Ethics Blogs Roundup July 3rd, 2010

Lauren Bloom has a post wondering how often British Petroleum has lied.

Gael O’Brien on the website, The Week in Ethics, has another post about British Petroleum, in which she discusses the human toll using an an example the life of William Kruse. This is some fine writing. I’d give it a look if I were you.

David Gebler writing from the web site, Free Management Library, discusses safety and costs from an ethical standpoint. Here’s a nice quote from the article:

“However, as we have seen from the fallout from the Gulf Oil Spill, the recent mine accidents in West Virginia, as well as FAA intervention on airline safety issues, relying on government identification of safety issues may no longer be a viable fall back position for companies that have greater knowledge of the issue than the government.”

Shel Horowitz writing from his blog, Principled Profit, argues against the government guaranteeing loans to private companies to build nuclear power plants. He discusses the dangers of nuclear power plants. I am astonished at the hypocrisy of people who continuously shout “free market” to drown out alternative ideas thinking that the government guaranteeing loans to private industry is anything more than corporate hands in the public till. It’s a complete rejection of capitalism. If private industry and investors are unwilling to bear the risks of building nuclear power plants, should they be built?

Ethics: Where are you? part 11 (via Life is what you make it)

Denise Scammon is looking for the answers. She describes her thoughts on virtue ethics in this recent post and there are apparently ten more before it, explaining previous stages in her search. She’s obviously smart. The work is disjointed but she’s developing a pattern for her ideas and it takes a bit. We’re looking at someone not afraid to put her thinking down and let other see how far she has gotten. It’s nice work, give it a look!

“Ethics: Where are you? part 11”
Both deontological theories and utilitarian theories contribute to virtue ethics because “virtue ethics and theories of right action complement each other” but “virtue ethics emphasizes right being over right action” (Boss, 2008, p. 400). Kant explains “the importance of good will” in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (p. 405). Mill believed that reflection and cultivation of a “benevolent disposition” led to virtue (p. 405). The main po … Read More

via Life is what you make it

bad business and ransom (via Answer Starts With You)

This is a brief meditation on the nature of those willing to work in firms or business that live to rip off. There’s a lot of compassion here. I admire that. I long ago decided I only had compassion for the victims. That’s pretty hardcore and not particularly ethical. This is probably a better person than me.

Every working day, I've been dealing with what I'll call one particular "bad business".  Those organizations who prey on consumers, or opportunities.  The best way to describe it is a company that I'd never be able to work at.  Its sad really.  Across my desk, I happened to see a letter sent out by said "bad business" signed by an employee and I wondered what poor soul could possibly feel comfortable working for an organization like that.  I goog … Read More

via Answer Starts With You

Dell’s full scale ethical meltdown (via Minding the Workplace)

David Yamada’s blog, Minding the Workplace, has a great post about Dell computers and the company’s ethical problems as revealed in a current lawsuit. I could say a lot but I’ll let the article speak for itself.

James Pilant

Here's one they'll be studying in business school ethics classes for years to come: The story of how Dell, one of the world's leading computer manufacturers, morphed from being an industry icon to the latest ethics-challenged poster company. As reported by Ashlee Vance for the New York Times, a major lawsuit against Dell is unearthing a corporate cover-up campaign that concealed from customers serious malfunctions in millions of computers sold be … Read More

via Minding the Workplace

Business Ethics?

Chris MacDonald has some insightful comments on what is meant by business ethics. He points out that you could also use the topic of corporate citizenship, stakeholder theory, the triple bottom line, corporate sustainability, etc. All of these cover part of the matter at hand: what is the right thing to do ethically? I believe that he wishes the subject title, business ethics, to be the primary one to simplify the field. I also use the phrase, business ethics, as the title and the subject of my blog. But what part of the field does mine cover? I aim heavily at corporate crime and let my indignation flourish at times.

This blog and what I want to do with it evolve over time. Keep watching.

MacDonald suggests that the Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics will provide some clarity to the field.

I hope he’s right. Ethical clarity is relatively rare and a tighter definition of our terms could at least move us in that direction.

James Pilant

“Ace” Greenberg – Not My Fault

Alan “Ace” Greenberg, a few days ago, gave an interview to Newsweek’s Nancy Cook. The former head of Bear-Stearns, took time from his busy schedule in order to enlighten and engage with us. It was everything that poor unlettered blogger like myself could have hoped for. The pearls of wisdom fell on me like a warm, summer rain.

