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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Last week’s revelations about bonuses paid to AIG executives raised numerous questions. For some voters, they were questions about money and finance. For others, they were about law and regulation. But for Barry C. Black, “the issue of Wall Street versus Main Street” is an “important ethical issue,” causing lawmakers to ask, What’s right?

As chaplain of the U.S. Senate, Dr. Black sees his role as “spiritual fitness advisor and ethical coach” to senators. What he’s seen convinces him that the broadest questions facing the future direction of the nation are rarely matters of right versus wrong. Instead, they bring to bear powerful moral arguments on both sides. While partisans may see them in stark right-versus-wrong terms, Black says that by the time such issues “reach the Senate chamber, they are nuanced — they are definitely right-versus-right conundrums.”

A retired rear admiral and former chief of Navy chaplains, Black is the first black American, the first military chaplain, and the first Seventh-day Adventist to hold this position, which was established in 1789. His is not a political post: His five years in the chaplain’s vault-ceilinged, fireplaced, and book-lined office in the Capitol already have spanned a change in parties. So in discussing senatorial decision making during a telephone conversation last month with members of our Institute, he maintained a thoughtfully nonpartisan stance.

No doubt as a result, there’s hardly a moral issue that the senators haven’t discussed with him, including abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, Terry Shiavo and the right to life, the question of just or unjust wars, the public expression of sectarian views — and now, of course, the economic stimulus package. One of his tasks, as he sees it, is to help senators “look through ethical lenses” in order to “enable each lawmaker, after voting, to at least be able to explain to the press why he or she voted that way, and give ethical reasons for the vote.”

Sometimes, he says, senators invite his help and counsel on particular topics. Sometimes they attend his weekly prayer breakfasts. Sometimes they visit the Bible study sessions he conducts five times a week. And sometimes they seek him out in his office in more private ways — “you know,” he chuckles, “‘Oh, Chaplain, I was just passing by!’” — and end up coming in for an hour of conversation.

But the core question is always the same: What’s the right thing to do?

While Black sees “a tremendous amount of faith on Capitol Hill,” he’s not blind to the temptations senators face. As humans, he says, we sometimes “tend to move toward the darker angels of our nature” and “avoid the ethical narrow road.” Politicians in particular, he says, can get caught up all too easily in “the things that accompany power.” When “you start believing the news clippings, you start believing the accolades,” he explains, it sometimes becomes “easier to see the ethical lapses of others than your own.”

I asked Black how he himself negotiates the fine line between helping others find their own way and simply telling them what he thinks they should do — especially when the vote on which they may be seeking guidance could have what he calls “incredibly challenging and negative unintended consequences” if his advice were wrong.

“I find if you are not doctrinaire and dogmatic,” he says, “and if you delay providing your perspective until you are certain that the individual has used some of his or her creative juices, then by the time you get around to making some suggestions or observations, you are pretty much helping an individual solidify a position that he or she is already leaning toward.”

In his ethics training work, he explains, he helps the participants understand that different ethical perspectives — all of which are “right” — can produce very different conclusions. But “by encouraging them to do their own thinking, and to arrive at their own conclusions using certain ethical constructs as a springboard for their reflection, inevitably it’s not going to be my decision. It’s going to be theirs.”

That, to my mind, is a singularly important lesson these days. Given the explosion of polarizing opinions made possible by a pop culture of ubiquitous blogging and anonymous call-in shows, it can take true moral courage to formulate a position slowly and carefully. Where blaring self-assertion so often rides roughshod over judicious reasoning, the very act of stepping outside without an opinion sometimes feels like standing naked in a hailstorm. Yet if Black is right — if the toughest issues facing our global future have powerful moral arguments supporting each side — the best counseling will not be to tell people what to think. It will be to teach them how to think.

Which, I suspect, is why Black is so effective. If even a fraction of those serving in Congress are willing to factor ethics into their decision making — and if people like Black are there to help them along — that very fact may be a strong leading indicator pointing the way out of the financial crisis. It may not end the outrage expressed last week by a frustrated nation. But it certainly offers hope that, at the highest levels of government, the bedrock moral causes of the current ethics recession can be addressed.

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

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

“Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime.”

– Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, speaking last week at the signing of legislation that bans the death penalty in his state. The law, which takes effect on July 1, makes New Mexico “only the second state after New Jersey to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Fourteen other states do not impose capital punishment,” reports the Associated Press.

Source: AP, Mar. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Research Report, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, June 16, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 19, 2007.

Outrage reaches such levels that some AIG employees receive private security details; House passes bill imposing 90 percent tax on bonuses given to bailed-out companies; Gallup finds three-quarters of Americans saying AIG bonuses should be blocked or returned; some execs begin returning their controversial bonuses

NEW YORK and WASHINGTON
The revelation that foundering insurer AIG, kept on life support with a government bailout, has doled out as much as $218 million in bonuses is fueling what some say is an unprecedented explosion of public indignation.

