I've always known that Ethics can get complicated and many times falls into a big gray area.
And, I personally place honesty and integrity quite high on my list of values. Yet, I'm surprised to be finding more and more people raising arguments to justify why it's okay to get close to crossing the line on ethics. And, I'm starting to wonder if I might not need to be more flexible in my judgements of people that do flirt with or actually cross that line.
Intentions do make a difference. If someone does something wrong (and, of course, that is all relative, too), but if it is done out of ignorance or out of good intentions, then that should be taken into consideration in our evaluation of that behavior.
When it comes to the law, once guilt is established, the intentions are no longer an excuse, things are either lawful or they aren't. There are mitigating circumstances and degrees of crimes, but a crime is still generally a crime. Sentencing and punishment then become the gray area.
One friend recently mentioned that we shouldn't be so harsh to judge people, such as when they might lie to us, especially if we might do the same thing under similar circumstances; as we know, people do make mistakes and these things are going to happen in life. Should we let those things ruin our relationships and sour our views on life? Or are we not better off choosing a more empowering meaning for the situation, learning from it, and making our life and those of others better because of it? That's one way to look at breaches in trust.
As a consumer, I go to the internet to get information so that I can make better decisions. I've found that it's not always easy to determine what is good information vs bad information vs biased half-truths vs hype and empty promises. Social media is now also being infected by marketing practices that can be considered deceitful, thus dulling the entire purpose of sincere user-generated media and genuine word-of-mouth marketing.
The question raised in the above-referenced interview is that: "Is propaganda bad if no one is getting hurt?" And, it is mentioned that it might also depend on "what is at stake"? is it politics and democracy that is at stake or is it just the selling of a product? What is at stake does matter in the sense of the potential damage that can be done. Damage can be financial. But what about the damage that can be done to TRUST and INTEGRITY. Loss of trust and integrity doesn't only affect the person or company involved, but can affect an entire industry and medium.
My concern is that a practice in one arena sets a standard for what is and what isn't an acceptable practice in other arenas, too. One will be used to justify the other. What starts off as not being that big a deal soon evolves into a bigger deal as standards are not being set and are actually being lowered and we end up reverting back to the days of caveat emptor or buyer beware. I still hold out hope for the self-policing power of the social media world, especially for those that aren't in it just to make a living.
This begs the question, "Is it ever ok to cross the line in ethics?" I didn't expect to find a potentially affirmative answer to that question, but I think I may have found one that comes close. In the
interview of Dr. Dan Ariely, of "Predictably Irrational", by Dave Lakhani, a case is made for: what if you could increase the efficacy of a medical treatment by 10% by "lieing to someone" via the placebo effect? Would that be ethically acceptable? If some of us can feel torn about the ethics of a positive benefit, I wonder why there aren't more people torn about the ethics of negatively impacting business practices?
For anyone out there that isn't a good test-taker, don't let low scores hold you back. And for those of you with high scores, don't rely on just that to get you through life.
