|
|
| SEARCH |
Ethics |
| – the Four-Way-Test – and More! By: Frank Deaver |
| Our subject today is ETHICS. Our
subject today is THE FOUR-WAY TEST. Our subject today intends to relate
those two subjects more closely to each other. As Rotarians, we do not need to be reminded of the content or history of our Four-Way Test. But let’s start with it. Of the things we think, say, or do: FIRST: Is it the TRUTH? SECOND: Is it FAIR to all concerned? THIRD: Will it build GOODWILL & BETTER FRIENDSHIP? FOURTH: Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? Now, keeping those familiar questions in mind, let us explore a bit more carefully the related subject of ethics. We are assaulted daily in the media with news about ethics, from the corporate and government sectors in particular, but also from athletics, the behavior of both coaches and athletes. It is not only the questionable ethics of the people in the news, but the ethics of the media in their reporting. In spite of having spent my career in journalism, don’t expect me to be an apologist for sloppy reporting! Ethics is defined in various ways, but central to any definition is that ethics is decision-making – decision-making based on individual responsibility for making right decisions. Ethics is not just what is imposed by law, not just what is defined in company policy, not just what is written into a code. Ethics is more than what is expected by civilized society. Ethics rises above each, and all, of those standards. Ethics is the choice to do what is right, not because it is required or expected, but because it is RIGHT. That requires making sometimes hard decisions. But therein is ethics. Allow me to take you through some situations, and consideration of some decisions, that will perhaps help us put the Four Way Test to an increasingly meaningful application. Let me first take you on a vicarious trip. On your vacation, you and a lifelong friend go to the Great Smoky Mountains on a hiking expedition. On a precarious climb, your friend falls down a steep slope, cracks his skull against a boulder, and lies bleeding and unconscious. You manage to get him back up on the trail, and somehow summon the strength to carry him to your car. You drive him to the nearest town, where there is a small private hospital. As you approach the hospital, you recall that your friend is self-employed and has no medical insurance, while you work for a large company and have full coverage with the group. You are concerned that, with no insurance, he might be sent on to a more distant public hospital. So quickly you switch billfolds with your unconscious friend. He is identified by your name, your insurance information goes on the hospital record, and your friend gets the emergency treatment you are convinced he needs. A doctor later tells you that he will be fine, but he is very lucky to have such a dedicated friend who got him treated quickly--for without early emergency treatment he almost certainly would have died. Now I pose for you a pair of troubling questions. First, is truth-telling an absolute principle that should not have been violated, even under such circumstances as these? Second, does the end justify the means? Does saving the life of a friend justify the lie, and what amounts to the “stealing” of services? On the one hand, we are confronted with principles that could be considered absolute. To lie is wrong. To steal is wrong. But if we do not allow for an exception in this instance, your friend might have died. On the other hand, desirable results may tempt us to argue that the end justifies the means. A life was saved because of a misrepresentation and the acquiring of services that otherwise might have been withheld. But if we universalize this justification, we would then be required to agree to many wrongs, even some criminal acts, if it could be argued that some good purpose was served. What I have related is a true story. It happened a few years ago to two friends from New Orleans, and they were convicted of theft by deception. But that was in response to the law. In terms of the ethics of our 4WT, how do we balance questions 1. and 4. -- TRUTH and BENEFICIAL? What we have introduced - and what we face almost daily in our professions, our businesses, our personal lives - is the classic struggle between two important ethical considerations in our decision-making - principle and pragmatism. Examples are so very common among us that most of them go unrecognized. Gentlemen, the lady of your life cuts her hair but you liked it long. She asks your opinion, and you tell her how becoming it is. Or ladies, the man in your life wears a tie you think is ghastly, but you bite your tongue and compliment him on his good taste. In each case, it’s a lie - never mind that it’s classified as a “white” lie - but it’s justified as serving the good cause of keeping good relations. How do we balance Questions 1. and 3. -- TRUTH and GOODWILL? Some such examples might be dismissed as flippant and of little serious concern. However, distinctions between principle and pragmatism often take on much more serious consideration in real life. Some very real examples: It is unfortunately becoming common for those who violate the law and/or ethics to ride their publicity to fame and fortune – one might say “from shame to riches.” Some who come to mind are G. Gordon Liddy, Monica Lewinsky, and more recently New York Times reporter Jayson Blair. The world continues to debate the wisdom of what was called a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein. A long-standing principle holds that a civilized society does not start a war. On the other hand, it was argued that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and had already demonstrated its willingness to use them. Principle, versus Pragmatism Society was conflicted over media showing of the bodies of the dead sons of Hussein. Although such display is generally avoided, it was in this case thought necessary to accomplish the purpose of assuring the Iraqi people that the sons of Saddam were truly no more a menace. More principle versus pragmatism. Some few months ago, a team of doctors sought to separate 29-year-old twins, congenitally joined at the head. The patients died. Medical ethicists debated whether the doctors were justified in attempting to give them a better life, in spite of the risks. Principle, versus Pragmatism. A few years ago, 85 children and their teachers were taken hostage at West End Christian School in my home-town, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The governor of the state promised in a telephone call and in a videotaped message that if the gunman would come out peacefully without harming the children, he would be granted the press conference he requested and would be pardoned. But when he emerged in response to this promise, he was pinned