Two extremes, right? The title represents Chris MacDonald’s last two blog entries. His June 15th entry discusses worker productivity and the World Cup. Here MacDonald asks the question, “How should an important-but-time-consuming cultural event like the World Cup be integrated into the workplace?” You should give it a read.
His other entry is for June 14th. Here he discusses whether or not ethical obligations appear differently under conditions of stress, in this case, in the aftermath of BP’s contribution to the environmental movement. He makes comparison between the Katrina aftermath and the current gulf situation. He concludes with a pretty paragraph. Let me quote it in full.
Now there are of course differences in the two cases. In the Katrina and Haiti cases, people were literally fighting for survival — it was literally life-or-death. Presumably no one in the Gulf Coast tourism industry is literally going to starve to death. But still, the general question remains interesting: to what extent can ethical rules legitimately be bent, when someone’s interests are seriously threatened?
Not a Churchillian statement by any measure but a good summing up.
You could probably avoid a number of my posts by simply putting MacDonald in your favorites and checking him every couple of days.