When asked if he had any regrets about his time at Bear-Stearns, he had none. (During his tenure, the price of Bear Stearns stock went from a 52 week high of 133.20 to the ten dollars a share it finally sold for, although strangely enough, not as low as the two dollars that Bear Stearns originally agreed to.)

When asked if he had learned anything from the financial collapse, he said, “Nothing that I didn’t know before.” (Could the concept that maybe your company shouldn’t acquire notional contract amounts of approximately $13.40 trillion in derivative financial instruments, of which $1.85 trillion were listed futures and option contracts, be something new to you?)

When asked about a remark in his new book that the presidents of companies never really know what’s going on, he said, “I don’t care how much you watch things or how acutely involved you are, there are probably bad things that happen.” (Is this the same thing as saying that the president of a company is never really at fault?)

The interview continued in this manner. Let me sum up for Mr. Greenberg. “I did nothing wrong. I did not exercise poor judgment. Banking institutions are already regulated enough. No new regulations are needed. Derivatives are good. Derivatives make money; how then can they be bad? People don’t understand derivatives. Bad loans made to people who couldn’t pay for the homes they bought are responsible for the crisis. Bear Stearns was in no way whatsoever at fault.”

It is interesting to contrast the interview with reports of what happened at Bear Stearns. They seem to be two different versions of reality. I remember reading in philosophy that attitude is a key element in happiness. Mr. Greenberg has an excellent attitude in regard to his personal happiness.

Unfortunately, reality is not easily mocked.

Karl Jaspers wrote in his book, General Psychopathology that a delusion has three central characteristics. The first is certainty. The belief is held with absolute conviction. The second is incorrigibility. That is, the belief is not subject to change by argument or facts. The third is the impossibility of the content. Bizarre, implausible or patently untrue.

Let’s go through the elements. Let’s begin with certainty. Was there any self doubt or questioning at any point in the interview? Let me quote Greenberg from the article: “Certainly at Bear Stearns, I think that I didn’t make many mistakes. But, you know, you have to keep in mind that the only people who don’t make mistakes are the ones who don’t do anything.” That’s as close as we’re going to get to self doubt in the interview.

The second element is that the belief is not subject to change by counter argument or facts. In the excerpt from the full interview, we don’t see Nancy Cook press very hard. However, I would point out that Greenberg says clearly that he learned nothing from what happened” Let’s look at the exchange –

(Nancy Cook) Do you feel like you, as a businessman, learned anything following the financial collapse?

(Alan “Ace” Greenberg) Nothing that I didn’t know before.

His belief system did not change under enormous pressure from contrary events. This is a good argument for incorrigiblity but not conclusive argument, I would like to see him challenged with facts in a tough interview. That may very well happen in the larger Newsweek article.

The third element is impossibility or falsity of content. Well, the idea that Bear Stearn’s only error was too much trust in other banks is a difficult concept considering the massive evidence of poor judgment, poor management and poor leadership.

Greenberg lives in a world where he is faultless, the economic system works fine and whether or not you make money is the only measure of human accomplishment. I tend to believe that a great many of those leading both the government of the United States and, more in particular, the “titans” of industry, believe these things. There is a problem with hubris here.

Once again quoting from wiki: Hubris often indicates being out of touch with reality and overestimating one’s own competence or capabilities, especially for people in positions of power.

Believing in your own infallibility has only limited potential for damage in isolated settlements, in a giant metropolis or a great nation, the possibilities of overreach and massive damage are far more likely. The worst and deadliest of the characteristics we see here is that even after financial catastrophe unrivaled since the Great Depression, there is no feeling of guilt or mistake. If you don’t acknowledge a mistake, you cannot change your behavior.

What will the next acts of these individuals be and where will they take us?

James Pilant

What’s The Verdict – Financial Reform?

Loren Steffy of the Houston Chronicle writes, “Most of the provisions that would have forced Wall Street to change its ways were compromised out of this law weeks ago.”

John Talton of the Seattle Times chooses this title: Financial ‘reform’: Big bankers cry all the way to the…

David Moon writing from the Knoxville Biz entitled his blog entry – Financial reform is a political charade. The rest of the article is even tougher.

I was looking at this newspaper’s web site and discovered they had no new column on the financial reform disaster but they did make an excellent prediction and for that I must honor them. Read below.

In its June 23rd editorial, the St. Petersburg Times said, “Congressional negotiators have a choice as they hammer out the final details on much-needed financial reform. They can stand for financial reform with real teeth and stand up to the pressure of the banking lobbyists. Or they can bow to those deep-pocket financial interests that have sponsored more than 800 fundraisers over the past year for members of the congressional banking committees. A weak reform bill that offers too little oversight and too many loopholes would not be in the nation’s best interest.”

