Ethics
When are little white lies acceptable?
Denver Business Journal - by Marshall Colt
On a brand new highway, two Czech policemen stop a U.S. businessman driving toward the German border.
"Grosse probleme! Grosse probleme!" one bellows. They claim he lacks an autobahn vignette (sticker) on his German car, allowing him on the highway. When the businessman points to a vignette just bought, the police lie, claiming it's no good. They demand a 5,000 koruna ($170) fine.
Czech police legally collect traffic fines on the spot, but reportedly also extort money from rich Germans, under threat of jail. Though having plenty, the businessman says he has few koruna. He thus avoids jail for a mere 700 koruna. The police are extortionists; they lied. The businessman keeps his money, but he lied, too. A case study in ethics.
Here in the land of the 50-cent beer and in other less-developed countries, the law of supply and demand becomes quite visceral. Stomachs churn from both hunger and fear. Money often means the difference between surviving or not, as it does in any poorer area. Ethics becomes relative.
Most reading this column work to "make a buck" to improve their standard of living: a new car, better house, higher tuitions, deserved vacations. But in this former East Bloc country, "making a koruna" often means not just a better life, but survival itself. Getting what you can out of another is not occasional; it's allegedly the standard work ethic, particularly if you're a member of the police.
It would be inaccurate and unfair to label the Czech people or even its police by the actions of two. Nor might all American businessmen behave as this one did. Yet it's an example of "when ethics collide."
Customs differ from country to country, culture to culture. When do such differences justify behavior and when are they properly superseded by a more generally accepted standard? Under the guise of cultural differences and economic hardship, should lying in the Czech Republic be more acceptable than in America? Defending against extortion, should the businessman's lie to the Czech police be more acceptable than lying to U.S. police?
Throughout Europe, most don't understand the U.S. concern over President Clinton's lying to the American people. The purpose of the lie and the content of the deceit apparently excuse it. Just as the purpose of the lie and content of the deceit apparently absolved the Czech police. After all, we're talking about only a few korunas here, perhaps to feed a child. Do we then excuse the businessman's lie, based on its purpose and content?
We seem to judge lying, not with regard to lying itself, but rather its purpose and content. Few might argue with lying to save one's child, for example. Therefore, when is lying OK and when is it not? Where's the line?
Honesty can be practiced to a fault, of course. Witness "est" (Ehrhard Seminar Training) of the '70s, for those aged enough to remember. Est graduates believed whatever thought passed through one's mind deserved voice. Yet few would succeed in business following that route.
Perhaps the key can be found in what harm, if any, is done. The polls indicate most people don't feel harmed by the president's lying, because they don't feel harmed by his infidelity or covert dalliances. They do feel harmed, though, by Saddam Hussein's lying because he's covertly making weapons of mass destruction -- targeted at us. Tolerance of lying thus lies on a continuum.
As the European Union edges toward adopting the euro currency and the world continues to shrink, it is likely more common cultural ethics will follow. As the techno-communication revolution leads us into a new sociology, can a more shared standard of principled behavior be far behind? Yet defining acceptable and unacceptable lying will still challenge us.
On his flight home, the businessman selects the film, "Wag the Dog." The film proclaims the dog wags its tail because it's smarter than the tail, otherwise the tail would wag the dog. Is it that liars mistakenly think they're smarter? "A little lie that makes people feel better isn't really wrong," says a character in "Harriet the Spy." That's certainly true. So again, when does fibbing cross the line? I invite your views.
No lie.
Marshall Colt runs Corporate Psychological Management LLC, a litigation and management consulting firm. Contact him at http://www.Corp-Psych-Mgmt.com.
Latest News |
Most Viewed Stories |
Most Emailed Stories |
