Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
Ethics Columnist for BusinessWeek Online

It’s not a shame that the news media are devoting so much attention to the Michael Jackson story.

It’s unethical.

Here’s why.

Democracy is possible only with a truly free press, not one hijacked by a gossip-hungry public. Yes, Michael Jackson was a phenomenally talented human being, and the fact that his art deeply affected millions of people around the world deserves respect. But news organizations are a public trust, and their obsession now with all things Jackson betrays this trust.

Every Jackson story takes up precious airtime that could be devoted to issues that have a more direct bearing on our future: an economy that’s still in shambles, a health care system in desperate need of repair, the G8 summit—aren’t these stories at least as important as speculating about who will get custody of Jackson’s children?

Here’s another serious problem with Jackson mania: physicians who discuss their treatment of Jackson violate doctor-patient confidentiality, and all media (not just news organizations) ought not to enable this. A person does not give up the moral right to privacy after he or she dies.

If you’re as fed up with this abdication of journalistic ethics as I am, you can express your feelings in the most powerful way possible in our TV-crazed culture.

You can simply change the channel.

Or, better yet, turn it off.

Editor's Note: Dr. Bruce Weinstein, The Ethics Guy, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek Online.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
BusinessWeek.com

It's the most wonderful time of the year, indeed. Between Thanksgiving and New Year's you will face two ethical questions: 1) How much should you tip the people who have helped you during the past 12 months? 2) Is it right to give someone a gift you received but don't want?

Here's some guidance grounded in basic ethical principles so you can handle these tricky matters in the right way and enjoy the holiday season, even during this financially stressful time.

TIPPING TIPS
Sometimes it's hard to reconcile the spirituality of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and other seasonal celebrations with the crass commercialism that seems to grow every year. Nevertheless, because we have an ethical obligation to express our gratitude where appropriate, and money is one of the most appreciated of all gifts, it can be fitting to give cash to the helpers in our life.

How much you should give depends on three factors:
• How much the person has helped you
• What the relationship means to you
• Your financial position

For someone who looked after your pet only once this year, a handwritten thank-you note or holiday card is appropriate. The person who did this five or six times during your business trips and vacations deserves more than that, so including cash or a check with the note is fair. If your doorman, mechanic, or lawn cutter went above and beyond the call of duty in some way, this too can justify a monetary thank-you.

TIPS FOR YOUR OWN PIGGY BANK
If you don't have the financial resources to say "thanks" with cash, you have a right and an obligation not to give money as a gift. The ethical principle of fairness requires, in part, that we allocate scarce resources appropriately.

While most people would prefer to receive money, the following are acceptable options if you're not in a position to dole out the ducats:

• Write a detailed letter to their bosses, explaining exactly how they helped you. Give them a copy of the letter, which could help them earn a promotion or raise.

• Provide services free of charge for a specific project or a finite amount of time. Surely there is something you can do that would be appreciated and doesn't involve spending money.

• Ask your helpers how you can help them. They may surprise you with something you wouldn't have considered but are in a position to do.

After all, some employers (like the federal government) prohibit some or all of their employees from accepting gifts of cash or noncash gifts worth more than a small amount of money.

Bottom line: Find a way to honor both your duty to express gratitude and your responsibility to avoid running up personal debt. Be as kind to yourself as you are to others, and be as good to others as you are to yourself.

REGIFTING IS ACCEPTABLE
Yes, it is right to regift. In fact, we have a duty to do so. Here's why.

First, we have an ethical obligation not to be wasteful. You may not have a need for another wool sweater, but there are many people who do. To shove the sweater into the bottom of your drawer and forget about it denies someone else the chance to stay warm. Beyond giving charitably, however, you probably have a friend or colleague who would like the gifts you don't want or need. Giving them the things you don't plan to use isn't just acceptable—it's the right thing to do.

Second, as we saw with the tipping issue, we have a duty to express our thanks to the many people who have aided us throughout the year, or who enrich our lives with the gift of friendship or familial love.

RULES FOR REGIFTING
There are several caveats to keep in mind before you regift:

• Do it soon. There is a statute of limitations for regifting. If it's old, dusty, or out of season, you're out of luck. Next time, give it away right away.

• Do it out of town. The person to whom you are regifting an article of clothing shouldn't run the risk of running into the original giver of the gift. The most fundamental ethical principle of all is Do No Harm, and since hurting someone's feelings harms that person, it is best to err on the side of caution and avoid the possibility of an unwelcome surprise.

• Don't use it first. This is just basic decency.

• Sometimes you shouldn't regift at all. If someone gives you an unwelcome gift but expects to see you using it, the ethical obligations to avoid causing harm and to respect others require you to bite the bullet and go along with it. These situations are unfortunate, since the purpose of giving a gift is to give pleasure to someone else, not to bolster one's own pride or self-esteem.

You may wonder how it can be justified to practice deception. Unless your friend is the kind of (rare) person who would not be offended to know that she is receiving a regift, the practice of passing on an unwelcome present to someone who might want it falls under the category of a "benevolent deception."

"But any kind of deception is wrong!" you might argue.

Really? So it was unethical for your parents to tell you about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? Come on! In ethics, as in all other issues we confront, we have to pick our battles—and this isn't one of them.

Thus, you may regift with a cheerful soul and a clear conscience. Of course, sometime this season, you will surely get a regift yourself, and you will probably give a present that will get regifted, too.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com
AC360º Contributor

You can’t blame the American consumer for feeling frustrated. After all, we’re caught on the horns of a dilemma: We’re supposed to keep spending our rapidly dwindling dollars to keep our faltering economy from collapsing altogether, but we’re also told to save as much money as we can to prepare for an uncertain future. What to do?

Since it’s impossible to do both of these things simultaneously, I will argue here that placing the economy ahead of our own needs isn’t merely misguided. It’s unethical.

Here’s why.

HOW TO RANK-ORDER YOUR ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS

Your relationship to everyone on the planet may be represented as follows. Imagine a series of concentric circles. You occupy the innermost circle. (Or, if you prefer, the Creator is here, and you are on the next level outside.) In the next closest circle lies your immediate family. The circle after that includes close friends. Progressing toward the outermost circle are, respectively, the people with whom you work, members of your community, your fellow U.S. citizens, and finally, everyone else.

It would be great if you could be all things to all people all of the time, but of course, this is ridiculous. Even when times are good, you must rank-order the responsibilities you have, and it makes sense to say that the closer someone is to you, the stronger are your obligations to that person. Thus, your duty to provide for your family takes precedence over your duty to provide for your friends. Those friends, however, have a greater claim on you than does, say, someone in another country you don’t even know.

None of this means that it is wrong to donate your time, money, and effort to helping strangers in need, regardless of where they live or if you have any common bond. Such actions are noble and praiseworthy. However, when resources are scarce, as they are now for many people, not only could you not be faulted for choosing to allocate your precious dollars to those closest to you; you would be ethically justified in doing so.

Thus, given the tension that appears to exist between contributing to our economy and protecting our individual financial interests, it is right and good to look after ourselves and our families first. For many of us, this boils down to placing a greater value on saving than spending—even if this means, in the short term, that the economy may continue its steady decline.

CAN’T BUY ME LOVE…OR HAPPINESS

There is something fundamentally wrong with an economic philosophy that requires people to spend money so that the economy will remain strong. Not only does such an outlook weaken our ability to save, but it is tied to the false idea that happiness is to be found in the acquisition of material goods. If this is where the deepest satisfaction lay, then the people with the most things would be the happiest, and those with the fewest would be the most miserable. In fact, people whose primary goal is the acquisition of wealth or things are among the least satisfied, because such people never have enough. In fact, they never can have enough, because money has only instrumental, not intrinsic, value. It is good for what it can get us, and many of the things we use it for are luxuries.

Yes, our souring economy is a source of legitimate anxiety, since for many of us, the basic necessities are being threatened. But the bad news also presents a window of opportunity for reflecting on what is really important in life and whether money is as meaningful as we think it is. As President-Elect Obama and his advisors prepare for the transfer of power, let's hope they consider ways of stimulating the economy beyond mandates for consumers to spend, spend, spend.

IS IT OK TO BE A TIGHTWAD DURING THE HOLIDAYS?

There is never a good time for a financial crisis, but this one happens to coincide with our most festive season, when we feel especially obligated to shop and spend. Surely we can temporarily overlook the value of saving and show our family, friends, and co-workers how much we care about them by giving them lavish gifts, right?

Not exactly. It’s true that we have an ethical obligation to express our gratitude to those we care about and who have helped us in the past year, but this expression need not take the form of things you have to buy.

If you’ve just been or are about to be downsized, or you’re in danger of losing your home, it would be wrong to run up your debt through a shopping spree, even if you have the most noble of reasons for doing so. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) spend what you don’t have; we’re in the mess we’re in because too many of us overlooked this fundamental ethical rule.

There are lots of ways to say “thank you” or “I value our relationship” to someone besides spending money. How about spending time with someone? Making a small donation in their name? Writing–and I mean really writing, by hand–a heartfelt letter?

You have no reason to feel guilty for not giving holiday presents during our financially shaky times. Sure, traditional presents are great to give, if you can afford to. If not, it’s smart to avoid making a bad situation worse. We can always be generous of spirit, even when our revenue streams have slowed to a trickle—or stopped flowing altogether. (By the same token, of course, we should be understanding if we don’t receive the gift certificates or boxes of goodies we usually get from friends and colleagues.)

More than ever, we have to count every penny—but we should still be generous in giving of ourselves to those who matter most.

Editor's Note: The Ethics Guy, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com and is the author of “Life Principles: Feeling Good by Doing Good” (Emmis Books). He received a B.A. in philosophy from Swarthmore College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University. In March 2009, Macmillan/Roaring Brook Press will publish his next book, “Is It Still Cheating If I Don’t Get Caught? Visit TheEthicsGuy.com for more information about Dr. Weinstein.

