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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Suppose there really were a devil. Suppose he saw that the United States, compared to other nations, had a relatively good standard of personal morality. So suppose, in a Job-like test, he wanted to invent a new moral temptation into which tens of millions of Americans would tumble. What would he do?

To reach that many people, he wouldn’t go for the usual stuff. Sure, a few million might be tempted by corruption, cruelty, or unfairness, but Americans don’t typically pay bribes, snub the unfortunate, or steal whatever’s not nailed down. In large majorities, they pay their taxes, feed their pets, educate their kids, and show up on time.

To have real impact, then, the devil would have to go for something huge, novel, unforeseen, and intensely personal. It would have to involve more than merely the great and powerful. It couldn’t affect only people of wealth, but would have to cost only pennies a day. It couldn’t risk personal embarrassment, but would have to let people hide under a cloak of invisibility. It should be something everyone else was doing. It should be easy, save time, help make friends, cause a rush of excitement, prevent boredom, and make the actor feel wanted, appreciated, respected, and in the know. Yet it also would have to be something universally condemned as dangerous, addictive, and wrong.

I suspect it’s already been invented. It’s called driving while texting, or DWT.

Within the next year, I’m guessing, this hugely popular phenomenon — driving while sending or receiving text messages on a hand-held device — will be outlawed nationwide. It’s already illegal in 14 states and the District of Columbia. A Senate bill proposed last month would compel states to ban the practice or lose 25 percent of their federal highway funding — a formula used earlier to create laws against drunk driving (operating under the influence, or OUI, as we call it here in Maine) across the states.

Concern over DWT crested last month with the publication of new data. Researchers at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that drivers of heavy trucks were 23 times more likely to have collisions while texting than while focused steadily on the road. They also found that dialing a mobile phone increased collision risk about six times. Other studies have found that even talking on a cell phone increases risk, though talking to passengers or listening to audio recordings does not. There’s no question, then, about the dangers of DWT — a point driven home last year when 25 people died in a commuter-rail wreck caused by a texting train driver in Los Angeles.

There’s no doubt that DWT, like OUI, at some point will be outlawed broadly. The drunk-driving ban has been effective largely because it’s finally become socially acceptable to appoint a designated driver or limit drinking if you’re going to be driving yourself. Will DWT follow suit? Will millions of texters agree to resist its allure? It’s here that the moral issue gets tough, in part because of fundamental differences between texting and drinking. While drunks remain drunk after an accident and can get caught, texting is an action rather than a condition — and there’s no breathalyzer for texters. Nor is an iPhone, unlike an open whiskey bottle, illegal in the car: Cops can’t arrest you for simply having one in your vehicle, since it’s not illegal to text from the roadside or for passengers to text from moving cars. Add those facts to the Teflon effect — “Others may get stuck, but I’m too slick to do anything dangerous!” — and drivers may resist to the hilt all efforts to make them obey DWT laws.

If that happens, the new laws will create (as the devil would have hoped) a powerfully subtle challenge to our moral fiber. Will we really have the strength of character to comply? Will we agree, for our own safety and the safety of those around us, to voluntarily give up a habit to which we rapidly are becoming addicted? Or will we find ourselves in the devilish situation of knowing right but doing wrong?

These aren’t idle questions. In a different form, they’re being asked of Wall Street, where significant new regulations are undermined actively by those who can’t bring themselves to obey them. They’re also being asked on Main Street, where the newfound public determination to resist materialism and spend less runs counter to huge pressures to ramp up consumer spending for the sake of the economy. Why are these such tough questions? Is it because shopping and making money, like texting, seem so addictive?

If so, maybe these addictions, like drunk driving, someday will produce so much public outrage that it becomes socially acceptable to resist them. Meanwhile, the devil’s question is this: Are we, as a nation, capable of denying ourselves the immediate gratification of driving while texting? Or is the lust for reading that next message — and maybe just pecking out a quick, little answer — beyond our capacity to resist? If we can put DWT where we’ve put OUI — if we can make it okay to obey these laws — we’ll demonstrate a strength of moral character that would make Job proud. If not … well, the devil take the hindmost.

