Character and Government Ethics

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20brooks.html">David
Brooks' column</a> in the New York <i>Times</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>