Ethics Newsline®

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Last week, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh sought to skew the Democratic presidential primary in Indiana in favor of Hillary Clinton. What he did was perfectly legal. Why then did it strike so many people as unethical?

Here’s the background. As the nation headed into the latest primaries, it was well understood that Clinton could not lose both North Carolina and Indiana and still keep her campaign alive. Barack Obama was favored to win North Carolina, which he did. Clinton was favored in Indiana. She won, but only by 14,000 votes.

Well understood, too, was the need for Democrats to end the primary season quickly and focus on John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. Every argument that Clinton and Obama lobbed at each other potentially could weaken one or the other of them later in the general election, so the Republicans were keen to see the Democratic primary continue as long as possible.

Into that mix stepped Mr. Limbaugh. He recognized that once John McCain had dispatched his competition, Republicans had no reason to vote in their own primaries. So he began urging them to do two things they probably found repugnant: vote in Democratic primaries and vote for Clinton. Prior to the March 4 Democratic primaries in Texas and Ohio, Republicans who crossed over to vote had strongly favored Obama. Had that trend continued, the Democratic primary might have ended much earlier with an Obama victory. Limbaugh’s strategy — he called it Operation Chaos — had the avowed purpose of messing up the Democratic primary by keeping Clinton’s campaign alive as long as possible.

Did it work? Nobody’s quite sure. Limbaugh congratulated himself roundly for bumping up Clinton’s numbers in Indiana and extending the Democrats’ travails. Obama’s campaign appeared to credit Limbaugh’s legions with delivering Clinton’s narrow margin of victory. Those who pore over exit polls, however, see too much complexity to be sure of the Limbaugh effect. But on one point all agree: The Indiana primary was a high-stakes venture that future historians may credit with partly determining the next president.

Who wins, however, doesn’t affect the legality of Limbaugh’s efforts. Nor does it change the ethics of the situation. Legally, he’s in the right: Like any of us, he can seek to influence citizens to vote his way. But ethics depends on motives. The motive behind a primary is to allow a party’s own voters to decide their nominee. In most primaries, voters participate in good faith, assuming that other voters are acting with equal integrity. They trust that voters who cast primary ballots probably are going to vote the same way in November if their candidate becomes the nominee. Since March, however, a significant block of Republicans apparently set out to game the system by infiltrating the Democratic decision-making process. Their motive, far from wanting to help the Democrats, was to tilt the results to their detriment. The tip-off in Indiana came from exit polls, which found strangely large numbers of voters who said, “I’m a Republican,” “I voted for Clinton just now,” but “in November I plan to vote for McCain.”

That a talk-show personality would seek to raise himself in popular approval by tinkering with the fundamentals of democracy in this way is, perhaps, not surprising. That so many Republicans would follow his lead, however, is saddening. Many of them are people who take pride in their integrity, their respect for the individuality of their fellows, and their strong sense of responsibility, transparency, and community. Many are real patriots with a deep love for the nation’s democratic processes. They are, in other words, ethical folks.

What led them astray? They simply fell for two unstated clichés that seemed to drive Limbaugh’s thinking. One is the old canard that if it ain’t illegal, it must be ethical — as though the world’s highest moral standard were “break no rule” rather than “live consistently with your ethical compass.” The other cliché is, Do whatever it takes — as though the end justifies the means, motives don’t matter, and manipulation and duplicity are fine as long as you win. Armed with that philosophy, even a wholesale abandonment of principled influencing can be made to sound plausible.

Which is why Operation Chaos struck so many people as unethical. Most voters, and most Limbaugh listeners, would never raise their own children under these two clichés. As rules for living, “if it ain’t illegal…” and “whatever it takes” fall at the first hurdle. But in the heat of an election, and under the influence of a talk-radio tradition that trades largely in clichés, it’s easy for voters to let down their guard. Failing to examine motives and duped by an excitable discourse that doesn’t always make its moral standards explicit, they allowed themselves to be subjected to manipulative clichés.

Good ethics cases don’t usually flow from high-decibel talk-radio shows, so at least credit Limbaugh for giving classrooms around the nation a lucid illustration that what’s legal isn’t always what’s ethical.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“With the attendant publicity that’s emerged over the last few years, there is an ethical question raised that some candidates don’t want to be associated with.”