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

Find this and previous weeks’ commentaries online as a podcast titled Ethicast™ now available on iTunes. Subscribe today!

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

“Executive compensation in large publicly traded firms often is excessive because of the feeble incentives of boards of directors to police compensation.”

– Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner, dissenting from a ruling by his Chicago-based court that dismissed a case alleging that three mutual funds vastly overpaid their investment advisers. The U.S. Supreme Court soon will hear the last appeal of that ruling — a case that will test whether the justices agree with Posner’s view that “executive pay is out of control … and the marketplace cannot be trusted to rein it in,” according to the New York Times.

Source: New York Times, Aug. 17.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline Commentary, July 13 — Related Newsline Research Report, June 22.

Some are outraged, while others argue he’s served his time and deserves second chance

PHILADELPHIA
Sports was the arena for a modern morality play last week as fans and observers weighed in on the propriety of the hiring of Michael Vick by the Philadelphia Eagles football team.

Vick recently finished a 23-month federal prison sentence for running a dog-fighting ring that killed and tortured the animals.

While Vick has apologized for his actions, not all football fans are convinced he deserves a place on the field, reports ABC News.

Criticism of the Eagles has been scorching from some quarters, including those who argue that the team sacrificed its principles by overlooking Vick’s foul past due to his ability to perform on the field.

Others support the decision. In an editorial, the Philadelphia Inquirer calls the move “courageous and shrewd.” The paper contends that “Vick has paid his debt to society. In addition to punishment, prison is about rehabilitation.”

In a sometimes-awkward pairing, Vick has been seeking forgiveness by working with the U.S. Humane Society, doing public appearances and broadcast announcements decrying animal cruelty.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle agonized over the decision to enlist Vick, initially putting off a Vick representative but eventually reconsidering.

“We’re devoted to ending dog fighting, not endlessly slogging Michael Vick,” Pacelle told the Times. “We are about not just ending cruelty, but also making people better…. This can be about turning adversaries into allies.”

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Aug. 16 — Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 16 — ABC News, Aug. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, July 27 — Related Newsline story, May 4 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 27, 2007.

Critics say health care rhetoric is over the top; South Carolina attorney general reported to want ethics probe of Gov. Sanford’s use of airplanes; ethics committee clears senators accused of profiting from special loan program

WASHINGTON and COLUMBIA, S.C.
Among the week’s top stories in political ethics:

• There were calls in the press for ratcheting down the rhetoric in the debate over reforming U.S. health care, reports USA Today. “Faith and Reason” columnist Cathy Lynn Grossman writes that extremists on one side are claiming health care reform will lead to “death panels,” while the other side “is revving up with images of sick people tortured on their death beds by care they don’t want (remember, Granny begged to die at home?) or struggling to wrangle payment for the care they’ve had (President Obama’s oft-told-tale of his mother’s last days.)”
• South Carolina’s attorney general reportedly wants to investigate whether Gov. Mark Sanford violated state ethics laws by using state airplanes for personal travel. Sanford, who recently confessed an extramarital affair, also has admitted taking state-funded transportation to the country where his mistress lives. Sanford continues to insist that reports alleging he misused state transportation were taken out of context, reports CBS News.
• The Senate Select Committee on Ethics last week cleared senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) of allegations that they used their positions to extract favorable terms from mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. After a yearlong investigation, the committee concluded that while the senators’ loans were processed through a special program, they did not appear to financially benefit from the procedure, according to the Washington Post.

Sources: USA Today, Aug. 13 — CBS News, Aug. 13 — Washington Post, Aug. 8.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 27 — Related Newsline story, July 20 — Related Newsline story, July 6 — Related Newsline Commentary, June 29 — Related Newsline story, June 29.

Many protested that the software, which was supposed to block porn, also censored politically sensitive material

BEIJING
China has backed down from its controversial plan to require that all computers sold in the country be equipped with software purportedly designed to block pornography.

Critics said the software was a backdoor method of also censoring political information, noting that it had been used to block politically sensitive sites and searches, including those related to Tibet, democracy, and Tiananmen Square.

