianism

Everything
points to our collective lack of ethics in the U.S. As Saint Paul wrote, “For the love of
money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred
from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” [60]
Not money, per se, but the “love of money.” How does this compare to “Greed is
Good?”

We can either turn this nation around or we can all
burn in the hell of our own making … and it doesn’t matter if one is a liberal,
conservative, Republican or Democrat.