– Dr. Jerry Polinard, a political science professor at the University of Texas-Pan American, talking to the New York Times about the practice of paying people to round up votes for primaries and other elections. Defenders of the practice — called paying “street money” — say it’s simply a traditional part of getting out the vote. Critics say it smacks of buying votes, with canvassers negotiating with “rival campaigns to get the best price before deciding whom to support,” notes the Times.

Source: New York Times, May 13.

Among the questions: Should relief workers bow to demands of abusive and secretive government?

BANGKOK, Thailand
The cyclone devastation in Myanmar last week focused attention not only on the practical aspects of recovery from the ravages of a cyclone, but also on the moral issues attendant to the obstructionism of the nation’s insular, dictatorial government.

As of late last week, some estimates put the number of dead at roughly 22,000, with about 41,000 missing.

Aid organizations have found their work hampered by restrictions imposed by Myanmar’s government, which is suspicious of outsiders and incapable of handling the logistics of disaster relief, reports CNN.

In Myanmar, also known as Burma, it is difficult for aid agencies to obtain permission to begin operations, and disaster relief supplies often are confiscated by the government. Also, relief workers are forced to operate under stringent guidelines, and those who disobey find themselves the target of harassment.

The U.K. Guardian’s Conor Foley reports that humanitarian organizations face a wrenching ethical dilemma when confronted with such circumstances: “Countries such as Burma and North Korea, where the [World Food Programme] … has a large program, pose a real dilemma for humanitarian agencies about how far they should be prepared to accept such restrictions in the interests of the people they are trying to help. When Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, some humanitarian agencies, such as Oxfam, suspended their programs rather than comply with the Taliban’s anti-women edicts. Oxfam eventually concluded this had been a mistake that had caused greater suffering to ordinary Afghans, but there clearly is a tension of conflicting principles in such situations.”

Analysts say one reason Myanmar has clamped down on foreign aid workers is that leaders of the ruling junta worry that others would be given credit for the nation’s recovery.

But as the International Herald Tribune notes, government forces are largely absent from the cleanup: “Where are all those uniformed people who are always ready to beat civilians?” asked one man, who refused to be identified. “They should come out in full force and help clean up the areas and restore electricity.”

The spectacular failure of the nation’s government, reports TIME, is leading to another moral dilemma: whether to invade Myanmar in order to save it. Some, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the United States to begin air drops in defiance of the junta’s orders.

The United States has engaged in similar actions in the past, most notably in Bosnia and Sudan. But former U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland says such coercive aid carries enormous risks. “You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create? I can’t imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food,” he told TIME.

Sources: International Herald Tribune, May 10 — TIME, May 10 — Guardian, May 10 — CNN, May 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 2, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 5, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 31, 2005.

Europe’s largest defense contractor is urged to adopt measures that will prevent graft

LONDON
A review of business practices at giant British defense firm BAE Systems Plc. has called for a tough code of ethics.

Forbes reports that an independent committee organized to recommend reforms urged the firm to publish a global ethics code and to reinforce anti-bribery measures.

The panel, chaired by prominent British jurist Lord Woolf, was formed at the request of the company’s board a year ago in the wake of a scandal fueled by allegations that BAE’s multi-billion-dollar arms trade with Saudi Arabia was propelled by bribery, according to a report from the Economist.

BAE had denied it was involved in bribery.

Other recommendations, reports intelligence and weaponry journal Jane’s, include a mandatory ethics training program for every employee. A senior executive also should be given responsibility for the ethics program, the report recommends.

In addition, the report calls on BAE to implement a more rigorous system to select advisers to help negotiate contracts in various nations. The Times of London reports that the Woolf committee wants face-to-face interviews with advisers, with a company lawyer present, and full public disclosure of advisers’ identities.

British authorities had been formally investigating bribery allegations but that probe was halted after the government said that further scrutiny would endanger national security.

Sources: Jane’s, May 10 — Forbes, May 9 — Economist, May 9 — Times of London, May 7.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 14 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, July 30, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 14, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 18, 2006.

But Heinrich von Pierer still may face civil liability under German law that holds execs liable for negligence

MUNICH
Prosecutors in Germany may begin civil procedures against the former chairman of engineering and electronics titan Siemens, who resigned after the firm was enmeshed in a probe of alleged widespread bribery.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the proceedings against Heinrich von Pierer could carry fines but not imprisonment. Under German corporate law, an executive found liable for negligence that causes harm to a company can be fined up to $1.5 million.

According to Berlin-based publication Deutsche Welle, prosecutors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal case against von Pierer, who resigned from Siemens after allegations surfaced that sales executives had maintained slush finds to bribe officials in Greece, Italy, and other nations to buy telecommunications equipment and other products from the company.