Editor's Note: The Ethics Guy, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com.Here is Dr. Weinsteins followup blog to to downsizing: "Downsizing 101 – When You Have to Do It"

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Americans are bracing for massive job losses in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Even before the recent crisis on Wall Street, anxiety about employment was high; earlier this year, the U.S. Labor Dept. released a report stating that there had been a net loss of 63,000 jobs, which was the biggest decline in five years.

Whether or not your own job is in jeopardy in the near future, at some point in your career you may become a victim of downsizing. What should you do? What you should avoid doing at all costs? We’ll consider these questions in this column, the second of a two-part series on the ethics of downsizing.

WHAT’S ETHICS GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Being laid off is one of the most traumatic events we can experience. On the Holmes-Rahe Stress Scale, getting fired is the eighth most stressful life experience, behind the death of a spouse (#1) or going to jail (#4), but ahead of the death of a close friend (#17), foreclosure on a mortgage or loan (#21), or in-law troubles (#24). Rightly or wrongly, many of us define ourselves by our jobs, which is why one of the first questions we ask someone we meet is, “What do you do?”

I’ve already shown why downsizing has ethical implications for the bearers of bad news. But ethical issues are also at stake for those on the receiving end. If you’ve just been downsized, I’ll bet your first response was, “That’s not fair!.” Even if your company had—or believes it had–good reasons to eliminate your position, from your point of view it feels as though an injustice has occurred. And of course fairness is one of five fundamental ethical principles (Read 'Be Fair- Part 1' and 'Be Fair – Part 2' ). Even if it’s hard to see how ethics plays a role in other areas of your life, when you’re on the receiving end of a perceived injustice, ethics moves front and center into your field of vision.

But it’s not just fairness that is at stake here. When you ask yourself, “How will I able to pay my bills now?,” the underlying question is, “How can I meet my responsibilities to my family, myself, and those to whom I owe money?” All of these responsibilities are ethical ones and are applications of the principles avoiding harm of making things better, and showing respect for others.

Finally, we’ve all known people who let the loss of their job get the better of them, so the ethical principle of compassion, which applies to how we treat ourselves too, is also on the table.

A CODE OF PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY
I propose the following guidelines for you to consider, should you find yourself suddenly out of a job.

1. Get Angry…Later
   It’s easy to react with hostility when you’re told that your position is being eliminated. Don’t. The suggestions I’ve made for dealing with anger-provoking situations are especially relevant in this circumstance. It’s only human to be terribly upset or even filled with rage, but acting on those feelings may violate the do-no-harm principle. Less obvious but also important to think about is the damage you would do to a valued relationship that you may not be able to undo. You won’t regret holding back, but you will regret losing your cool.
2. Don’t Take It Personally
   We’d like to be able to control our lives and shape our destiny through the sheer force of will, but sometimes things happen to us that have absolutely nothing to do with what we’ve done or who we are. This is one of those times.
3. Get a Recommendation
   One of the best ways for a potential employer to find out how valuable you are is to hear from your current boss, but you may have to be the one to make this happen. Get a recommendation in writing as soon as possible. Volunteer to write it yourself. If a letter is out of the question or doesn’t arrive in a timely fashion, ask your boss to send you a short e-mail; even a one- or two-line testimonial will do. Get your boss’s permission to put his or her direct phone number on your resume and give out at job interviews.
4. Be a Self-Promoter
   We’re raised to believe that it’s wrong to toot your own horn, but if ever there were a time to put that belief aside, it’s now. As Rabbi Hillel said, “If I am not for myself, who will be?” (Of course, he wisely added, “But if I am not for others, what am I?”) One of our greatest challenges is striking the right balance between self-absorption and devotion to others. Still, there is not only no harm in standing up for yourself; it is unethical not to do so.Believing in yourself is one of the best ways of applying the principle of compassion to your own life. Consider this as well: how can others benefit from your expertise if you don’t get the word out?
5. Grief is Good
   Grief is a natural and healthy response to losing something or someone of value in your life, and taking your grief seriously is another important way to treat yourself with kindness. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to seek counseling in the wake of being downsized. If you sustained an injury to your back, you would have no qualms about getting physical therapy. Why shouldn’t you seek the appropriate remedy when your world is turned upside down? Many of us still attach a stigma to psychotherapy—wrongly so.
6. Accentuate the Positive
   Is it possible that one of the worst things that could happen to you might turn out to be the best? Take a look at Harvey MacKay’s We Got Fired!: . . . And It's the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Us (Ballantine Books, 2004). Michael Bloomberg, Muhammad Ali, Billie Jean King, Home Depot (HD) founder Bernie Marcus, Lee Iacocca, and Robert Redford are just a few of the wildly successful people who explain how losing a job led to something much better.

Yes, it’s dispiriting to get laid off, but MacKay’s book reminds us of the riches that may lie just beyond the horizon, which would have been unavailable had we stayed where we were.

Bottom line: Taking the high road is challenging enough when all is going well. The real test of your character comes from how you respond when things are at their worst. Following the above guidelines will help you show the world—and yourself—that nothing, not even the loss of your job, can hold you back from success.

Note: Nothing in this column is intended to be or should be construed as legal advice. Please consult an attorney for legal questions you may have about your termination.

Editor's Note: The Ethics Guy, Dr. Bruce Weinstein, writes the ethics column for BusinessWeek.com.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Most discussions about downsizing focus on the legal, economic, or psychological issues raised by this practice. These are essential concerns, but we rarely consider how or why downsizing is also an ethical issue. This is the first of a two-part series that will redress that problem. Today, we'll consider your ethical responsibilities if you are the one charged with giving the bad news. In the second part, we'll look at what you ought and ought not to do if you are the one being downsized.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Downsizing refers to a company's decision to reduce its workforce for reasons other than poor performance, criminal conduct, or unethical behavior on the part of those being let go. The word is a euphemism meant to soften the blow as much for the company as much as it is for the soon-to-be eliminated. There is nothing wrong with making a difficult task easier to bear. In fact, there are good ethical reasons for doing so, as we'll soon see. Still, there is no getting around the fact that downsizing is a type of layoff, with all that this implies. The ethical manager will keep in mind what is really going when he or she is charged with letting good people go.

WHY DOWNSIZING IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE

Anytime we’re faced with a decision that can affect the rights or well-being of others, we're looking at an ethical issue. No matter how strong the justifications for reducing the workforce are or seem to be, laying off loyal and productive employees is an upsetting experience for all concerned, and those on the receiving end face not just financial but psychological injury.

How so? For many of us, the workplace isn't just a place for work; it's where we develop and maintain some of the most important relationships we have. During the week, we spend more time with co-workers than with our families, and for better or worse, work is how many of us define ourselves and give meaning to our lives. Getting laid off compromises all of these things, so managers should think of downsizing as a deep and painful trauma for those being let go, and not as a mere set-back or reversal of fortune.

Yes, downsizing has legal implications, and it is understandable that companies want to minimize their liability when they downsize. Yes, there are economic matters to consider, which makes downsizing a management issue, too. But at its core, downsizing is an ethical issue, and the good manager is concerned not just with protecting the company's financial and legal interests but with honoring the dignity and integrity of the human beings who work on the front lines and who are the lifeblood of the organization.

DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY

I propose the following management guidelines for downsizing ethically:

1. DO IT IN PERSON. This seems obvious thing to do, but I'm surprised by the number of reports I've heard about employees who were downsized on the phone or by e-mail. Managers who use this method claim it makes the whole thing it easier to deal with. Yes...but for whom? Certainly not for the employee being let go. As uncomfortable as it is to end someone’s employment, the right thing to do is to have a private conversation with him or her in person. The ethical principle of respect for others requires nothing less. 
2. DO IT PRIVATELY. Respecting others means honoring their wishes and values, and it is reasonable to assume that most people would prefer to have troubling news delivered in private. This means in your office, with the door closed. I've heard of managers who broke the bad news at the employee's cubicle within earshot of everyone in the vicinity. Again, one would think that this would be a matter of common sense and common decency, but apparently neither is all that common.
3. GIVE THE PERSON YOUR FULL ATTENTION. Interrupting the conversation to take phone calls, check your BlackBerry, or engage in other distractions isn't just rude. It tells the other person that the matter at hand isn't all that important to you and is yet another violation of the principle of respect. The impulse to turn your attention to less troubling matters is understandable, but along with the privileges of being a manager come responsibilities, and downsizing with integrity is one of the most important obligations you have.
4. BE HONEST, BUT NOT BRUTALLY SO. Must you always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, if you're giving sworn testimony in a court of law, but beyond the courtroom the duty to tell the truth is constrained by the duty to minimize harm. In practical terms, this means being forthright with the employee but also choosing with the care the words, tone of voice, and demeanor you use. Compassion- –literally, 'suffering with' someone–honors the dignity of your employee and speaks to the better part of your nature. We can't always make things better, but we shouldn’t make things worse.
5. DON’T RUSH.  A shock takes time to absorb. Imagine that your physician tells you that you have a serious illness. Wouldn't you expect him or her to allow the news sink in, rather than to summarily dismiss you and call for the next patient? Being let go isn't as serious as getting a diagnosis of cancer or heart disease, but it is still a major, life-changing event. You owe your employee the space to absorb the information, and you may have to explain more than once what is happening and why. You would demand nothing less if it were happening to you, and you would be right to do so.

YOU VS. THE COMPANY

These guidelines assume that the organization has good reasons for downsizing–but what if you don't see things this way? For example, suppose your company believes that it is necessary to shift its customer service jobs overseas, and you believe that doing so is both unethical and bad for business. In this case, you not only have a right to object; you have an ethical obligation to object.

Does this mean that you should be prepared to give up your job on moral grounds? Not necessarily. Depending on your personal circumstances, your duties to your family or to yourself might justifiably override the value of making a statement by quitting. Even if you are committed to keeping as many jobs in the U.S. as possible, this goal will take time to achieve, and it may be easier to do so from within the company than from the outside.

