Ethics tantrums are on the rise, and they are troublesome. Ethics tantrums are the fits folks throw when they have an ideological bone to pick with an individual, a business, an industry, a state. . . Examples? James Lileks describes one beautifully: An employee at a design company begged his boss to “dump†a pesticide client, a client that the employee deemed to be of dubious ethics because, well, you know, pesticides and oil and all. Petrophobia is a crippling psychological impairment these days. The boss, having that bottom-line thing going on, refused, so the employee fixed them all: He did a “shoddy job†on the pesticide company’s design work. One imagines the cockroaches had the incorrect number of legs in the graphics or some such entomological faux pas. There you have it, right from the revenge is the best ethical tactic when you disagree with someone’s views, product, political leanings, etc.
There are two others from Ariel Kaminer’s New York Times, “The Ethicist.†An employee of a small start-up company supports the Occupy Wall Street movement but has come to realize that his employer’s start-up is financed primarily by one of Wall Street’s biggest companies. He wishes to know if he should resign immediately. By all means, quit your job and begin a search to find a company that has not been touched by a Wall Street company. He might join with the petrophobic to pool resources to see if they can find a company that does not have ties to oil in some way.
Then there was the grandma who did not want to take her granddaughter to a local production of The Nutcracker because she learned that David Koch’s foundation was one of the donors for the production. Mercy, you would not want your grandchildren exposed to culture when you have no idea where the funds used have been. That’s showing those Koch brothers!
Be prepared for the Super Bowl ads because the tantrums have already begun. A greyhound protection group is fixin’ to boycott Skechers because its Super Bowl ad shows a dog walking around a track in four tiny, red Skechers shoes. Are they protesting the indignity of a bulldog being forced to wear shoes? Nay, they are protesting the fact that the dog is walking on a track where greyhounds run and are allegedly mistreated. The Barometer knows that she would have recognized that track instantly and been nauseous at the thought of a company using such a backdrop to sell dog shoes? Skechers?
The mental gymnastics tantrumites go through atop their high horses are a wonder to behold. A recent photo in the Wall Street Journal showed the U.S. Park Police tracing an extension cord in the Washington, D.C. McPherson Square Occupy folks because the police discovered that the crowd had spliced wires at a light pole in order to obtain free electricity. Any thoughts on how the electricity was made? Oil-burning peaker plant? Any ideas on which Wall Street firm does the financing for the utility?
These childish stomps of the feet with their assumed ideological purity have become strained and irritating. One must distinguish between and among conduct by others and the need to boycott/distance/condemn or whatever vs. views. To take a recent example — it would have been out of the question for the Barometer to attend a Penn State game if Mr. Paterno had remained as head coach, the athletic director had held onto his position and so forth. The reason would be that the institution itself would have failed (twice) to respond appropriately to actions that directly resulted (or would have continued to result) in harm to others (in the first misstep children were harmed and had there been a second misstep through the failure to terminate it would have only increased the problems in that distorted culture at Penn State). Penn State alums and other donors would be justified in halting the flow of money to an institution that had deep-seated issues in terms of accountability as well as protection of innocents. The conduct of the institution in a management sense was the problem, not the views of the coach. Effective management means wise stewardship of funds. The withholding of donations or participation as a ticket holder would be based on a measurable business quality, not business views.
However, we often have situations in which we are simply ideologically at odds with those who own businesses we frequent or customers who need our services for businesses we find offensive. The pesticide company, the capitalists on Wall Street, Skechers, and the Koch Brothers are not engaged in illegal activity. They are engaged in activities that are offensive and/or Satanic to some because of personal views.
So, there is a much larger issue going on here. We are becoming a society of litmus-test boycotters. Surely we do not want to be judged in isolation, but as a package of who we are and what we do. There is the piggy-back ethical question of whether it is good to judge an organization (the local production folks for The Nutcracker) by one act – that of taking a donation from David Koch.
The reality is that while we may disagree with Wall Street, pesticide companies, David Koch and his brother, we can recognize that we do agree with them on other issues. For example, evil though all-things-Koch may seem in the eyes of certain beholders, there is the fact that the grandmother and the Koch brother are pizanos when it comes to support of the arts and in ensuring that children have the benefit of this initial and wondrous exposure to ballet.
We have an ethical responsibility of fairness to others — that we can recognize that no one is completely bad because of his or her views on one subject. I once heard a liberal commentator state that he was shocked to learn that Ann Coulter took her mother to every chemotherapy treatment and stayed with her during the treatment and then cared for her after she took her home. Why should this be a shock? There is some good in those with whom we have disagreements.
As mature adults we need not stomp our feet and threaten to take our toys and go home each time we are unable to control other’s conduct on the basis of our own ideology. As mature adults, we are able to let our friends choose their friends and step in only when, out of concern for their well being, we fear that a newfound friend could be harmful to them (and I insert the caveat that I refer to something more harmful than “I don’t like their views!”(See Penn State example above)) Whatever one may think of the Koch causes and views, there is some good in them — and as difficult as it may be for a small person to admit it — we do share a least one view with the Koch Brothers — that there is great benefit to society in introducing our children and grandchildren to the arts.
The attachment of demonic status on this tenuous basis of political ideology is a frightening reflection of a society lapsing into a lack of maturity. Civility might experience a comeback in a world in which we are willing to acknowledge that those who disagree with us are not always Beelzebub. Whatever happened to starting a dialogue? Taking our toys and going home with an “I’ll fix them!†attitude does not advance any cause, ideology, or viewpoint. Indeed, there is little hope for progress when we regress to tantrums.