UPI reports that von Pierer repeatedly has denied any knowledge of bribes.

An internal report commissioned by Siemens, though, found that virtually all sectors of the global business were affected by active corruption, according to the Agence France-Presse.

Sources: Deutsche Welle, May 9 — AFP, May 9 — Wall Street Journal, May 9 — UPI, Apr. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 5 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 24, 2007.

At issue are allegations of bribery and improper contracts

VARIOUS DATELINES
Allegations of bribery figured in news stories from various datelines last week:

• Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert continued to defy calls for his resignation in the wake of charges that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes. Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports that Olmert continues to deny any wrongdoing, saying that any appearance of impropriety results from the nation’s convoluted campaign-finance laws.
• In Bangladesh, prosecutors last week pressed formal charges against former premier Sheikh Hasina, arrested the former energy minister, and detained seven others for allegedly accepting bribes for the award of gas exploration and extraction rights. Hasina has been detained since last year as part of an anticorruption campaign by the government, reports the Bangladesh Star. She and others involved in the case have denied all charges.
• Ireland’s prime minister, Bertie Ahern, officially resigned last week as political pressure mounted over allegations of improper cash payments he received as finance minister in the 1990s, according to a report from the Voice of America. Ahern has denied any wrongdoing.
• Thailand’s former premier, Thaksin Shinawatra, and his wife will testify in person at their corruption trial in August, reports the Bangkok Post. Thaksin was overthrown in a bloodless coup after revelations became public of a business deal in which he allegedly avoided tax payments.

Sources: Ha’aretz, May 11 — Bangladesh Daily Star, May 9 — Voice of America, May 9 — Bangkok Post, May 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 22 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 15, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 8, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 30, 2007.

Critics say racing industry could do more to protect animals

LEXINGTON, Ky.
The death of filly Eight Belles immediately after the Kentucky Derby has raised ethics questions about the nature of horse racing, according to press reports.

Eight Belles broke both ankles after passing the finish line and was euthanized on the track.

Lindsay Rajit, a spokeswoman for People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals, claimed that “money and speed is all that matters to these people, and Eight Belles is the most famous recent example in a string of broken and dead animals,” according to an Associated Press report.

Others have said that what happened to the filly was a freak accident, reminiscent of mishaps in all sports at all levels, the Washington Post reports.

The U.K. Guardian notes that the world press reflected an outpouring of anger over thoroughbred racing, with some critics contending that horses were overbred and over-raced to the point where their bodies cannot withstand the strain.

In an editorial, the San Jose Mercury News — located in California, a state that is home to a $4-billion horse racing industry — called for reform.

“This is a sport that needs to clean up its act,” the editorial says. “Horse racing standards in Japan and throughout Europe are stricter than in the United States, especially in regard to drug use. It’s incredible that this country doesn’t even have a national organization to govern the sport. Each state has its own rules, and questionable practices by horse trainers are common. The Kentucky Derby still doesn’t test horses for steroids, and its hard, dirt-track surface may have contributed to Eight Belles’ death.”

Sources: Guardian, May 9 — Washington Post, May 9 — AP, May 9 — San Jose Mercury News, May 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 28 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 11.

“We are biologically programmed to be moral,” says scientist who used scanner to monitor brain activity

WASHINGTON
A new study shows that most people emphasize the concept of fairness when faced with an ethical dilemma.

ABC News reports that researchers from the California Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois showed that humans’ sense of ethics and fairness is deeply rooted in emotional processing.

The researchers based their results on brain scans of 26 people who played an electronic game in which they had to make tough choices about an orphanage facing a food shortage, Newsweek reports.

According to the journal Science, the basic scenario focused on a tough choice: Would you use a more efficient way of distributing food that would bring in more food overall but result in some children having less food than others, or would you choose a less-efficient mechanism that would result in less food being brought into the starvation zone while allowing it to be distributed equally?

The results: Fairness almost always trumps efficiency — as evidenced by brain scans showing more activity in the insula, the area of the brain associated with fairness, as opposed to the putamen, the region of the brain dealing with logic and reason, according to London’s Daily Telegraph.

Dr. Steven Quartz of Cal Tech told the Telegraph that there is “a good deal of evidence regarding the willingness of people to enforce fairness norms even when it comes at a cost to themselves.”

“We are biologically primed to be moral,” Quartz said.