The bottom line is important, but so are the values of respect, compassion, and simple human decency. The good manager takes all of these into account—always.

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

The fear that as many as 30,000 protestors will disrupt the 2008 Democratic National Convention this week has led to preparations for an unprecedented turnout by federal and local authorities, according to the New York Times. The city of Denver has spent over $2 million on protection equipment for police officers, and millions more from the federal government will be tagged for Secret Service, FBI agents, and others charged with maintaining law and order. It’s quite possible that protests planned for the Republican National Convention, to be held in Minneapolis-St. Paul from September 1-4, will be even larger and more intense.

With such a hefty price tag for keeping the peace and the logistical nightmare of doing so, wouldn’t it be better if the protesters just kept their mouths shut? Isn’t it unpatriotic to voice dissent about political matters? What good does protest do, anyway?

The correct answers are: no, no, and a lot.

Here’s why.

A HISTORY OF PROTEST

Our country was founded on the twin platforms of dissent and protest. Dissent is thinking or feeling differently about something, and protest is taking action based on dissent. It’s easy to dismiss protests as the undertakings of zealots and kooks, but the history of the United States is largely one of protest: the Boston Tea Party, the Revolutionary War, and the Declaration of Independence are quintessential examples of protest and the reason why we have the freedoms we do.

“What does this have to do with me?” you might ask. “I’ve never protested anything in my life.” This isn’t true, at least if you’ve ever voted. Voting is the most powerful way you can make your voice heard, and it is often done as a form of protest. Don’t believe it? How often have you said, or heard someone else say, “I’m voting for candidate X not because I like him or her, but because I like the other candidate even less”? Not only is there nothing wrong with using your vote this way, but it would be wrong if you were truly bothered by what a candidate represented and did nothing about it.

A CODE OF ETHICS FOR PROTESTING

Yes, we have a responsibility to speak up when we are upset by what’s going on in the world, but there are better and worse ways to do it, from both ethical and practical perspectives. The goal of any protest is a moral one: to make things better. However, this concern must be balanced against the ethical obligations to do no harm, respect others, and be fair. With these concerns in mind, I propose the following code of ethics for those on both sides of the forthcoming protests:

1. Obey the law, or be willing to accept the consequences. Civil disobedience has an important role in democracy, but those who break the law, even in the name of a higher moral good, may have to pay a significant personal price. Rosa Parks rightly protested the Jim Crow laws of the segregated South but was arrested, went to jail, and received death threats. Those who take issue with any aspect of either convention should keep the law in mind at all times and recognize that the failure to do so may lead to civil or criminal penalties, or both.
2. Be tolerant. It is great to be passionate about your point of view. It’s also great to recognize that others may not share it or even be passionately opposed to it. Yes, let others know what you think and feel, but remember Newton’s third law of motion: “For every action, there is an equal, but opposite, reaction.” Tolerance is a necessary condition for respectful protest. We should embrace diversity, not wish it away. 
3. Being respectful increases the chances that you’ll get you what you want. Respectful protest doesn’t guarantee that you’ll achieve the result you’re hoping for, but disrespectful protest almost certainly means you won’t. This is where ethics meets practicality: by honoring the ethical principle of respect for others, you increase the likelihood that your voice will be heard rather than ignored.
4. Accept that fairness is a bedrock of democracy. Winston Churchill noted that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried,” and fairness is one of the distinguishing characteristics of democracy. To be fair is to give to others their due, and in the context of protesting, this means that everyone deserves to be heard. Some cable news hosts and pundits seem to believe that yelling makes one’s argument stronger, but all it does it make it louder. Shouting someone down may make for entertaining television (for some), but at a political rally it is coarse, rude, and unethical.
5. Recognize that our eyes are on the same prize. Judging by what each candidate says about the other, you’d think that one person stood for all that is right and good, while his opponent wants the exact opposite. But of course that’s nonsense. Both want what every rational person wants: a stable economy, a safe country, a livable environment, affordable housing, and the freedom to pursue one’s dreams. Yes, the two sides differ about how to get there—with such complex problems, that’s to be expected—but demonizing those who hold a different point of view isn’t just deeply disrespectful; it is a distortion of the truth, which is just as bad. 
6. Spend your money. Whatever side of the fence you’re on, if you go to either convention, you owe a debt of gratitude to your host city. The best way to pay this debt is the old-fashioned way: with lots of your own cash. If Denver is your destination, go shopping at Larimer Square or LoDo, or drop by the Tattered Cover, one of the best independent bookstores in the country. If you’re heading to Minneapolis-St. Paul, check out the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, the Children’s Museum, or the shops and restaurants on Grand Avenue. Most of all, spend, spend, spend! Not only should you not feel guilty for taking some time for yourself, you ought to indulge—for yourself, and for the town that is making your all of this possible. Even in a flagging economy, sometimes there is an ethical obligation to splurge, and this is one of those times.
7. Above all, take the high road. Whether you’re going to protest or to represent your party, you will encounter insults, nastiness, and other forms of hostility, and it will be easy to give in to the temptation to respond in kind. Don’t. You are there to advance your cause, and the best way to do this is to keep ethics front and center in all that you do. Besides, cameras will be everywhere, and the whole world will be watching. How do you want others to see you?

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com

The hot-button issues of politics can lead to inflamed tempers that can impede your productivity—and possibly, your progress.

Who do you think should be the next President of the U.S.? John McCain? Barack Obama? Jon Stewart? Regardless of who gets elected, there is no question that this is the most diverse and exciting campaign in many years.

Given what is at stake in the election and the historic nature of this year's race, it is tempting to discuss the issue at work with those colleagues we're accustomed to chatting with and hashing out so many things. Yet there are very good reasons why we shouldn't.

The Fearsome Foursome.

Along with sex, money, and religion, politics is one of the most controversial topics of conversation that exists. I submit that money, more than sex, is the most personal aspect of our lives, and it is the one that opens us up to the greatest potential for embarrassment.

Only the most boorish among us would ever think about asking a colleague, "So, how much did you make last year?" Thanks to reality television, cell phones, Facebook, MySpace, blogging, and other 21st century technological developments, we know far too much about people, but however thin the line between professional and personal is getting, many of us still value a modicum of privacy, particularly when it comes to what we earn.

Sex, too, is still an off-limits topic for discussion at work and not merely for the legal reasons relating to sexual harassment. We talk about sex with our closest friends (with whom we probably would not even discuss our income), but this kind of conversation is wisely held after business hours. Neither your salary nor your sex life is anyone's business at the office. Nor, for most professional settings, are your religious beliefs. Discussing the existence of God is fine for a college philosophy class or a third date but not at a company whose mission is banking, insurance, public relations, or just about any other field one can think of.

Politics may not be as close to our hearts, minds, and souls as money, sex, or religion, but it's not too far away, either. In its purest form, politics is to our country what ethics is to us as individuals or social groups. Ethics asks, "How should I live?" Politics asks, "How should we live?" It's true, of course, that the term "politics" has come to be practically a slur word. When we are prevented from accomplishing a goal at work, we often say that what got in the way was "office politics." If a less-qualified job candidate is hired over a more qualified one, we conclude that it was "politics" that somehow won the day. However, where I am using "politics" here, it is in its classical sense: the study of how our society should be ordered.

When conversation at work turns to politics, it inevitably touches on the meaningful issues at stake in the election, and most of these issues are by their nature highly divisive. Among the questions now on the table are:

• Should abortion continue to be legal?
• Should same-sex marriage be legalized?
• How relevant to holding public office is a person's religion?
• How much should the wealthy be taxed?
• To what extent should the federal government be involved in social programs?

No matter what your position on these issues is, it is clear that:

• There is disagreement about them.
• The passions raised by each question are strong.
• In all but a few instances, where you stand on each issue has little or no bearing on the job you are doing or your ability to do it.

In considering whether it is appropriate to have political discussions on the job, five fundamental ethical principles are at stake: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair, and Be Loving.

Here is an example of the very real danger of allowing free and unfettered discussions about Presidential politics at work:

Let's say that you and your boss are arguing the respective merits of your preferred candidates. Unbeknownst to you, your boss is very passionate about the abortion issue, but your candidate—and you—hold a view that is contrary to your boss's. As much as your boss might strive to respect your right to have and express your opinion, can you be sure that s/he won't hold your position against you when, say, your performance review comes around? If you are the boss in question, can you be certain that your subordinate's political beliefs won't affect your decision to give her a raise or even keep her on?

Preferences about music, art, or food are three of the many areas in which reasonable people may disagree. Your co-worker likes Madonna and you like U2? No problem. However, when someone holds contrary political beliefs from us, do we say that he or she merely has a different opinion? No. We say, rightly or wrongly, that he or she is mistaken, and this has troubling implications in the workplace. If you believe in evolution, and you suddenly discovered that a colleague is a creationist, can you honestly say that your view of him or her would not then suffer? Might this not affect how well you work together on a project that has nothing to do with how the world came into existence?

"But I'm not that way, and neither are my colleagues," you argue. "We're able to take the high road even when we talk about controversial subjects." Even if this is the case, it is highly unlikely that the vast majority of other people will follow in your footsteps, as nice as that would be.

"This is utter nonsense," you claim. "I have a right to talk about politics if I want to." Yes, of course you have a Constitutional right to free speech, and there may be no prohibitions in your workplace against discussing whatever you like, short of committing harassment or other hostile acts. But just because we have a right to do something doesn’t mean that we should do it.. When we reflect on how we ought to conduct ourselves, it is more important to ask, "Is this the right thing to do?" rather than, "Do I have a right to do it?"

Simply put, we shouldn't discuss politics in the workplace because, with very few exceptions, these discussions have nothing to do with our job and can only interfere with it.