As this issue of Newsline goes to press, the Associated Press is reporting that 15 of the top 20 bonus recipients at AIG have agreed to return their controversial bonuses. New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo announced the news, saying the commitments currently amount to more than $30 million.

Among the story’s angles making headlines last week:

• The New York Times reports that AIG executives are being targeted by demonstrators, who in some cases have gone so far as to protest in front of the executives’ offices and homes. Writes the Times’s James Barron and Russ Buettner: “[B]onuses in years past helped make A.I.G. executives into prominent local citizens…. Now these executives are toxic, and those communities are rattled and divided. Private security guards have been stationed outside their houses, and sometimes the local police drive by. A.I.G. employees at the company’s office tower in Lower Manhattan were told to avoid leaving the building while a demonstration was going on outside. The memo also advised them to avoid displaying company-issued ID cards when they left the office and to abandon tote bags or other items with the A.I.G. logo.” Some AIG workers tell the Times they feel betrayed and are victims of a new type of McCarthyism, maintaining that the so-called bonuses are payments that had been promised long ago to workers, including technical and support personnel.
• Congress last week moved to slap punitive taxes on AIG-type bonuses — with the House approving a bill that would impose a 90 percent tax rate on those who received more than $125,000 while working for a firm that received a government bailout. The Senate is poised to consider a similar measure. The Washington Post reports that some industry representatives protest that such actions harm middle management and weaken already tottering firms. Some lawmakers however appeared to be aware of the potential consequences, but were unfazed. “Bonuses for what?” asked Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me.). “They have to engage in more financially prudent behavior.”
• Some critics of the move to block or confiscate bonuses argue that interfering with the payments constitutes an unlawful violation of contract. Maclean’s Ottawa bureau chief John Geddes makes that argument in his blog, disputing President Obama’s contention that while there may be a legal claim to the bonuses, there are “moral and ethical” aspects that have to be considered. “In other words, withholding the bonuses would have been an unlawful violation of contract rights, and so carried with it a penalty,” writes Geddes. “Does Obama seriously believe some nebulous ‘moral and ethical’ considerations might trump the rule of law in this case?… No matter how hard it is to face angry people, elected politicians in democracies must first affirm the law.”
• A Gallup poll indicates that more than three out of four Americans want the government to take action to recover the bonuses that AIG paid to its executives after receiving bailout funding. A separate Gallup poll found 50 percent of Americans saying they were personally “outraged” by the bonuses. Those views essentially cut across party lines, according to the pollster.

Sources: AP, Mar. 23 — AFP, Mar. 22 — Maclean’s, Mar. 20 — Washington Post, Mar. 20 — New York Times, Mar. 19 — Gallup, Mar. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Mar. 9 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 9 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 23.

Lawmakers say third-party inspectors notified peanut plant that they were coming and then wrote glowing reviews

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Congress last week examined ethics issues relating to oversight of the nation’s food supply — not just in terms of moral responsibility to protect the public, but also regarding potential conflicts of interest.

According the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, lawmakers expressed outrage when they learned that inspectors notified the Peanut Corp. of America in advance of when they were coming, informed them of the need to prepare for an inspection, and then “gave its plants glowing reviews.” The inspectors also were paid by the company, notes the paper.

Peanut Corp. is alleged to be at the center of a contamination outbreak that has sickened hundreds and killed at least nine, according to the Journal-Constitution.

Hearings revealed that it is common practice for companies to hire third-party inspectors, rather than being subjected to independent government scrutiny, according to legal publication Attorney at Law.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says there are too many plants scattered across the country for it to inspect each one itself, according to the report. Forbes reports that the FDA inspects only about 5 percent of the nation’s 150,000 food processing plants.

According to the Baltimore Sun, the FDA polices billions of dollars in food, drug, and vitamin sales, and is responsible for monitoring a third of all imported goods, but its budget has fallen far behind its growing list of responsibilities.

Sources: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 20 — Forbes, Mar. 19 — Attorney at Law, Mar. 19 — Baltimore Sun, Mar. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 9 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 20, 2008.

Israeli soldiers claimed that excessive force was used; defense minister, while saying Israel has “most moral army in the world,” vows to take claims seriously

JERUSALEM
Israel’s government is probing allegations of human-rights abuses in Gaza after Israeli soldiers spoke about the use of excessive force in the conflict which erupted earlier this year.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, infantry veterans of the three-week war said in a military academy seminar that lax rules of engagement allegedly led to the deaths of civilians.

TIME magazine reports that while past criticisms of alleged human rights abuses in Gaza were sometimes dismissed as driven by pro-Palestinian bias, the allegations by the six soldiers, whose names are being kept confidential, led to the military’s pledge to investigate the claims.