Sources: ABC News, May 9 — Science, May 9 — Telegraph, May 9 — Newsweek, May 8.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 7 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 12, 2007 — Abstract of study, Science, May 9.

But polls reflect ambivalence, and some say the practice could be justified under extreme circumstances

BOSTON
U.S. faith communities are joining a national campaign to prohibit torture or other inhumane treatment of U.S.-held detainees, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

The Monitor reports that more than 175 religious organizations have signed onto the National Religious Campaign against torture. Members come from Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh faiths, among others.

But the paper notes that the campaign may have its work cut out for it, noting that “polls since 2001 show great divergence and ambivalence in public attitudes toward the interrogation and treatment of alleged terrorists. And Congress so far has not convinced the administration to change course.”

While many religious leaders have condemned torture, there is disagreement over what constitutes torture and whether harsh interrogation is ever justified. Some argue that the rules may have to be suspended temporarily under extreme circumstances, reports the Monitor.

Source: Christian Science Monitor, May 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 11 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 4 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 31, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007.

“More than 90 percent of firms plan to maintain or increase their spending on HIV/AIDS over the coming years,” report finds

From the Conference Board:

“Major companies are creating a wide variety of programs to help employees deal with the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, according to a report released today by The Conference Board, the global business research and membership organization.

“The report finds that 82 percent of the 134 major firms surveyed have HIV/AIDS programs aimed at helping employees already suffering from the disease or at risk of infection…. The study builds on a 1997 report on the corporate response to this dilemma. It also draws on the experiences of companies whose operations in sub-Saharan Africa and other high-prevalence regions have put them on the disease’s front lines.

“More than two-thirds of the surveyed companies have been affected by HIV/AIDS, with one-fifth of these firms anticipating a growing impact of this epidemic over the next three years. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 67 percent of all adults and children suffering from HIV last year. The disease has yet to peak in most of southern Africa.

“Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe/Central Asia are high-risk regions….

“Worldwide, the number of people living with HIV rose from 29 million in 2001 to 33.2 million in 2007. Forty percent of new cases are among individuals 15 to 24, the age at which employees are just entering the workforce and will require ever greater medical care throughout their working lives. Companies feel the impact of HIV/AIDS in many ways. Fewer skilled workers and managers, greater absenteeism and turnover, and higher healthcare and insurance costs can reduce productivity and increase expenses.

“‘While there is no cure, medical advances have made it possible for people with the disease to live longer, achieve better quality of life, and be more productive, both at home and in the workplace,’ said Henry Silvert, Research Associate at The Conference Board and author of the report. ‘In response to this new reality, and faced with an expected growth of new infections, more companies have been stepping up efforts to provide programs that effectively meet the needs of their employees living with the disease, or the risk of infection.’

“In 1997, The Conference Board published its first report on the corporate response to HIV/AIDS. Ten years later, HIV/AIDS in the Workplace examines the current state of company programs around the world. The report examines trends, best practices, benefits and challenges that executives have faced in their efforts to tackle the HIV/AIDS needs of their employees.

“Some key findings:

• “Few firms have totally escaped the impact of HIV/AIDS. Over two-thirds of respondents’ company operations have been affected by HIV/AIDS. One-fifth expect more impact from HIV/AIDS over the next three years.
• “More than 90 percent of firms plan to maintain or increase their spending on HIV/AIDS over the coming years. Firms with operations in high-prevalence sub-Saharan Africa lead in planned spending increases….
• “Regardless of location, respondents identified the following non-financial concerns as the top motivators for investing in HIV/AIDS related programs: social responsibility; creating and sustaining an inclusive environment for all employees; welfare of employees living with HIV/AIDS.
• “Three-quarters of firms report some type of gain from their programs. Top gains include increased awareness of the risk factors associated with HIV/AIDS, decreased fears of becoming infected, increased worker morale, increased motivation and commitment, and decreased absenteeism….
• “Employee assistance programs were the top overall initiative in both the 1997 and 2007 surveys. Among companies with HIV/AIDS programs, education and training programs, resource and referral services, and HIV/AIDS counseling were the top initiatives.
• “Common hurdles include a lack of funds or personnel, an obstructive corporate culture that fosters resistance, and difficulty guaranteeing privacy and freedom from discrimination….”

For more information, see the full press release from the Conference Board, Apr. 10.

“To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence.”

– Samuel Clemens (a.k.a. Mark Twain; U.S. humorist, writer, and lecturer, 1835-1910)