Toward a More Respectful Workplace.

One might conclude that what I am calling for will lead to a chill in the workplace or, worse, a corporate police state in which speech is carefully monitored and wrongful talk is harshly punished. Rather than make a fetish out of what each individual should be allowed to do (or get away with), a more appropriate perspective to take here—and with all issues concerning conduct at work and beyond—is to consider how our actions might adversely affect others and fracture the community of which we are a part. Yes, in the best of circumstances, discussion with people who hold different points of view can lead to greater understanding of beliefs different from one's own. Yes, it may be possible for you and your colleagues to have a civil, respectful conversation at work about the politics of abortion, euthanasia, creationism, the existence of God, your sex life, and your salary.

Nevertheless, if you are able to have such polite repartee, you are in the minority. For most people, these kinds of discussions too often degenerate into loud arguments and the conclusion that those on the opposing side of the fence are "idiots." In what sort of business would this kind of behavior promote doing one's job effectively? As engaging as such conversations might be, to what extent will they enhance the ability to carry out one's duties and meet the needs of customers and company alike? More to the point, won't such conversations likely impede the performance of one's assignments?

Bottom line: the very real and important need for lively, informed, and vigorous debate is best met before and after one goes to work. Everyone in the body politic will be better off if this rule is treated with the respect it deserves.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will be discussing this column on Issue #1 on Wednesday at 12:24 p.m. ET and again on American Morning on Friday. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek.com

Which of the following statements is most accurate for you?

A) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, and I take them—guilt-free.
B) I receive 15 days of paid vacation each year, but I feel guilty if I take any of them.
C) I haven’t had a vacation in years; I’m loyal to my company or business and am proud of this fact.
D) I work for myself and don’t take vacations; if I don’t work, I don’t make money.

Even if you chose “A,” you surely know people in the other three situations. We in the United States wear as a badge of honor the fact that we rarely, if ever, take time off from work. We need to earn a living, and many of us like what we do, so our reluctance to take vacations is justified, right?

No, it isn’t.

Leaving work behind for a period of time is not only acceptable; it is our ethical obligation.

Here’s why.

AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

With respect to the number of paid vacation days that employees get, the U.S. ranks toward the bottom of 49 counties, according to the human resource consulting firm Mercer. Among large firms in this country, employees are allotted an average of 15 days off with pay, aside from holidays. (Source: CNNMoney.com, June 13, 2007). This figure may sound impressive, but consider the situation in other countries: Australians, Italians, Latvians, and the Japanese get 20 days off; Swedes and Greeks get 25; Lithuanians get 28; and the Finnish and the French get 30. Imagine taking up to six weeks of paid vacation each year and not feeling the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. It’s not a fantasy; for many, it is a happy way of life.

Many countries mandate paid vacation, but the U.S. is not one of them, so it’s quite possible that many firms here view vacation days as a perk, a benefit, something above and beyond the call of duty. But for ethical reasons, it is a serious mistake for employers to view vacations this way, and it is just as wrong for employees to feel that they are being disloyal to their employer or their colleagues when they take time off.

WHAT DOES ETHICS HAVE TO DO WITH VACATIONS?

These are the five fundamental principles of ethics:

1. Do No Harm
2. Make Things Better
3. Respect Others
4. Be Fair
5. Be Loving

Ethical responsibilities apply not just to how we treat others but to how we treat ourselves, too. Although ethics is fundamentally a guard against self-obsession, it is right and good to treat oneself with respect, fairness, and compassion and to avoid causing ourselves harm.

Now consider two states of affairs: how you feel after working for a long time without a break, and how you feel during and after some restorative time at the beach. Can you really be at your best when you’re running on empty? Aren’t you more likely to do a good job when your batteries are recharged?

Taking a vacation from time to time enables you to do your job to the best of your ability, and this is one reason why vacations are an ethical issue. Another reason why it is ethical to take time off periodically is because we simply owe it to ourselves to rest. The ethical arguments for taking vacations are in fact similar to those for staying home when you’re sick. Doing the right thing for yourself and your clients means that that when you’ve got a cold or the flu, you ought to stay home and get better. Being an ethical person also means cashing in those vacation days each year, out of respect for both yourself and those to whom you provide a service.

OBSTACLES TO TAKING VACATIONS, AND HOW TO RESOLVE THEM

Let’s look at some of the most common reasons for not taking time off, and how you can respond effectively to these challenges:

I work for myself/My employer doesn’t give paid vacations/I’ve been laid off, and I need to work.

The reluctance to give up some future revenue is understandable, particularly in our current economy. But how often is this an excuse, rather than an accurate reflection of one’s financial situation? Taking a vacation doesn’t have to mean gambling big in Vegas or flying first-class to Sydney, as fun as these trips may be. With “staycations” becoming more popular, time away from work can mean nothing more than sleeping late, watching DVD’s, and eating lots of comfort food at home. We budget for meals, clothing, and transportation. Shouldn’t we also budget for a vacation? Yes, there ought to be a law mandating paid vacations, but until that comes to pass, we’ll have to find creative ways on our own of taking off.

I love my work, and I’m miserable when I’m away from it.

Maybe it’s time to get a hobby! I’m reminded here of Godfrey Reggio’s astounding 1982 film, Koyaanisqatsi. The title is a Hopi term for “life out of balance.” It’s wonderful to get jazzed about one’s job—I feel the same way—but a rich, meaningful life involves things beyond work.

Most of the people I work with aren’t taking vacations, so I don’t want to burden them with the extra work they’d have if I left for a while.

It’s praiseworthy to want to avoiding causing undue stress on your colleagues, but you—and they—are entitled (ethically if not legally) to some time off. Ultimately, the fair distribution of labor is a management issue, and employees shouldn’t have to worry that a justifiable absence will result in an undue burden on the team.

I’m the only one at work who can do my job. The company, and my clients, can’t afford for me to be away.

It’s nice to feel wanted or needed, but few of us are truly indispensable, as much as we may hate to admit it. I submit that in most cases, the idea that you, and only you, can do your job is a delusion of grandeur rather than a reflection of reality.

I feel guilty when I take vacations.

If you’re not yet convinced that it’s ethical to take time off, perhaps it’s time to talk with a trusted advisor about why you feel you aren’t worthy of a trip to the mountains or the shore or even just some time to yourself. You have every reason to feel good about treating yourself right, and vacations, however you choose to spend them, are self-indulgent in the best possible way.

TO EVERY THING, TURN, TURN, TURN

Checking e-mail, taking work-related phone calls, and reading material related to one’s job are not the elements of a true vacation. A working vacation makes about as much sense as showing up for a corporate job in shorts and a tank top with a margarita in your hand. To the list of things for which there is a time—a time to be born, a time to die, a time to weep, a time to laugh—one might add, “a time to work, and a time to take a long break.”

Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will discuss this article on CNN’s “Issue #1” this Tuesday at 12 noon ET. You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
AC360° Contributor
The Ethics Guy®, BusinessWeek.com

Who should Senators Barack Obama and John McCain pick as their running mates? This is one of the most debated questions in the presidential campaign, but it shouldn’t be viewed as merely a strategic concern. Whenever we ask what someone should do, and the rights or well-being of others hangs in the balance, we are asking an ethical question. That’s why who our next vice president ought to be is an important ethical issue.

The Vice Presidency: Much Ado About Nothing?

The U.S. Constitution specifies two primary duties of the vice president: to be the first in the line of succession to the office of the Presidency and to preside over the Senate. Beyond these two responsibilities, however, the Constitution leaves the exact nature of the office open to the whims of the President, and up until the 20th century, vice presidents had little contact with the executive branch.

However, nine occupants of this office have succeeded to the presidency... (eight of whom did so because the president died in office, and the ninth, Gerald Ford, became president after Richard Nixon’s resignation). The possibility of a vice president becoming commander-in-chief cannot be taken lightly, but vice presidents have also played a significant role in government over the past 30 years. Walter F. Mondale was given his own West Wing office and frequent access to Jimmy Carter, notes Joel K. Goldstein, author of The Modern American Vice Presidency: The Transformation of a Political Institution; Al Gore was a strong No. 2 to Bill Clinton; and Dick Cheney has had a profound impact on environmental, energy, budget, tax, and foreign policy.

With so many critical issues before us now, including a flagging economy, rising food and energy prices, a housing crisis, almost 50 million citizens without health care insurance, and the ever-present danger of terrorism, it’s reasonable to think that the next president may follow in the tradition of having a vice president who plays a significant role in determining the direction of our country.

“Who is Most Likely to Help Me Win?”

Although the term “politics” used to refer to the study of how society should be structured, these days the focus seems to be on how to win delegates, which commercials are successful in appealing to various demographics, and other strategic concerns. Even the most idealistic among us, however, must realize that it would be foolish if not impossible to separate the practical from the philosophical. To paraphrase a comment CBS newsman Bob Schieffer once made: “To be a good president, you first have to become President.”

Nevertheless, for ethical reasons, the question of how a vice presidential pick would affect their electability cannot be Obama and McCain’s sole concern. Leaders shouldn’t pander to ignorance, foolishness, or prejudice, so just because a potential running mate could bring about victory, it doesn’t follow that he or she should be on the ticket. Increasing the odds of winning the election is a necessary condition for any vice presidential candidate, but ethically it is not sufficient.

What else matters, then? Let’s next consider another possibility from an ethical perspective.

“Who Will Complement Me the Best?”

There are many different leadership styles. Should Obama or McCain seek a future vice president whose leadership style is similar to his own?

Not necessarily. Some of the best decisions are borne not of peace but of conflict, the kind of healthy conflict that can occur when the decision maker is respectfully challenged by others. Yes, it might be easier to have a yes-man or -woman as VP, but with so much at stake for the country and the world, such a person might allow a troublesome decision to go unchallenged.