I will follow up with more newspaper comments. I have looked at a dozen newspaper business pages after checking the ones above. It appears that the editorial pages have not caught up with the news. So, I will return to the subject probably on Monday.

James Pilant

Financial Reform Watered Down?

Wall Street’s Incredible Victory

The LegislationIt’s difficult to conceive that a nation driven to the brink of financial collapse by an irresponsible, greedy, incompetent industry that runs an operation more comparable to Monte Carlo gambling casino than banking could escape meaningful regulation and yet, they did. It is a catastrophic failure on the part of the Presidency and Congress to protect the American people from rapacious financial predators.

I exaggerate you say? From wikipedia –

In a dramatic meeting on September 18, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke met with key legislators to propose a $700 billion emergency bailout. Bernanke reportedly told them: “If we don’t do this, we may not have an economy on Monday.”

That sounds serious. A disinterested observer might conclude that an unregulated financial industry could be a problem. But remember we all know that the financial industry is self regulating. It’s watched over by a horde of business publications and reporters who would detect any problem long before it could happen. What’s more, the people, these amazing highly talented aces of industry who clearly merited the enormous sums they commanded were of such high intellectual capabilities and monumental experience that their unmatched stewardship would without any doubt guide their businesses and as a pleasant but wonderful and inevitable side effect, the United States of America to well deserved financial success.

Forgive me. I don’t want to spread the idea that the Chicago School of Economics might not understand economics.

The disaster that occurred in the financial industry in 2007 and 2008 and cost this nation more than ten million jobs should have been made impossible under a new set of rules. But the game is the same. The incentives are the same. The players are the same. The legislation changes none of that. An economic disaster resulting in millions of unemployed Americans is now avoidable through luck. Don’t you feel good?

There are plenty out there who say take what you get. We got more than could have been expected. No. Again no. This isn’t a matter where you can compromise. The survival of the United States as an economic power is an issue here. There are some who proclaim this an incredible victory over immense odds. You’d think they’d just blown up the Death Star, when they compromised with it and decided they could forgive that little Alderran incident as looking backward not forward.

There are some who say the banking industry got creamed. There is one guy who thinks this is a major success for Congress.

What does the banking industry think? Do they feel that it was a compromise in which they got some stuff and lost some stuff, a gain of one thing and the loss of another? No, that’s not how they feel about it. Let’s read the AP headline – Bank stocks soar on financial regulation agreement.

So, what do we do now? Nothing. The Congress and the President are not interested. They have created a piece of legislation with the correct sounding name. This will convince many that something has been done. But it’s just another joker, another game, another day in Washington where symbolism trumps reality.

I have read commentary that says that the government of the United States has been unable to deal with any major legislative crisis over the last thirty years, that the government is simply paralyzed only able to eek out temporary compromises, small bandages for large problems.

This is America. We can accomplish amazing things. We do not have to suffer the foolish and the greedy. We can do better than this.

(What do you think? If you disagree, don’t let me wonder about it. Tell me. I won’t learn if you don’t let me know. If you agree, I can be more confident that I speak for others as well as myself. Don’t be silent.)

James Pilant

Law schools and the legal job market (via Minding the Workplace)

In difficult economic times, the market for lawyers tends to crashed. Well, it has crashed and it’s crashed for the four or five years at minimum. Are law schools adjusting to the changing demand by raising entrance requirements, cutting class sizes, and lowering tuition?

What do you think? Of course not. The law school business is immensely profitable. After all, they sell dreams of monetary success for the avaricious, justice for the inspired and job security for the frightened.

When times are good, law school graduates, tend to get some of those things. But times are not good and many of those dreams are going to be nothing more than a lifetime of debt and second rate jobs.

It is ethical for law schools, especially second tier, to keep on doing what they have been doing without the slightest deviation?
No.

Are they going to change?
No.

But this is a good discussion of the situation and I recommend you read it. I’m very impressed with the web site. The guy is honest to God idealist. Treasure him, there are not a lot left.

James Pilant

Law professor Brian Tamanaha (recently of St. John's University in New York; now at Washington University in St. Louis) challenged law professors at non-elite law schools in a blog post to consider the ethical implications of attracting thousands of students to pursue an expensive legal education at a time when the job market cannot provide them with meaningful employment.  Citing to angry, despairing posts on blogs by law students and recently g … Read More

via Minding the Workplace