January 2010 Archive

The New York Times reported the amazing story of a Turkish Moslem woman Fethiye Cetin who was told by her Grandmother, on her death bed that she has been kidnapped when she was a child, during the Armenian Genocide and adopted later by a Turkish family. That revelation changed her life for ever.

“I was in a state of shock for a long time-I suddenly saw the world through different eyes,” she said. She then espoused Christianity, the faith of her forefathers and became a Human Rights attorney, in Turkey. She represented Hrant Dink, the editor of the Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos when he was prosecuted for referring to the genocide. Mr. Dink was later killed by a young Turkish ultranationalist. To this day, the Turkish Government refuses to acknowledge what happened in 1915, when close to 1.5 million Armenians were killed, among them my grandfather Mihran Tchividjian.

Would we be shattered if we were told today that we had been adopted and that our biological parents were of a different ethnicity and faith? Would it change us and subsequently would it change the rest of our lives?

The issue of identity has been pondered by philosophers since antiquity. In the 5th Century BC, the philosopher Socrates gave us a good advice when he wrote “know Thyself.” However few, if any, have been able to reach that understanding.

Who are we or who do we think we are? How do our friends and family describe us? What characterizes us? Is it gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, education, experience, profession? Is it values? Maybe it is all of these and more in different proportions.

We should also consider that people change, sometimes after a dramatic or traumatic event. Others go through an “identity crisis.”  Milan Kundera, in his short novel “Identity” writes about the fact that the human sense of self is precarious.

Author and Professor of Philosophy Kwame Anthony Appiah, at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University published a book entitled The Ethics of Identity. In his book Prof. Appiah explores the link between who we are and what we are, between individuality and morals obligations either to a particular community or the community in general.

There is a close connection between identity and ethics. Virtues are character traits. Our sense of who we are, (or who we want to be) and what we do are closely linked.

One could ask the question “are we defined by our actions or is it because of who we are that we do or do not do certain things?

Erich Fromm, the German philosopher and social psychologist believes he has the answer to that question. He wrote:

“Integrity simply means not violating one’s own identity.”

The New York Times reported last week that Fidelity National Financial, the nation’s largest title insurance company did not tell investors of dozens of lawsuits accusing the company of participating in mortgage fraud. The company makes the claim that the disclosure is irrelevant in fraud disputes. C. Hugh Friedman at the University in San Diego said that reasonable investors “would want to know, and consider it important to know, that the company in which they were investing was paying out millions of dollars in claimed losses.

Transparency is highly recommended for good ethical management. It is sometimes a legal obligation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 raised significantly the standards of corporate transparency and accountability.  The Foreign Corruption Practice Act (FCPA) allows what is called “facility payments” which must be occasional, small in value and must be disclosed.

Showing transparency and the disclosing of facts that may not necessarily be advantageous builds trust. We all know that we do not live in a perfect world and that people and companies make mistakes. Being open about them is always reassuring.

The opposite is true. The very fact of hiding something creates suspicion even if what is hidden is of no importance or of no consequences.

Transparency International, the leading organization that fights corruption worldwide chose its name well. Bribery and extortion are usually done in secret. Maybe the founders were inspired by the quote in Scriptures that says: “but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” Very often, light is the best disinfectant.

Sometimes non-disclosure of confidentiality is a legal obligation or highly recommended.  The CIA, for instance would not be able to operate if transparency was the norm or required.

Transparency is not an absolute value and has its limits. Does anybody have absolutely “nothing to hide?” I doubt it. Privacy is an important value as well. There are such things as secrets and they should be kept. Today, in my opinion, we are exposed to too much of people’s private lives. Celebrities and now, with reality TV, just about anyone is ready to reveal to the world what should remain most private.

What are the guidelines to determine what should be revealed and what should not?

1.    We should be aware of our legal obligations and consult an attorney when in doubt.

2.    We should be clear as to our motivations for either transparency or secrecy.

3.    We should think of the consequences, both for ourselves and for others before taking action.

Felix Adler, the founder of the Society for Ethical Culture once said:

“The hero is the one who kindles a great light in the world, who sets up blazing torches in the dark streets of life for men to see by.  The saint is the man who walks through the dark paths of the world, himself a light.”

Mayor Bloomberg in his January 1st   2010. third term inauguration speech said that “his job was to listen and to lead.” He might have been thinking of the quote from Woodrow Wilson who once said: “The ear of the leader must ring with the voice of the people.”

Is there an ethics of listening? Prof. Michael Purdy PhD, University Professor of Communication Studies, at Governor’s State University IL, believes that listening is a social behavior and therefore falls under the umbrella of ethics. Prof. David Beard of the Department of Writing Studies, University of Minnesota-Duluth in an article entitled “A Broader Understanding of the Ethics of Listening: Philosophy, Cultural Studies, Media Studies and the Ethical Listening Subject” published by the International Journal of Listening in January 2009 says that listening is a choice and that there are five key choices we all make when we decide to listen. They are:

1.    The choice to listen individually
2.    The choice to listen selectively
3.    The choice not to listen
4.    The choice to listen together
5.    The choice to listen to each other.

The motivation or intent in making those decisions are often of an ethical nature.

Listening is also a skill and an art. Physicians, lawyers and Human Resources professionals depend on the skill of listening to perform their job successfully. An Ethics Officer also needs to know how to listen. Truth is often elusive and the risks of misunderstanding for an ethics officer can have a significant negative impact.

How can we be or become good listeners? Below are some ideas.

A good listener should:

1.    Be receptive, keeping an open mind and be able to make abstraction of all he or she knows or assumes. It is not always easy to do so. We all have presumptions or preconceived ideas about the person who is talking to us and of the situation involved.

2.    Be non-judgmental because judgment will limit our listening.

3.    Be observant. People “speak” in ways other than words. Body language and demeanor can be very revealing.

4.    Search for meaning beyond words and ask ourselves the question “What is the speaker really saying?”

5.    Have empathy and try to understand the background, the life conditions and possible motivation of the speaker.

6.    Be someone that can be trusted and respected.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said:

“It is the province of knowledge to speak. And it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.”