As I’ve noted in a previous column, criticizing a person’s position isn’t the same thing as criticizing that person, and the President of all people should not only accept criticism; he (or she) should welcome and encourage it. The mission of the President is a moral one: to make the best possible decision for the country, and having a vice president who will question the President and force him to do his best thinking is best for the country.

With this in mind, it becomes clear what the ultimate standard ought to be for choosing a running mate.

“Who Would Be Best for the Nation?”

This is the first and last question that Obama and McCain ought to ask themselves when narrowing the field of vice presidential candidates. Yes, it’s important to win the race, and finding someone who won’t shirk from speaking his or her mind is all to the good, but both of these factors must be in the service of, well, being of service to the country. If McCain or Obama believes that a particular candidate is not going to be the best vice president and potential successor to him, that candidate should simply not be considered, no matter how appealing he or she might be on the ticket.

What I’m proposing here may be radical, naïve, and out of touch with the way the modern world operates. But that’s OK. After all, ethics isn’t about describing the way the world is. It’s about considering how the world might be if we were to focus on the things that matter most. When thinking about filling the No. 2 spot, Obama and McCain should be thinking not only about victory for themselves in the short run, but about prosperity for the rest of us in the long run.

Editor's Note: Bruce Weinstein discusses ethics each Friday on “American Morning.” You can read more from Bruce at TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein
AC360º contributor and The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Angelina and Brad are the latest in a long line of celebrities clamoring to sell photos of their babies to the highest bidder.  Apparently, this is perfectly legal to do.

But it’s still wrong.   Here’s why.

First, the fact that we have a legal right to do something doesn’t mean that it’s right to do it.  For example, you wouldn’t be breaking the law if you routinely broke lunch dates with friends when something better came along, but it’s wrong to do such a thing.  Ethics holds us to a higher standard than the law does; it calls upon us to “live our best lives.”

Second, a parent’s most important responsibility is to be concerned primarily with protecting the interests of his or her child. It is a severe violation of this responsibility to sell photos of one’s child to the highest bidder.

“But what if that money goes to charity?,” some ask.  Ethically, this doesn’t matter, because evil must not be done so that good may come of it.  If the police randomly searched citizens without cause, they would probably find drugs, guns, and other contraband from time to time.  However, our society justifiably deplores this, because the rights of innocent people to be left alone takes precedence over whatever good might come from shaking down people at will.  Thus even if the proceeds from the sale of baby photos could lead to a cure for cancer, the elimination of famine in Africa, or other desirable goals, it is important to be concerned about how we achieve these ends.

Third, infants are not capable of providing an informed consent to having their pictures taken and sold to the tabloids (or anywhere else, for that matter).  Because they don’t have the ability to weigh the pro’s and con’s of such an undertaking, society entrusts parents to make good decisions on their children’s behalf.  A child whose parents sell pictures of her for financial gain, or even to benefit a worthwhile cause, might grow up to feel that her parents violated a basic trust.  And it would be perfectly understandable for a child to feel this way.

Of course, it’s not merely celebrities who are to blame for this deplorable practice.  Without a public whose appetite for such inanities seems to know no limits, the supply would soon dry up.  But the public has greater power to stop the practice than it might like to believe.  The outcry last year over the News Corporation’s decision to publish O.J. Simpson’s book, “If I Did It,” led that company to cancel the deal (although the book resurfaced later in altered form, which I have commented upon elsewhere).

If the decision of celebrities to sell photos of their infants for astronomical sums offends your moral sensibilities, don’t just quietly seethe about it.  Refuse to purchase magazines containing these images.  Write a letter to the editor expressing your concerns.  Send an e-mail to the celebrities in question and respectfully take issue with the practice.  When we encounter something we believe is an injustice, we not only have a right to speak up.  We have an obligation to do so.

www.TheEthicsGuy.com

Editor's Note: Dr Weinstein discusses ethics every Friday on American Morning. Some of the material in this article appeared originally on BusinessWeek.com

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

What are the ethics of giving and accepting an apology? I’ll answer this question, first with respect to the Jesse Jackson story, and then more broadly as the issues applies to all of us.

In a written statement last week, Jackson said, “For any harm or hurt that this hot mic conversation may have caused, I apologize.” This is a classic non-apology apology, since it is a thinly attempt to blame others for the problem. The phrase “hot mic conversation” implies that Fox News was wrong to broadcast Jackson’s remarks, and “any harm or hurt [my remarks] may have caused” suggests that the culprit is not Jackson himself but all of the hypersensitive people out there who feel offended.

What Jackson should have said was, “I take full responsibility for my inappropriate comments, and I am deeply sorry that I said them.”

No one is asking Jackson to be a perfect human being. From time to time, all of us say things that we shouldn’t. The right response to such gaffes, however, is not shifting the blame to others but owning up to the mistakes and doing our level best not to repeat them. Jackson spent a considerable amount of time and energy yesterday asking the public to excuse his behavior. The lessons here are two-fold:

1. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and... 
2. When we do something that’s wrong, we ought to apologize sincerely and quickly. Jackson’s initial, misbegotten statement of remorse is now a matter of record, and that, more than all of his subsequent television interviews, is what many will remember.

For his part, Senator Barack Obama took the high road and, in accepting Jackson’s apology (such as it was), Obama showed that doing the right thing is the best PR tactic of all, even if the reason to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Perhaps it would have been praiseworthy for Obama to address the issue himself, rather than to use a spokesperson to do so, but after all, he is running for President and has bigger fish to fry.

This story raises broader questions about the ethics of apologies that are worth addressing:

• What makes an apology meaningful?

• Does apologizing make us look weak?

• How should you respond if you can't avoid repeating the mistake?

• What may we rightfully expect from someone who apologizes to us?

To answer these questions, it will be helpful to keep two ethical principles in mind: Be Fair and Be Loving. Fairness requires, among other things, that the punishment should fit the crime, and some forms of wrongful conduct are so serious that a mere "I'm sorry" isn't enough of a response. To be loving and compassionate in our professional and personal lives calls upon a different set of skills: we should do what we can to honor a person's sincere apology, even though our anger pulls us in the opposite direction.

With these two principles in mind, I propose the following guidelines for giving and accepting apologies:

WHEN YOU *OWE* AN APOLOGY:

• Admit your mistake quickly and take personal responsibility for it. Don't say "we made a mistake" when you mean "I made a mistake."
• Apologize first to the person you have wronged. That is the person who matters most.
• Speak from the heart. An insincere apology is as bad as no apology at all. People can tell when you really mean it, even if you think you're a good actor and can fool everyone.
• Realize that "sorry" is just a word. For that word to be meaningful, you must do your level best to avoid repeating the mistake. This means coming up with a strategy and sticking to it.
• Understand that a meaningful apology is a sign of integrity, not weakness. Anyone can blame others, or deny that he or she did anything wrong, or lie about what really happened. Only a strong, self-possessed person can own up to their mistakes, and only such a person commands true respect.

Don't be afraid to ask for help. If you can't do something well on your own, invite others to work with you on the problem. If the problem is beyond your grasp, consider asking someone else to take it on, if it is appropriate for you to do so.

WHEN YOU ARE *OWED* AN APOLOGY:

• If someone has done something wrong and apologizes to you, accept the apology graciously. However...
• You are also justified in expecting the person to avoid repeating the behavior that required an apology in the first place.
• Depending on the situation, you might need to make clear to the other person what the consequences will be if he or she makes the mistake again.
• "Three strikes and you're out" is fine for baseball, but in other areas, it may take only one strike for someone to be justifiably banished from being a player. Some mistakes are so serious that you should not grant a second chance. For relatively minor slip-ups, however, or if the task at hand is unusually difficult, it might be unfair not to allow more than three opportunities to get it right.
• If the apologist continues making the same mistake over and over, you may have to say, perhaps regrettably, "I can't in good conscience give you another opportunity to slip up," no matter how much that person continues to apologize. This may mean, for example, ceasing to make lunch plans with a friend who routinely breaks the date at the last minute, or firing an employee who can’t do his or her job.

The 1970 film Love Story featured the memorable line, "Love means never having to say you're sorry." Even if this were true, there are many other areas where we do have to say we're sorry-and mean it. The challenge for all of us is to admit we've made a mistake, to do our best to ensure that we don't do it again, and to forgive others who sincerely regret their own poor judgment. No one is perfect, but most of us do have the capacity to right our own wrongs and to accept the imperfections in others.

www.TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Last year, New York became the first state in the nation to pass a law establishing a bill of rights for airline passengers. The bill was in response to ten-hour flight delays at John F. Kennedy International airport, among other airline-related aggravations. Although the bill was struck down by a federal appeals court, and the Congressional bill introduced by Rep. Mike Thompson and Sens. Barbara Boxer and Olympia Snowe died in the Senate, the passenger's rights movement continues to plow ahead, and House speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to call up the bill after the 4th of July recess.

Passengers stranded on tarmacs are certainly entitled to be treated with respect, but with rights come responsibilities. I therefore propose the following "Passenger’s Bill of Duties":

1. Passengers shall not take out their frustrations on personnel at the ticket counter or gate. Passengers shall appreciate the thankless nature of these jobs and will recognize that the surest way *not* to get what they want is to treat airline employees with contempt.
2. When entering the cabin, passengers shall greet flight attendants with a smile. When disembarking, they shall say a sincere "thank you" to the attendants, as well as to the pilot, who got them safely to their destination. Passengers who experienced a delay in departing or arriving shall still express their gratitude to the crew, who were, after all, not responsible for the problem.
3. Passengers shall pay attention to the safety demonstration before take-off, no matter how many times they have seen it before. They shall also turn off cell phones, pagers, and all other electronic devices when directed to do so and shall not rely upon reminders from conscientious fellow passengers.
4. After striking up a conversation with a neighbor, passengers shall take cues from the other person when a gabfest isn’t welcome. A few hours in an airplane is the only time many people have to enjoy a bit of solitude.
5. Parents and other guardians will not allow their children to scream, kick, or otherwise misbehave.
6. Before leaving the restroom on board, passengers shall leave no trace that they had ever used it.
7. Passengers shall keep their elbows and the edges of their newspapers away from their neighbors. Each passenger is entitled to his or her share of unencumbered space. No passenger shall assume that the armrest is for him or her alone.
8. Passengers in the mood for love shall refrain from using the restroom for some afternoon delight.
9. When the in-flight movie starts, passengers shall do as they’re asked and lower the shades. They may not want to watch the film, but they shall recognize that others may wish to do so. On their portable DVD players and laptops, passengers shall refrain from watching pornography, extreme violence, or other material that might reasonably offend the sensibilities of fellow passengers.
10. Passengers shall clean up after themselves. Flight attendants are there to ensure the comfort and safety of customers and are not maids, nannies, or caretakers. Upon disembarking, passengers shall take their remaining trash with them and deposit it in the appropriate receptacle in the airport, rather than in the seat pocket, on the floor, or elsewhere.

