You are here
Character and Government Ethics
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009
Robert Wechsler
David
Brooks' column in the New York Times today is about two views of
character, the philosophers' and psychologists' views. He too simply portrays
the philosophers' view as involving ingrained character traits, which is sadly
how most people seem to view character. I would call this the
mythological view of character.
The psychologists' view of character involves a "multiplicity of tendencies ... activated by this or that context." This is the realistic view of character. It's easy to say that someone is "nice" or "a good person," but people act different with different people, and they act different in different situations, as well.
Brooks says that to philosophers "the good life is won through direct assault" on our weaknesses, through reason and willpower. To psychologists, "the good life is won indirectly," because we don't really know the instincts and impulses fighting within us.
Government ethics is much easier than living a good, ethical life. First of all, there are usually rules. But more important, there are clear, limited goals: dealing responsibly with conflicts and disclosing what you are supposed to disclose.
Reason and willpower are required, but not courage or compassion. A good character, in the mythological sense, is not required, but you do have to fight off the instinct to hide and hope the problem isn't detected, and the impulses to win, to be rich and, most important, to be seen as a good person who does not have conflicts and who always puts the public interest first.
The most irrelevant and, in some ways, damaging thing that is said in government ethics, is that almost all government employees and officials are good. There are just a few bad apples. This accepts and continues the mythological view of character, which is a fantasy. "Good" people with conflicts have the same instincts and impulses as "bad" people with conflicts.
Responsible public servants -- good, bad, or indifferent -- strive to do the right thing in terms of government ethics, as they do in terms of their other obligations. As Brooks notes about the psychologists' view, the good life is won "through mundane, self-forgetting effort, and through everyday routines." With effective training, in an ethical environment, government ethics should be just another professional routine.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The psychologists' view of character involves a "multiplicity of tendencies ... activated by this or that context." This is the realistic view of character. It's easy to say that someone is "nice" or "a good person," but people act different with different people, and they act different in different situations, as well.
Brooks says that to philosophers "the good life is won through direct assault" on our weaknesses, through reason and willpower. To psychologists, "the good life is won indirectly," because we don't really know the instincts and impulses fighting within us.
Government ethics is much easier than living a good, ethical life. First of all, there are usually rules. But more important, there are clear, limited goals: dealing responsibly with conflicts and disclosing what you are supposed to disclose.
Reason and willpower are required, but not courage or compassion. A good character, in the mythological sense, is not required, but you do have to fight off the instinct to hide and hope the problem isn't detected, and the impulses to win, to be rich and, most important, to be seen as a good person who does not have conflicts and who always puts the public interest first.
The most irrelevant and, in some ways, damaging thing that is said in government ethics, is that almost all government employees and officials are good. There are just a few bad apples. This accepts and continues the mythological view of character, which is a fantasy. "Good" people with conflicts have the same instincts and impulses as "bad" people with conflicts.
Responsible public servants -- good, bad, or indifferent -- strive to do the right thing in terms of government ethics, as they do in terms of their other obligations. As Brooks notes about the psychologists' view, the good life is won "through mundane, self-forgetting effort, and through everyday routines." With effective training, in an ethical environment, government ethics should be just another professional routine.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Oklanp says:
Thu, 2009-10-22 05:49
Permalink
Ethics reform most often focuses on preventing or fixing abuses of public trust for private gain. It often plays out under intense media coverage and electoral grandstanding that leads to one-upmanship in making reform proposals. This results in poorly designed laws that are difficult to enforce. Public servants need lawyers more than they need ethicists or counselors to maneuver their way through the maze. This is important. Ethics is practicing good virtue.