Computer users also had complained that the mandatory software left their systems vulnerable to cyber attacks, CNN reports.

Under revised regulations, the filtering software will still be mandatory in schools and Internet cafes, but private computer users will have the choice not to install it, according to a report from the U.K. Guardian.

The government also reversed its plans to require manufacturers to pre-install the software on all computers sold in China, the Agence France-Presse reports.

Chinese officials continued to insist that the software was meant only to protect youth from online porn. The official state news agency Xinhua reports that China’s Minister of Technology and Information, Li Yizhong, said that “any move to politicize the issue or to attack China’s Internet management system is irresponsible and not in line with reality.”

Sources: CNN, Aug. 13 — Guardian, Aug. 13 — AFP, Aug. 13 — Xinhua, Aug. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, May 25 — Related Newsline story, May 11 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 15, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 3, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct, 6, 2008.

Customers bristle at account cancellations; prison sentences are handed down for Canadian impresarios; Chinese prosecutors point finger at Rio Tinto

VARIOUS DATELINES
Among the major stories last week in business-ethics news:

• The Wall Street Journal is questioning the ethics implications when credit card companies cancel customers’ accounts without prior notice, leading to some embarrassing situations at checkouts and restaurants. The Journal reports that credit card companies sometimes close accounts because they are not used often enough — an action that legally can be taken without notifying the cardholder, who may in fact have a good credit score and record of payment. Card companies say that underused accounts represent an opportunity for fraud, and the culling of those accounts reduces the firms’ liability.
• Garth Drabinksy and Myron Gottlieb, two luminaries in Canada’s theater world, were sentenced to seven and six years in jail, respectively, for orchestrating a massive consumer fraud at their theater company, Livent, Canada’s National Post reports. The sentences were heavy by Canadian standards, notes Bloomberg, but probably were much lower than what would have been imposed for a similar crime in the United States, where — apparently in reaction to recent high-profile cases — white-collar criminals often receive sentences two or three times those of felons north of the border.
• Chinese prosecutors have charged four employees of mining firm Rio Tinto with corporate espionage and bribery, according to a report from MarketWatch. Officials allege that the staffers purloined commercial secrets from China’s steel and iron industry. The head of Rio Tinto’s iron ore group vowed a vigorous defense, saying the staff members acted “properly and ethically.”

Sources: MarketWatch, Aug. 13 — Wall Street Journal, Aug. 13 — National Post, Aug. 6 — Bloomberg, Aug. 6.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, July 13 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 15, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 1, 2001 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 11, 2000.

Study finds doctors confront skepticism in end-of-life decisions; prosecution of criminal lawyer puts focus on source of clients’ payments; head of Delhi rail system blames crash on poor ethics

VARIOUS DATELINES
Stories surrounding ethics and the professions were featured in world-press reports last week. Among them:

• A new study indicates that many people confronted with end-of-life decisions involving loved ones tend to be skeptical of what doctors say. A researcher from the University of California at San Francisco tells Reuters that a study of 50 people who acted as decision makers for incapacitated patients in an intensive care unit showed that 64 percent said they would not believe a doctor who said the patient had “absolutely no chance” to survive hospitalization. Nearly a third said they would want to continue treatment even if the patient had only a 1 percent chance of survival.
• The trial of an attorney accused of laundering money for his clients is highlighting the ethical difficulties faced by criminal lawyers who rely on legal fees from clients whose only known means of support are from illegal activities. The Fulton County (Georgia) Daily Report notes that the controversy involves lawyer J. Mark Shelnutt, whose trial is expected to begin in the fall. The case has raised ethical problems for the prosecution, too, because so many on the prosecution team are eligible to be called as witnesses, according to the report.
• An executive of Delhi’s Metro Rail Corporation says a lack of professional ethics was responsible for a train accident in the Indian city that killed seven workers in July, reports the Times of India. E Shreedhara last week called for enhanced ethics education for engineers and scientists, and also struck out at corruption: “Corruption has crept into all walks of life and according to Transparency International, India is ranked 85th on the corruption scale. Can there be a greater shame to the nation?”