All of these rules may be boiled down to one simple idea: we ought to think about how our actions affect other people. That is, after all, the essence of both etiquette and ethics, two institutions that are the basis of a well-functioning community.

Passengers who take their responsibilities as seriously as their rights will go a long way toward ensuring a pleasant flying experience for everyone, including themselves. Being respectful is simply the right thing to do.

www.TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D.
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Daniel Goleman's books "Emotional Intelligence" and "Social Intelligence" have made a huge impact on our culture. We could all develop our ethical intelligence, too. That means not only understanding the difference between right and wrong, but also choosing to act ethically, especially when there is great pressure to do otherwise. It's not enough to know what's right; the ethically intelligent person does what's right, and is committed to doing so time and again.

How ethically intelligent are you at work? Take the following quiz to find out.

1. One of the people you have just hired seems to be attracted to you, and you are attracted to this person. Both of you are single. Would you:

A) Ask the person out on a date.
B) Have only a professional relationship with the person.
C) Ask the person if your intuition is correct, and if it is, discreetly pursue a romantic relationship.

2. A co-worker in the next cubicle has a habit of spending a lot of time making loud and distracting personal phone calls about things that are obviously trivial. Would you:

A) Ask the person to keep the volume at a reasonable level.
B) Focus on your own work.
C) Talk with the person about why it's in everyone's interest to limit personal phone calls.

3. In a public restaurant, you overhear two colleagues discussing confidential information about a client. They mention the client by name. Would you:

A) Ignore it.
B) Talk with your colleagues about your concerns about confidentiality and leave it at that.
C) Report them to your supervisor.

4. You recently fired someone who often came to work late, left early, and spent a lot of work time surfing the Internet for fun. Recently you've learned that another member of your staff is doing the same thing. However, this person is the daughter of a close personal friend (who doesn't work at the company). You have given this employee several warnings about her behavior, but the problems continue. Would you:

A) Fire the employee.
B) Give her another warning and hope that this will take care of the problem.
C) Ask your friend to talk with his daughter.

5. You took the family out to dinner and used your corporate credit card because you forgot your personal one. When it comes time to doing your expenses, would you:

A) Put in the name of a client whose account you know has plenty of cash in it.
B) Mark it as a personal expense and reimburse your employer.
C) Tell your supervisor that it was a family dinner and ask him to approve the expense on the grounds that, with all of the late nights you've been putting in, you've missed a lot of meals with your spouse and children.

ANALYSIS

Evaluating the choices in each scenario is predicated on the five fundamental principles of ethics:

1. Do No Harm
2. Make Things Better
3. Respect Others 1, 2
4. Be Fair 1, 2
5. Be Loving

Scenario #1
As tempting as they may be, office romances are not a good idea . For one thing, how can you be sure that your new hire is actually attracted to you and not just being friendly? Choice A may be based on a misinterpretation of the signals you're getting (or think you're getting), so asking the employee out on a date could reasonably be interpreted as sexual harassment. Even if there is a mutual attraction, however, choice C is still not the best response to the situation. After all, most relationships don't work out, and when this one fizzles, you'll both face an extremely uncomfortable working environment, and one or both of you may have to go. B is the best way to honor your responsibilities to your employee, your clients, your organization, and yourself.

Scenario #2
Making an excessive number of personal phone calls while on the job isn't rude; it's unethical. We're paid to do a job, and wasting time is unfair to all; the fact that this may be a common practice doesn't make it right.
When a colleague engages in such conduct, it's understandable that you'd want to avoid talking with him or her-few of us like confrontations-but this course of action (choice B) simply allows the problem to continue. Choice A goes further but doesn't get at the root of the problem. The concern isn't that the co-worker is yakking loudly but that he or she is spending so much time yakking. Lowering his or her voice may make life more bearable for you, but your colleague remains a time-waster. We're all in this together, so respectfully bringing up your concerns with him or her, as difficult as this may be, addresses the issues of fairness and making things better.
Choice C may be the hardest of the three to act upon, but ethically it's the best solution.

Scenario #3
Your colleagues probably aren't maliciously spreading gossip but just continuing a discussion they started before arriving at the restaurant.
Their violation of client confidentiality is thus unintentional, but that still doesn't make it right, and if you ignore the matter (choice A), you allow the problematic behavior to continue. Unless you work for an organization that requires you to report any confidentiality violations, choice C is too harsh and will also unnecessarily damage your relationship with your colleagues. Choice B honors all five ethical
principles.

Scenario #4
Being fair means that we should treat like cases alike, and unalike cases unalike. The fact that an employee has a personal connection to you isn't ethically relevant, regardless of how often this gets taken into account in business every day. Believing that the problem will go away on its own (choice B) is unrealistic, so continuing to cut the employee some slack isn't appropriate. Also, favoritism hurts the morale of everyone else working in the department. Nor is it right to bring your friend into the drama (choice C). He has no place in dealing with internal company problems, and it's irresponsible to have someone else do your job. Firing the errant employee (choice A) is the fair solution, regardless of any consequences to your friendship with her dad.

Scenario #5
It's a privilege, not a right, to be treated to dinner on the company's expense, and this is a call that only the company can make. It's also a privilege to have a corporate credit card, and this privilege is based on the trust the company places in you not to abuse your expense account.
Choice A is theft, plain and simple, no matter how flush with cash a client's account may be. Choice C is honest and forthright, yes, but shouldn't everyone who works overtime be treated to family meals? Imagine how your co-workers would react if they found out that you were able to get a perk that they did not, even though they too made sacrifices for the company. Choice B is both honest and fair, and for these reasons, it's the best way to go.

ANSWERS

With the above analysis in mind, here is how each choice should be
scored:

1. A = 1, B = 3, C = 2

2. A = 2, B = 1, C = 3

3. A = 1, B = 3, C = 2

4. A = 3, B = 2, C = 1

5. A = 1, B = 3, C = 2

IF YOU SCORED A TOTAL OF:

5-8: You tend to take the easy way out, or to consider your own needs and desires above those of others. It may be natural to be selfish, but this doesn't make it right.

9-13: Sometimes you take the high road, and sometimes you don't. Yes, it's sometimes difficult to find the courage to do what is right rather than what is convenient, but being ethical isn't a part-time commitment. Since you acknowledge the importance of doing the right thing, why not strive to do it all the time, rather than some of the time?

14-15: You not only know what the right thing is; you consistently do it, even when it's not so easy. Your friends, family, colleagues, and clients are fortunate that you're a part of their lives. Way to go!

This quiz is intended to be a springboard for reflection about what it means to do the right thing. Also, my analysis should be subject to debate; I may be wrong. Nevertheless, the idea is that some responses to ethical problems are better than others, and the way we discover what those responses are is by turning to the principles of ethics.

In future quizzes, I'll look at ethical issues in relationships outside of work. Stay tuned!

www.TheEthicsGuy.com

Editor's Note: Bruce Weinstein will discuss the ethics quiz and the ethics IQ today on Issue#1.

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

In an article entitled, “John McCain Doesn’t Work Weekends," Politico.com reports that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee chooses to spend Saturdays and Sundays with family and friends rather than staying on the campaign trail.

The tone of the article, beginning with its headline, suggests that McCain is committing not just a political sin, but a moral one as well. It’s as though McCain had been found guilty of being cruel to animals or something similarly abominable.

Why?

Americans wear as a badge of honor the fact that we rarely take vacations or sick days. We could learn a lot, however, from people in many European countries (and others), who not only get four or more weeks of paid vacation—-they take them, and they don’t feel ashamed for doing so. It’s true that many of us don’t have the luxury of paid vacations, but too many of those who do eschew such an idea.

Not only is it *not* lazy to take some time off; it’s the ethical thing to do, for two reasons. First, the ethical responsibility to be loving and compassionate applies not just to how we treat others, but to how we treat ourselves, too. Being kind to ourselves means that it’s a good thing to sleep late, watch TV, and just plain goof off from time to time.

Second, the best way to be of service to others is to take care of one’s own needs first. For example, flight attendants tell us that when it becomes necessary to use emergency oxygen masks, we should first tend to ourselves. Rather than being selfish, looking after ourselves is ethically necessary, because it is basis for all that we do, including helping others.

Of course, selfishness is wrong if it becomes a way of life. One can take too much time off, just as one can do too much of anything. And, yes, if he is elected President, Senator McCain won’t be able to kick back and relax every weekend, as he is doing now. But this has been a long, grueling race, and we ought not to begrudge him the desire to refresh and rejuvenate.

The ethical obligation to care for ourselves applies not just to 71-year-olds, but to 46-year-olds, and the rest of us, too. Ageism is as insidious a form of prejudice as are racism and sexism, so let’s take the high road and respect McCain’s wish to recharge his batteries from time to time. Instead of ridiculing him, we should follow his lead.