violently to the ground, handcuffed, and led away to jail, screaming “...but the governor promised....” Was the obvious lie justified, in that it resulted in ending the crisis with no physical harm to any of the children? Or were the children taught by demonstration that the authorities are not to be trusted? Do we justify a decision because “it works”? Or do we stand on principle and insist that truth should have been maintained? How shall we balance TRUTH against BENEFICIAL? Many states have struggled with controversy over legalized gambling, whether casinos, lotteries, race tracks, or bingo. Many believe that gambling is wrong as a matter of principle. Proponents tout its financial benefits, especially when other revenue sources dry up. Still, if gambling is deemed morally wrong, the justification violates principle. How shall we balance FAIRNESS against BENEFICIAL? And perhaps most seriously of all, we are pitting principle against practicality in the matter of human life, both at its beginning and at its ending. Without straying into a debate on the controversies of abortion and assisted death, let me point out the dichotomy that in the heat of emotion is commonly overlooked. Those who identify with the “woman’s freedom of choice” position, may in effect say, “If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have an abortion. But it’s my choice what I believe or do.” This underscores the practicality of individual rights. On the other hand, those who identify with the “right-to-life” position argue that as a matter of principle they speak for the unborn, that a woman’s choice deprives another being - the unborn child - of the opportunity for life outside the womb. The two sides will likely not ever compromise so long as one appeals to an absolute principle and the other to a practical position. At the other end of life, we are caught up in ongoing news of assisted death of the terminally ill, and in debates on when - or even if - it is ever justifiable to pull the plug on life support systems. Many hold as a matter of principle that life is forever precious, and that families and doctors have no right to “play God” with the life of another. But those faced with prolonged and hopeless suffering may conclude that heroic medical measures are not really preserving life but only demonstrating the ability of modern medical science to maintain bodily functions in what would otherwise be a corpse. Again, we are left with a hopeless dilemma that cannot be compromised so long as some appeal to an unbending principle and others to a tempting practicality. So it is, fellow Rotarians, that in the examples we have considered, our attempt is to recognize that sometimes principle and practicality clash, and ethics calls on us to seek a process of intelligent decision making. Let us come, then, to look at our Rotary Four Way Test in what may be a new and more introspective way. Its four questions appeal to: TRUTH, FAIRNESS, GOODWILL, BENEFICIAL. Our credo embraces the best of both principle and pragmatism. In the first two questions, we find words of principle. TRUTH. FAIRNESS. These principles call us to an apparently unbending dedication to seek truth, to dedicate ourselves to fairness. As ideal expectations, they are not always totally attainable, but they are worthy goals. A Rotarian who does not seek to attain the goals is falling short of the lofty standards idealized in these probing questions. The other two questions embrace practicality. GOODWILL. BENEFICIAL. These are goals usually attainable through the intelligent application of human reasoning. They call us to practical analysis of actions, seeking the greater good that may result from our decisions. The Four-Way Test -- our Code of Ethics – is designed for those who are willing to dedicate themselves – and their businesses – and their professions – and their social positions – all that they are – to the principles and the practicalities that have made Rotary what it is. Look around almost any community - your own, for instance - and you will see that civic, social, political, and economic leaders are in large part Rotarians. I submit to you that this is no accident. But it does lay upon our shoulders an added burden of responsibility. It has been said that “Leaders do the right thing; managers do things right.” That is a valid definition of ethical leadership. Managers are employed to do the defined things right, in other words to follow. But leaders, in order to do right things, must be the decision makers, those who determine what is right. Rotarians, I repeat, are those leaders. The Four-Way Test can serve us as a trusted ethical guide. Through it, we are pointed to the ethics of principle. Through it we are pointed to the ethics of practicality. But as responsible, individual Rotarians, we are trusted to recognize the differences. We are expected to apply both principle and practicality in an ethically mature way. It is not enough that we ASK the four questions. It is not enough that we make a decision based on some ONE of the questions. Our Four-Way Test is not only our call to lofty principles, and to beneficial practicality – it is our challenge to combine them in ethically responsible decisions and actions. As Rotarians, we cannot content ourselves to be conformists in what may be ethically questionable. Our ethical convictions may bring us to challenge our colleagues, perhaps even challenge a law. Recall that great moral heroes of history are those who were willing to stand for right, often in defiance of society and its norms. We could mention Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa. They were leaders. They were not conformists. Today, we are challenged by our Four Way Test to prove ourselves worthy of the obligations we assumed when we accepted the name that we wear with pride, the name “Rotarian.” To wear that name proudly, we must diligently adhere to principles. We must equally consider practicalities. We must conscientiously answer and balance the questions of our Four Way Test. We must, as Rotarians, be visible examples of ethically right conduct. And we are indeed fortunate to have the Four Way Test as our ethical guide. Dr. Frank Deaver Professor Emeritus of Journalism, The University of Alabama Member, The Rotary Club of Tuscaloosa, Alabama |
RGHF members, who have been invited to this page, may register RGHF members, who have been invited to this page, may register If a DGE/N/D joins prior to their year, they will have more exposure to Rotary's Global History by their service year. This will be beneficial to all concerned. *Based on paid members, subscribers, Facebook friends, Twitter followers, mobile app users, History Library users, web pages, and articles about Rotary's Global History RGHF Home | Disclaimer | Privacy | Usage Agreement | RGHF on Facebook | Subscribe | Join RGHF | |