Defense minister Ehud Barak said charges of unwarranted killing of civilians will be examined “with all seriousness,” although he also contended that Israel has “the most moral army in the world,” according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which originally broke the story of the soldiers’ remarks.

The New York Times notes that the war-crimes accusations hint at a growing rift within the Israeli military itself, with religious nationalists on one side and secular soldiers on the other. As right-wing religionists gain higher positions in the military, graduating from religion-heavy military academies, some say they are casting conflicts as righteous battles.

Sky News reports that the anonymous soldiers expressed concerns about racist attitudes toward Palestinians, with one saying the army had “fallen in the realm of ethics.”

A United Nations agency also has opened an investigation into claims of brutality against Gaza civilians.

Sources: New York Times, Mar. 21 — Christian Science Monitor, Mar. 21 — TIME, Mar. 20 — Haaretz, Mar. 20 — Sky News, Mar. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 2 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 26 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19.

Prominent Chinese artist criticizing government over last May’s earthquake; African National Congress says it will not tinker with laws to protect its presidential candidate, who is accused of corruption; graft is hobbling Bosnia, according to report; Pope urges Africans to reject corruption

VARIOUS DATELINES
Corruption issues figured in worldwide news last week. Among the top stories:

• One of China’s most prominent artists is challenging the government to end what he claims is a cover-up of corruption and incompetence that contributed to the deaths of thousands is last May’s Sichuan Province earthquake. The International Herald Tribune reports that artist Ai Weiwei, who helped design Beijing’s Olympic Stadium, contends in posts on his blog that officials are covering up the fact that lax inspections and shoddy materials, which were allowed because of corner-cutting fueled by bribery, contributed to the collapse of many buildings, including schools. The Herald Tribune notes that it is very unusual for such criticism to be allowed to remain posted on the Internet, and speculates that Ai’s prominence may be behind the unexpected lack of censorship.
• From Johannesburg comes a report that the African National Congress, poised to win the national election in six weeks, has pledged not to tamper with laws in order to protect its presidential candidate, Jacob Zuma, according to Voice of America. Zuma has been under investigation for allegedly taking bribes, and opposition leaders have voiced concern that if his party remains in power, the South African Constitution could be changed to protect Zuma. Party leaders have characterized the charges against Zuma as politically motivated, but have pledged that Zuma will step down if convicted, the VOA reports.
• Bosnia is being buffeted by corruption claims, according to a report from BusinessWeek. Bosnia’s police, political parties, and government officials have been cited for corruption by anti-graft agency Transparency International, reports BusinessWeek, and activists in Bosnia say the country’s reputation for graft is crippling its ability to attract investment.
• Pope Benedict XVI, on a weeklong tour of Africa, appealed to Africans to rid the continent of corruption once and for all. According to a report from the BBC, the 81-year-old pontiff said Africans needed “a firm determination to change hearts and finally put a stop, once and for all, to corruption.”

Sources: International Herald Tribune, Mar. 20 — BBC, Mar. 20 — BusinessWeek, Mar. 17 — Voice of America, Mar. 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 16 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 23 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 16.

The moral advice: Remember you are dealing with people, not transactions

LOS ANGELES
The Los Angeles Times last week looked at an ethics issue sure to hit home during turbulent economic times — the moral implications of firing household help.

According to the report, while Southern Californians have come to rely on cheap hired help — often undocumented nannies, gardeners, and handymen — cost-cutting is the new pastime.

The Times interviews Fordham University theologian and ethicist Tom Beaudoin, who contends that it’s a hard question. “We have built an economy that allows us to lie to ourselves about how much we exploit human beings who don’t show up on the radar screen,” Beaudoin told the paper. “This situation forces that front and center, and that’s why we feel ethically confused.”

He suggests that one possible solution is to think creatively: Find other homeowners who might like to share the costs of the hired help, or perhaps pay in other ways, with food and services.

Beaudoin says that in the balance between cutting a worker and giving up a $4 latte, it’s important to factor in the notion that you are dealing with humans, not commodities.

“If we employ folks who clean our houses or cut our lawns or haul our garbage for us,” Beaudoin said, “and we are thinking about cutting them off to save money, I would say: Think about the ethical responsibilities. These are relationships we have. They’re not just transactions.”

Source: Los Angeles Times, Mar. 21.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 21, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 5, 2006 — Related Newsline story, June 12 2006 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 10, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 3, 2006.

Accountant accused of rubber-stamping Madoff’s bogus numbers; also, Madoff denied release from prison while awaiting June sentencing

NEW YORK
Bernard Madoff’s accountant was arrested last week. CBS News reports that CPA David Friehling is not charged with being a part of the Ponzi scheme itself, but rather with “deceiving investors by falsely certifying that he audited the financial statements of Mr. Madoff’s business.”