With this in mind, I’m signing off now to take a nap and will try not to feel guilty for doing so. Hey, I deserve it, since I woke up at 4:15 today to prepare for my “American Morning” ethics segment.

You deserve some time off this weekend, too—and I hope you’ll take it.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Weinstein will be appearing regularly on American Morning starting this Friday. For more about the author, visit TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

On his radio show on Monday, during a discussion about the arrests of suspended Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam Jones, Don Imus asked, "What color is he?"

Tuesday, Imus defended his question by saying:

“What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason. I mean, there's no reason to arrest this kid six times. Maybe he did something once, but everyone does something once.”

Let’s set aside the issue of whether it is acceptable to refer to a 24-year-old professional athlete as a “kid.” (It’s better, I suppose, than calling him “boy”—but not by much.) The central ethical question is whether Imus’s latest remarks are justifiable, given the racist language he used last year in referring to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

One doesn’t like to pile on, and few could survive today’s media scrutiny without having a few character flaws exposed. And, yes, Imus is correct in defending some misbegotten conduct on the grounds that “everyone does something once.” But isn’t it reasonable to expect that someone who apologized profusely for having made a racist remark would go to great lengths to avoid even the perception of racism today?

Yes, it is.

In a column I wrote for BusinessWeek.com called “The Ethics of Apologies,” I argued that the ethical principle of compassion calls upon us to accept a person’s sincere apology. But the ethical principle of justice or fairness entitles us to expect the apologist to back up his or her words with action. We can thus legitimately expect Don Imus to refrain from introducing race into a discussion where race is irrelevant. (Doing otherwise is what racism is all about.) Adam Jones has never claimed, to my knowledge, that his scrapes with the law had anything to do with his being African-American.

Yes, we have a long way to go before we realize the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, but Jones’s poor judgment may simply be a result of his own foolishness, and nothing more. To say that a person’s dumb choice is rooted in his or her race (or gender, or sexual orientation, or age) is to engage in the very sort of prejudice that one is purporting to disavow. This is what is really going on in Don Imus’s latest kerfuffle.

Does Imus deserve to be fired (again) for his ignorant remark? Probably not. But it would behoove Mr. Imus to take a good, hard look at his reflexive tendency to bring up the issue of race where it doesn’t belong, and to consider why doing so is offensive to so many.

As to whether this story is worth the media attention it’s getting, I offer, in closing, the justly famous statement by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then, they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Program Note: Dr. Weinstein discusses ethics each Friday on American Morning.
For more about him, visit TheEthicsGuy.com.

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

The death of Tim Russert touched me deeply. I never knew him personally, but like many of those who watched him regularly, I felt as though I did.

I was particularly moved by the outpouring of love and affection from journalists. The emotional highlight was the roundtable discussion that Tom Brokaw led on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” I’m glad that Brokaw broke his own “no weeping” rule toward the end of the program, when he choked up as he recalled the bond he shared with Russert; Mike Barnicle came close to doing the same shortly afterward. It’s been a long time since journalists allowed their feelings to come through so boldly, and rightly so.

Amidst the swirl of memories and emotions, I wondered if the panelists ever told Russert while he was alive how much he meant to them. If not, they wouldn’t be alone. After all, when are we most likely to tell someone that we care deeply about him or her? At that person’s funeral! How much good does that do for the departed? Not a lot.

Funerals are for the living, and of course it’s important for the bereaved to comfort one another. But there is also a lot to be said for telling someone that he or she matters to us while that person is alive and able to appreciate it.

In a BusinessWeek.com column last summer, I explained why expressing our gratitude is a matter of ethics, not etiquette. I proposed making a list of the people to whom we are grateful, and then thanking each of them sooner rather than later.

Imagine how much good we’d be doing for others (and ourselves) if we did this. It’s a tall order, though, so given how busy we all are, I encourage you to do the following:

As soon as you finish reading this blog, write an email, pick up the phone, or go up to someone you care about, and let that person know how much he or she means to you. It’s not necessary to go on at great length; you can make a big difference even with something as simple as, “I just want you to know that I value our relationship.”

Why wait another minute?

Editor's Note: Dr. Weinstein will be appearing regularly on American Morning starting this Friday. For more about the author, visit TheEthicsGuy.com

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

The campaign for the White House, which seems to have been going on forever, still has five months to go, and it’s possible that the nastiness, squabbling, and irrelevancies that have characterized this campaign – and too many before it – will get worse. This isn’t just unpleasant or unfortunate; it’s unethical, because such pettiness detracts from a meaningful debate about the issues that truly matter to the public.

I therefore propose a code of ethics for the candidates to follow. Everyone – we citizens, the political parties, the democratic process, and the candidates themselves—will win if the candidates follow this code.

The proposed guidelines are rooted in the five fundamental principles of ethics:
Do No Harm
Make Things Better
Respect Others
Be Fair, and
Be Loving , which are the bedrock not just of our democracy, but of all civilized societies, cultures, and religions. This code, therefore, makes sense not just for this election, but for all future ones as well.

1. TELL THE TRUTH. Warren Beatty’s 1998 film “Bulworth” was a satire based on the apparently ridiculous idea that a candidate would suddenly decide to be completely honest. But why should this be the stuff of comedy and fiction? Shouldn’t we demand honesty from the people who are vying for the most powerful political position in the country, and possibly the world? Perhaps we’re so accustomed to hearing distortions of the truth, and politicians are so used to saying whatever it takes to get elected, that no one cares about the truth any longer.

But the truth still matters. When a candidate is asked a question, and the public has a right to know the answer, the candidate should tell the truth. Period. If the candidate doesn’t have an answer, he (or, in future elections, she) should be forthright about this fact. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to admit that one doesn’t always have all the answers at the ready.

2. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have each said things that weren’t true. Whether these statements were based on faulty memory or the intent to mislead, voters rightly expect each candidate to take responsibility for his or her mistakes. Saying “I misspoke” does just the opposite. The same goes for errors of judgment. Using the passive voice—“mistakes were made”—rather than saying “I made a mistake”—dodges personal responsibility. We rightly expect the buck to stop with the President.

3. RISE ABOVE THE FRAY. Yes, the public should know about the blunders that each candidate makes, but it is the media’s job to inform, and the candidates should avoid the temptation to pile on or prolong the story. When a reporter asks for a comment on an opponent’s latest gaffe, the candidate should refuse and instead focus on his proposed policies.

4. CRITICIZE THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON. Personal attacks are not only disrespectful; they’re self-defeating. Polls show that voters are fed up with negative campaigning. What people want is a clear and straightforward account of what the candidates are going to do about our flagging economy, a public school system in disrepair, the lack of affordable health insurance, a housing crisis that shows no signs of abating, and the other issues of real significance.

5. LISTEN. The energy that candidates devote to refining their message, giving speech after speech, and analyzing what the competition is doing will grow more intense as we get closer to election day. It is more important than ever to do the opposite, too: listen. Not just to what the pundits are saying, or what the polls claim, or what the campaign team suggests, or what the party is demanding, but to what citizens are saying, too. Very few people ever say, “Thanks for talking to me.” They do say, however, “Thank you for listening.” Leadership is, to a large degree, listenership. A side benefit, of course, is that voters who feel a candidate who truly hears what they’re saying tend to vote for that candidate.

6. DON’T MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN’T KEEP. Candidates usually promise the world to get elected and then quickly abandon those promises once in office. But it doesn’t have to be like this, and in our information-saturated era, where every utterance is recorded and preserved forever, it is not in a candidate’s own political interests—or the country’s–to make a pledge that will eventually become fodder for Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. From now until November, candidates should avoid making promises they aren’t likely to keep.

7. SPEND FAIRLY. There is a saying, “How you do anything is how you do everything.” Spending campaign cash judiciously is both fair to donors and indicative of how a candidate will treat the federal budget. Besides, most of the campaign cash isn’t even the candidate’s to begin with. It’s all other people’s money, and the way a candidate regards his or her campaign purse speaks volumes about what voters can expect for the economy if that candidate becomes President. The allocation of scarce resources is a matter of fairness and thus ultimately an ethical issue, not merely a legal or political one.

8. REMEMBER WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT. The race is not about acquiring power for its own sake, or becoming famous, or being ensured of a lasting place in history. It is about making a difference in the lives of others. I can’t recall a time when so many people in this country have been in so much pain, and it behooves all of the candidates to avoid what former Senator J. William Fulbright called “the arrogance of power.” It’s worth remembering that the word “compassion” literally means “to suffer with,” so the successful candidate will keep in mind that the highest purpose of the presidency is to ease the suffering of human beings.

9. TAKE A BREAK. Ethics isn’t just about how we treat other people, but how we treat ourselves, too. Going for months without a single day off shows a profound lack of respect for oneself and is not something to be worn as a badge of honor. How can we trust that a candidate will look after the country properly if he doesn’t look after himself?

10. LOSE WELL. One man will lose the election. How he loses will say much more about his character than winning ever could. Will he accept defeat graciously? Will he be generous of spirit to the victor? Will he continue to devote his time, energy, and considerable resources to making a difference in the lives of others, as he has pledged to do if elected? Anyone can win well. It takes a person of great moral character to lose well.

As the campaign grinds relentlessly on, it will be come ever more tempting for candidates to narrow their focus on what it takes to win the election. Winning, of course, is the objective. But what is the goal? If it is to turn this economy around, to help people afford homes of their own, to improve the quality of education, and to ensure that everyone who needs health care will be able to afford it, then campaign ethics must be a primary concern, not an afterthought.

Still, it would be cynical to view ethical behavior merely as strategy for getting elected. A better way to think about ethics comes from Wilford Brimley’s famous pitch for Quaker Oatmeal: “It’s the right thing to do.”

The article appeared in a slightly different version originally on BusinessWeek.com. To learn more about the author, visit TheEthicsGuy.com.

Program note: Bruce Weinstein will discuss this article on CNN’s American Morning on Wednesday, June 11, at 6a ET.