Sources: Reuters, Aug. 13 — Daily Report, Aug. 13 — Times of India, Aug. 8.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 13 — Related Newsline story, June 1 — Related Newsline story, July 7, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 22, 2008.

White House wants to use cookies on federal websites; Google pressured to protect privacy as it develops massive online library

WASHINGTON and NEW YORK
Privacy concerns surfaced in technology and ethics stories last week. Among them:

• The White House has proposed allowing federal sites to use cookies — computer code that tracks website visitors’ behavior, reports the Hill. Currently, federal sites, except those run by members of Congress, cannot use cookies, but the Obama administration says use of cookies will create more user-friendly sites. Critics argue that allowing the government to use cookies will violate citizens’ privacy rights, notes the Hill.
• Google is under increasing pressure to provide stronger privacy guarantees as it assembles a gargantuan online book library, National Public Radio reports. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of California worry that Google will keep track of which books users browse through and how long they spend on each page. Google says it wants to protect readers’ privacy but says it confronts a challenge because copyright agreements will permit access to only 20 percent of a book, meaning that Google has no choice but to keep track of reader usage.
• The Onion’s satirical website last week published a spoof highlighting — and poking fun at — privacy concerns in the modern age, when nearly all online clicks, visits, and transactions are tracked, stored, and sold to interested parties. The tongue-in-cheek story, picked up by technology publications worldwide, says that Google is offering users a method to completely protect their privacy: “If you want to keep your information private, all you have to do is move to our 22-acre Opt Out Village and not speak to anyone from the outside world…. If you don’t want to give us complete access to your most private thoughts and feelings, that’s fine. You can just toil in the hinterlands and die young,” fictional Opt-Opt Village director John Carter tells the Onion.

Sources: The Hill, Aug. 13 — NPR, Aug. 12 — The Onion, Aug. 12 — San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 12.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 10 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, July 27 — Related Newsline story, July 13 — Related Newsline story, July 6.

They say a 1996 law unfairly restricts defendants

NEW YORK
A review of death penalty court opinions conducted by the New York Times shows that many appeals court judges, even those who have ruled in favor of the death penalty, complain that a federal law has raised barriers for death row prisoners to appeal.

“There is an increasing frustration among federal judges throughout the system,” Eric Freedman, a death penalty critic who teaches at Hofstra Law School, told the Times.

According to the report, the law generating the controversy is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

The law was crafted by legislators who believed that prisoners were abusing the federal appeals process, the Times reports. It restricts federal court review and limits prisoners’ ability to file habeas corpus petitions asking that their cases be reconsidered.

Fueling worries among judges, according to a spokeswoman for one legal defense group interviewed by the Times, is the increasing number of exonerations of death row inmates based on new DNA technology, a factor that has “been shattering to judges who had a fair amount of confidence in the system.”

A spokesman for a pro-death-penalty group interviewed for the story said that substantial evidence for innocence in such appeals is rare.

Source: New York Times, Aug. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 22 — Related Newsline story, June 1 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, June 16, 2008.

Bush-era assassination initiative was revealed recently and ended by CIA’s new director

From the Pew Research Center:

“Americans generally support allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate al Qaeda leaders, but opinions are more mixed about whether the CIA should have such a program without first informing Congress.

“The most recent national survey … finds that 60% favor ‘the CIA having a program that targets al Qaeda leaders for assassination,’ while 29% are opposed. But when a separate group of respondents was asked whether they favor the program without first informing Congress, opinion is more evenly divided (48% favor, 42% oppose).

“CIA Director Leon Panetta halted such a program in June, though it had never become operational. The Bush administration reportedly started the initiative shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but had kept it secret from Congress.

“Majorities of Republicans (77%), independents (57%) and Democrats (53%) favor the CIA having a program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. Support falls across party lines when the language on failing to inform Congress is added….”

For the full release from the Pew Research Center, Aug. 7, click here.

“If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”

– Anatole France (French poet, journalist, and novelist, 1844-1924)