HOME GLOBAL DISTRICTS CLUBS MISSING HISTORIES PAUL HARRIS PEACE
PRESIDENTS CONVENTIONS POST YOUR HISTORY WOMEN FOUNDATION COMMENTS PHILOSOPHY
SEARCH SUBSCRIPTIONS FACEBOOK JOIN RGHF EXPLORE RGHF RGHF QUIZ RGHF MISSION
 
RGHF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SEND COMMENTS

FOUNDERS 

RGHF BOARD
FOUNDER Jack Selway CARL CARDEY MATTS INGEMANSON DICK MCKAY PDG AMU SHAH
FLORENCE HUI FRANK DEAVER JOE KAGLE BARHIN ALTINOK PDG DENS SHAO
VIJAY MAKHIJA PRID JOHN EBERHARD BASIL LEWIS PDG DON MURPHY TOM SHANAHAN
PDG GERI APPEL PDG DAVE EWING EDWARD LOLLIS PDG JOHN ÖRTENGREN PDG KARI TALLBERG
O. GREG BARLOW JOSE FERNANDEZ-MESA FRANK LONGORIA PDG FRED OTTO CALUM THOMSON
PDG EDDIE BLENDER PRID TED GIFFORD CARL LOVEDAY MIKE RAULIN TIM TUCKER
PIETRO BRUNOLDI DAMIEN HARRIS WOLFGANG ZIEGLER PDG HELEN REISLER NORM WINTERBOTTOM
CARLOS GARCIA CALZADA VIMAL HEMANI MALEK MAHMASSANI PDG RON SEKKEL RICHARDS P. LYON
∆ - Ω
PDG INGE ANDERSSON PDG JAMES ANGUS  Deceased RAY MACFARLANE PAUL MCLAIN

Frank Deaver Editorials

 

Haircuts, Neckties, and Politics

By Frank Deaver

Rotary Club of Tuscaloosa, Alabama USA 

      Gentlemen, the lady of your life cuts her hair but you liked it long.  Nevertheless, you tell her how becoming it is.  Ladies, the man in your life wears a tie you think is ghastly, but you compliment him on his good taste.  In each case, it's a lie; we may call it a "white" lie, justified as keeping good relations.  But how do we balance the Four-Way Tests of TRUTH versus GOODWILL? 

      A politician publicly rails against government spending, but back home gladly take credit for its local benefits.  A candidate supports abortion rights and same-sex unions, while belonging to a church that disapproves of both. Politicians face the conflict of FAIR versus BENEFICIAL. 

            The Greek philosopher Plato, in the third century BC, posed a dilemma: "Do we do right because it is right, or would we do otherwise if no one would know?"  In his Myth of Gyges, Plato wondered if even a basically honest person might yield to the temptation to do wrong if the deed is certain to go undiscovered.   

      Segue from Plato to the present, and we might mention stop signs, speed limits, and tax returns. We are confronted daily with questions of ethical conflict: in corporate and government sectors, in sports and society, and in our own lives. Might those current events be more clearly viewed in Rotary's Four Way Test? 

      For Rotarians, decision-making rises above what is legal, or what is company policy, or what is written in a code.  It is the choice to do what is right simply because it is RIGHT.  That is the challenge of the Four-Way Test. 

      In our business and professional lives, we face almost daily the classic struggle between two important ethical considerations in decision-making: PRINCIPLE and PRAGMATISM.  Examples are so common that most go unrecognized. 

      City councils are sometimes asked to condemn residential property to facilitate construction of a shopping center.  Families protest against giving up their homes, but the council anticipates higher tax receipts.  How do they balance the principle of private property rights against the pragmatism of highest revenue?   

      A young couple believes that abortion is morally wrong, but when her fertility medication allows pregnancy, she learns that she is carrying eight fetuses.  Her doctor says she cannot carry them all to term; and if she tries they will all die, with her life also at high risk.  The alternative is to abort six and carry twins to maturity. How do they balance their beliefs with their choice, principle versus pragmatism? 

      At the opposite end of life, an agonizing decision is sometimes necessary about withdrawing life support.  Many hold that families and doctors have no right to "play God," but when faced with the inevitable they may conclude that heroic medical measures only prolong suffering.  Again the question is principle versus pragmatism. 

      Let us return, then, to look at our Rotary Four Way Test in what may be a more introspective way.  Its four questions appeal to the best of both principle and pragmatism. 

      In the first two questions are words of principle:  TRUTH and FAIRNESS call for apparently unbending dedication to seek truth, to dedicate ourselves to fairness.  But sometimes we face the reality that we don't know the whole truth, and that what is fair to some may not be fair to others. 

      The other two questions embrace practicality:  GOODWILL and BENEFICIAL are goals usually attainable through intelligent application of human reasoning.  They call us to practical analysis of actions, seeking the greater good that may result from our decisions. 

      It is not enough that we ask the four questions; not enough that we make a decision based on some ONE of those questions.  Our Four-Way Test is not only a call to lofty principles and to beneficial practicality - it is our challenge to combine them in ethically responsible decisions and actions.  We must conscientiously answer and balance the questions of our Four Way Test.

 
 
RGHF Committee Editorial Writer Frank Deaver,   4 October 2010