Have we gone iPhone crazy?

Bruce Weinstein,
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Eleven years ago, Apple Inc. began using the phrase "Think different" in its advertising campaign, and the phrase quickly became as iconic as "Where’s the beef?," "Got milk?," and other catchy slogans.

On June 9, the company will unveil iPhone 2.0, and everyone who hopes to be cool will want one. What could be wrong with that?
A lot, as it turns out.

Our society has devolved into a mass of turned-on, tuned-out, and plugged-in technophiles. Whatever distinction used to exist between public and private life is all but gone. Waiting on line at the grocery store or post office used to mean striking up a conversation with the person in front of you; it now involves blurting the intimate details of one’s love life into a cell phone for all to hear, or scrolling through a playlist for just the right song, or checking our e-mail.

There are three costs associated with this self-absorbed behavior...

The first is an opportunity cost. Our social fabric is in danger of being ripped to shreds as we swap electronic connection for personal relationships. The very nature of community depends upon us being connected to one another. Being civil means, or at least used to mean, valuing the relationships beyond our immediate circle of family and friends. If upon leaving home we immerse ourselves in idle chatter on the phone, listen to music nonstop at volume levels that preclude hearing the world around us, or read every piece of e-mail sent since the last time we checked, we miss the chance to make new friendships, renew old ones, or simply say hello to a stranger.

The second cost is to our psychological health. I don’t know about you, but my best ideas come when I’m brushing my teeth, putting on my shoes, or simply daydreaming. That’s right, daydreaming. A waste of time, you say? Not at all. To be creative is to have the freedom to dream, to let thoughts appear and evaporate, and to play. "But I’m too busy to play," you reply. Nonsense. Some of the time spent fidgeting with a cell phone or MP3 player is time we could put to better use, such as doing nothing at all. When our brains are constantly stimulated by electronic data, they are, of necessity, precluded from taking anything else in, such as the random thoughts that can be the genesis of great ideas. The nonstop avalanche of images and sounds from electronic media (among other distractions) is a barrier, not a portal, to creativity.

The third cost of our absorption in technology is the most serious of all: the possibility of an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that drivers who use a cell phone are four times more likely to be involved in an accident. The American Automobile Association has challenged that study, but it doesn’t really matter who is right. Imagine that your son or daughter has just gotten a driver’s license and is taking your car out for a spin. Would it matter to you if other drivers are yakking away on a cell phone while cruising next to, or heading toward, your child? Of course it would…and it should. Driving is challenging enough without having to worry about people around you being literally driven to distraction. We are, to borrow a phrase from the late author Neil Postman, amusing ourselves to death.

Last year, New York State Senator Carl Kruger proposed a bill that would ban people from using cell phones, "personal data assistants," and other electronic devices while crossing the street in New York City and Buffalo. Many were outraged by the proposal, but it makes a lot of sense. When you’re arguing with your colleague or spouse on the phone, or reading the latest memo from the boss, you simply cannot be on guard against traffic. There is a limit to how much even the most skilled multitasker can accomplish.

None of what I am saying is a call to return to the days when people got their entertainment by huddling together in front of a radio (though that sounds pretty good, if you ask me). Nor is it an indictment of the telecommunications industry. After all, technology is morally neutral. It can be put to useful or harmful purposes.

My argument isn’t even with Apple itself. In fact, in my experience, Apple provides some of the best customer service around, and the technical support I received after switching to the Mac earlier this year was the friendliest and most helpful I’ve gotten in a long time.

If the introduction into our culture of several million more iPhones, along with the other devices on the market, results in even more self-absorption, less time to daydream, and more pedestrian and driver accidents, it won’t be the fault of Apple, or anyone else we care to blame.
It will be our own fault.

But it’s not too late to think different.

Editor's Note: This article is slightly modified from a version that appeared originally on BusinessWeek.com. For more from Bruce Weinstein, see: www.TheEthicsGuy.com.

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

Why does Hillary continue to run, when the odds against her winning the Democratic Party’s nomination are so slim? Perhaps it’s because she truly believes she is the best person to be the next President of the United States. Perhaps it’s because she is convinced that, with continued determination, she can succeed at this formidable task. But the reason could be much simpler.

She may consider losing to be a form of personal failure.

If so, she is clearly not alone in feeling this way. We live in a culture that celebrates winners and chastises losers. “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing” might well be the unofficial motto of this country. Indeed, everyone loves a winner, but losers are viewed with scorn and derision. This is more than unfortunate; it’s unfair. I will argue that we should rethink losing and that we ought to embrace our losses, rather than run from them.

THE WINNING MENTALITY AND ITS DISCONTENTS
UCLA football coach Henry “Red” Sanders (who, not Vince Lombardi, coined the expression) was mistaken in holding winning to be “the only thing.” No one would rationally want to live in a world in which winning is our sole objective. There are other considerations that are as, or more, important than winning, whether the subject is football, corporate management, dating, or any other social activity.

The five fundamental principles of ethics are:

• Do No Harm
• Make Things Better
• Respect Others: 1, 2
• Be Fair: 1, 2
• Be Compassionate

If winning were truly “the only thing”, then there would be no problem with hurting other people, cheating, lying, or stealing to achieve this objective. As we’ve seen too often over the past several years, however, the politicians, CEO’s, and athletes who have made a fetish out of winning at all costs have lost their careers, their marriages, their reputations, and sometimes even their freedom. The outrage over steroid use in baseball is fueled by the recognition that winning at the expense of fairness is just plain wrong. Getting rich by destroying the pensions of one’s own employees is, as Enron’s Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling discovered, winning at its worst.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea of winning, but if we ignore the ethical responsibilities of avoiding harm, being honest, and treating others fairly, we will forfeit the most important thing of all: our own integrity.

HOW TO LOSE WITH GRACE AND DIGNITY
With the above considerations in mind, I propose the following rules for rising to the challenge when you don’t reach a goal you’re trying to achieve:

1. BE ANGRY…BUT NOT FOR TOO LONG. It’s understandable to be upset when you lose, but dwelling on the loss, obsessing over it, or making it the focus of your life is more hurtful than helpful. As difficult as it may be to deal effectively with anger in every situation, it is in your own interest not to let anger get the best of you.

2. ACCEPT REALITY. We often tell ourselves, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” Unfortunately, we have less control over our lives than we’d like to believe, and there is nothing we can do to alter this. There *is* such a thing as a zeitgeist (literally “spirit of the times”), and all the determination in the world cannot make other people do, say, or vote for something if they don’t want to. It should lessen the blow to realize that there is only so much we can do to affect the change we seek.

3. LOOK FOR THE LESSON. Yes, we learn by winning. (Think about how you surprised yourself the last time you accomplished something you thought would be too difficult to achieve.) But we also learn by losing, if we have the courage to pay attention. In looking honestly at a failed attempt to get a job or develop a romantic relationship, the lesson could be that we need to rethink our approach, or that we need to change something about ourselves. The best way to succeed next time, or to learn how to handle defeat better, is to find the lesson from our loss and take it to heart.

4. CUT YOURSELF SOME SLACK. The ethical responsibilities to be fair and compassionate apply to how we treat ourselves, not just others. Berating yourself for losing isn’t a kind or decent way to treat yourself, and doing so prevents you from getting back into action, which can lead to further losses.

5. KEEP ON THE SUNNY SIDE OF LIFE. How many successful people do you know who are burdened by the weight of their past failures? If you let losing get the best of you, it will be all but impossible to go forward. Allow yourself to feel angry, but accept reality, learn from the experience, don’t be too hard on yourself, and move on.

These guidelines are intended to help you make the best of a losing situation. Let’s not forget, though, that the first order of business after losing is to congratulate the winner. Anyone can win. It takes a person of courage and grace to accept defeat and honor the victor. Such a person is will move beyond loss and emerge a stronger and better person…and be a true winner.

This is an adaptation of an article that first appeared on BusinessWeek.com.

Write to Bruce@TheEthicsGuy.com.

Program note: Bruce Weinstein is a guest on CNN's American Morning, Wednesday, June 4, beginning at 6a ET

Editor's Note: Bruce Weinstein, "The Ethics Guy" will analyze the ethical issues at stake with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and his new book, tonight on 360° 10p ET.

Bruce Weinstein
The Ethics Guy, BusinessWeek

For the past several days, there has been a lot of discussion about Scott McClellan and why he has written his tell-all book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.” Much of the criticism has focused on McClellan’s motivation for writing this book. Is he disgruntled? Does he feel guilty? Is he simply trying to cash in on his former position in the Bush administration?

As provocative as these questions may be, they are not nearly as important as the central ethical question raised by this story: was it right for McClellan to write such a book?

Looking at the ethical issues at stake, I argue the following:

1. McClellan not only had a right to pen this book. He had an ethical obligation to do so.
2. Yes, it is important to be loyal to one’s friends, colleagues, and employer, but it is more important to tell the truth, particularly when lives are at stake, as they are in this case.
3. Yes, it would have been better for McClellan to have spoken up earlier, but there is no statute of limitations on telling the truth.
4. Ethics is the ultimate non-partisan issue. The above argument applies not just to Scott McClellan, but to everyone. Had Jody Powell, the press secretary in the Carter administration, or Dee Dee Myers, the press secretary in the Clinton administration, made similar revelations, these too would have been ethically justified.

Of course, not all kiss-and-tell books are ethical. In 2004, I argued on AC360 that it was wrong for Michael Bergin to write “The Other Man,” which detailed his purported love affair with Carolyn Bessette Kennedy. Her untimely death prevented her from responding to the claims in the book. (On that program, Randy Cohen, who writes the ethics column for the New York Times Sunday magazine, argued against my position.)

In recent columns for BusinessWeek.com, I’ve considered the ethics of talking politics at work, the ethical responsibilities of the presidential candidates, and the art of losing well.