Ethics Conversation
I recently read a book by Stanley Cavell called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cities-Words-Pedagogical-Letters-Register/dp/0674…; target="”_blank”">Cities of Words: Pedagogical
Letters on a Register of the Moral Life</a> (2004). Despite its title, it
is not
about cities; in fact, much of the book uses movies to discuss this
Harvard professor's ethical philosophy. What is relevant about this book to government ethics is Cavell's idea
of "moral perfectionism," which isn't about being perfect, but about
constantly seeking improvement in how one thinks and acts. Most
important to Cavell is making oneself intelligible to oneself and to
others
through "moral conversation" with "friends."<br>
<br>
The open discussion of relevant ethics issues at government meetings
is central to a good ethics environment. Conversation about ethics
with one's colleagues, as well as with ethics advisers and in training
sessions, as an ordinary professional practice, is the principal means
for improving one's responsible handling of possible
conflicts and other ethics matters. Ethics conversation also creates a
sense of community in looking at the appearance of actions to
the public and in raising certain issues that might otherwise be
uncomfortable to raise, such as another person's conduct. An
organization's values and procedures are formed in this way.<br>
<br>
There is another important aspect to such conversation. It provides
government officials with experience honestly providing reasons for
their conduct. This is a good thing to practice in private so that it
can be done well in public. Explanation is essential to transparency
and to trust and,
ultimately, to democracy. Insisting one is a good person – the norm –
satisfies no one but oneself.<br>
<br>
Cavell's approach is also valuable to the extent it takes into account
people's emotions. His concept of moral perfectionism "recognizes
difficulties in the moral life
that arise not from an ignorance of your duties, or a conflict of
duties, but
from confusion over your desires, your attractions and aversions."<br>
<br>
Emotion is too often ignored in government ethics. The emotions that
get in the way of the responsible handling of conflicts include such things
as the importance of loyalty
(including not snitching or questioning another's conduct) that are
deeply instilled in us by our families and our childhood friendships.
When faced with, say, a requirement to report unethical conduct,
officials are confused, conflicted not in their interests but in their
feelings. It is the rare official who does not have mixed feelings
about ethics rules. These need to be recognized and talked out.<br>
<br>
Here is a quote from Cavell worth chewing on awhile. It relates to the
views of philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein" target="”_blank”">Ludwig Wittgenstein</a>: "it is precisely philosophy's business to
question our interests as they stand … It is our distorted sense of
what is
important — call this our values — that is distorting our lives."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---