Situational Ethics Is Inappropriate in a Government Ethics Context
The term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics" target="”_blank”">"situational
ethics"</a> derives from a particular theory of a priest named Joseph
Fletcher, but it is more generally understood to mean dealing with
ethics in terms of a particular situation and particular goals
(ends-oriented ethics). In other words, it is ethics that allows for
different rules in different circumstances, but also for self-serving,
sometimes hypocritical, ethical statements and actions.<br>
<br>
Yesterday, <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/10/no_ones_clean_on_…; target="”_blank”">Ruth
Marcus of the Washington <i>Post</i> did a column</a> about situational ethics
and campaign finance laws. She noted that, in 2000, U. S.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said in reference to regulating
527 organizations (which were being employed primarily by Democrats),
"What we ought to do is broaden the disclosure to include at least
labor unions and tax-exempt business associations and trial lawyers so
that you include the major political players in America. Why would a
little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?"<br>
<br>
Now, when McConnell's party is using 501(c)(4) and other organizations,
he opposes disclosure of their donors.<br>
<br>
Because they often adapt their views to the situation and their current
needs, how much disclosure a politician favors is less important than
how he or she approaches the campaign finance laws that exist today.
Many show little concern for the spirit of these ethics laws, nor do
they seem to care if, in the end, they have to pay hefty fines. They
certainly don't care whether their actions undermine trust in
government, any more than they care about the deleterious effects of
attack advertising.<br>
<br>
Few elected officials seem to understand, or act as if they recognize,
that ethics laws are different from other laws, in that they provide
minimum requirements and their loopholes are not to be taken advantage
of. Marcus doesn't seem to understand this, either:<ul>
[B]oth parties and their allies have demonstrated a hardheaded
willingness to exploit and stretch existing campaign finance laws. To
expect otherwise is to expect lions not to eat zebras when the
opportunity arises. The ethics — and the expressions of ethical outrage
— are purely situational.</ul>
Situational ethics, ethics that focuses on the ends, is not what
government ethics is about. Government ethics is rules-based ethics. In
rules-based ethics, one is supposed to employ the categorical
imperative, that is, ask oneself if you would make the
principle on which you act apply to everyone (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/moral-clarity-v-categorical-imperativ…
blog post</a> on the categorical imperative). Situational ethics is
just the opposite; it assumes that principles apply or don't apply
depending on who is in what situation. For example, campaign finance
disclosure is important when the opposition isn't disclosing enough,
but is unconstitutional when you or your supporters have something to
hide.<br>
<br>
Yes, we cannot expect lions not to eat zebras, but politicians are
human, and humans can transcend their personal desires. That is an
important assumption behind ethics.<br>
<br>
We should not lose sight of the principal goal of government
ethics: preserving citizens' trust in government so that they
will participate and a true democracy can function. If one didn't know
better, one would think, looking at the way they run and fund their
campaigns, that many politicians actually want the public not to trust
them.<br>
<br>
The fact is that it would be easier for politicians if most citizens
did not participate, and there was not a true democracy. You will
recall that our founding fathers, in their great wisdom, chose to have
senators elected by state representatives, not directly by the public.
And presidents are still selected by an electoral college, which can
select a candidate with fewer votes than another. Politicians have
tried to limit citizen participation since our nation's founding.<br>
<br>
But when it comes to laws, these politicians are not lions. They and their advisers are foxes.
No one can stop a lion from killing its prey, but many foxes are clever
enough to understand that it is not always appropriate to be foxy. An
important, rarely stated goal of government ethics is to get enough of
them to see that foxiness is inappropriate to government ethics, and
being foxy in this context undermines trust in government.<br>
<br>
Those who support government ethics could point out that, just because
disclosure is not expressly required in a particular situation, or the
regulatory agency lacks either the manpower or the will to enforce the
law, this does not mean that organizations cannot or should not make
disclosures. In fact, many do. The more who are encouraged to disclose
even when they do not have to, the more it will become clear that those
who do not disclose have something to hide. This is a cost of
non-disclosure that many organizations will want to forgo.<br>
<br>
Some will bluster about privacy, but in most cases — such as the
Chamber of Commerce, whose members are companies — this is ridiculous.
Shame does work most of the time, and when it doesn't, people can at
least differentiate between those who can be trusted and those who
consciously make the decision to place themselves beyond trust.<br>
<br>
What is true of organizations can also be true of government officials.
In the long run, most of the officials who are truly beyond trust go
too far. An important goal of government ethics is to create a
sufficiently healthy ethical environment so that there is the positive
communal support required to prevent these officials from getting away
with their misconduct at the ethics stage, before they go too far and
commit crimes. Without communal fear or indifference, no one can get
away with acting unethically, whatever the situation, unless they are
very foxy indeed.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---