That particular legal standard, writes CBS’s Andrew Cohen, is causing many other associates of Madoff to “quake in their Guccis” — wondering if they will be held responsible for representations made regarding banking, law, and investments.

Legal filings allege that while Friehling was paid up to $14,000 a month, he only “pretended” to audit Madoff’s business, reports the Independent.

Friehling faces up to 105 years in prison, according to Fox Business.

Meanwhile, Madoff himself last week lost a bid to be released on bail while awaiting his sentencing in June. A three-judge panel concurred with the finding of the judge who accepted Madoff’s guilty plea that Madoff had an incentive to flee and the financial means to do so.

Under a prior agreement, Madoff had been allowed to remain under house arrest in his luxury penthouse until entering his plea.

Sources: Financial Times, Mar. 20 — Independent, Mar. 19 — CBS News, Mar. 18 — Fox Business, Mar. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 16 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 23 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 2 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 26.

But some protest ethics of PETA’s protest

HEMPSTEAD, New York
Two ethics issues relating to the treatment of circus elephants made news last week: whether the animals are treated humanely in the first place, and whether protestors have gone too far in dramatizing charges that the animals are abused.

CNN reports that a federal judge is deliberating a case in which the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is accused by four animal rights groups of mistreating its 54 Asian elephants, a species protected under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

According to the AP, the allegations of abuse center on the use of chains to control the elephants and trainers’ use of metal-tipped prods called elephant hooks. Animal rights activists say the hooks injure the elephants, in specific violation of the Endangered Species Act.

The circus says the elephants are not harmed by the hooks, which it says are necessary to control the animals and ensure public safety, reports the AP.

In related news, protests by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were designed to draw attention to the issue as the circus opened in Long Island.

But according to New York television station WPIX, some are saying the group is going too far.

Protestors showed up uninvited and unannounced at an elementary school in Hempstead, Long Island, with an activist dressed as a wounded elephant handing out coloring books depicting abuse of animals.

Newsday, headquartered on Long Island, reports that the school, unaware that the protestors were coming or what materials they were handing out, locked the gates and called security personnel.

School officials told Newsday that the handouts were disturbing and inappropriate for young children.

A PETA representative told WPIX that the material scares children “in a positive way…. It has the kids talking to their parents and their parents will raise awareness and the word will spread.”

Sources: CNN, Mar. 18 — WPIX, Mar. 18 — AP, Mar. 18 — Newsday, Mar. 17.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 24, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 20, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 11, 2008.

Poll finds the public pointing the finger at “big companies, PACs, political lobbyists and the news media”

From Harris:

“When one thinks of Washington D.C. and the power corridors, smoke filled rooms and shady deals with lobbyists may come to mind. There are certain groups which are singled out by large majorities of the American public as having too much power in influencing the government. Influencers leading the list are big companies and Political Action Committees (PACs), which give money to political candidates. Eighty-five percent of Americans see them both as having too much influence.

“Large majorities also believe that political lobbyists (81%) and the news media (75%) have too much power. Rounding out the top five are entertainment and sports celebrities, as over two-thirds (70%) of Americans believe they have too much power and influence in D.C.

“Fully 90% of Americans believe that small business has too little power and influence. Large majorities also believe public opinion (76%) and nonprofit organizations (7%) have too little power and influence….

“In addition to PACs, big companies, lobbyists, the media and celebrities, there are three other institutions which majorities of the public believe have too much power — TV and radio talk shows (59%), trade associations (55%) and labor unions (54%)….

“Since The Harris Poll began asking these questions 15 years ago, the rank order of interests, in terms of their perceived power and influence, has not changed very much. Big companies, PACs and political lobbyists have always topped the list of the too powerful; small business, public opinion and (since we began asking them) non-profit organizations have always headed the list of those having ‘too little power and influence.’…

“Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to believe that labor unions have too much power (77% vs. 36%). They are also more likely to think that racial minorities (50% vs. 18%), opinion polls (48% vs. 24%), and the news media (88% vs. 66%) have too much power.

“Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely than Republicans to think that churches and religious organization (41% vs. 18%) have too much power and influence….

“One finding is particularly striking, the different between big business (bad) and small business (good), with one at the top of ‘too powerful’ list and the other topping the ‘too little power’ list. The foundation of America may be business but the distrust of big business is pervasive. However, it may be worth noting, hostility to big business is no higher than it was over the last three years. The economic crisis has had a big impact on how people see banks (The Harris Poll, Dec 3, 2008) but not, it seems, what they think of business in general.”

For the full release from Harris, Mar. 12, click here .

“When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

– Benjamin Franklin (U.S. statesman and philosopher, 1706-1790)