March 2010 Archive

Martin Wolf, columnist at the Financial Times wrote an article on March 23^rd entitled “Excessive virtue can be a vice for the world economy.” In the article, Mr. Wolf argues that Germany’s first-rate manufacturing products and the competitiveness of its employees (virtues) is a threat to the stability of the Euro Zone because of it provokes a deficit in the balance sheet of surrounding countries in Europe, such as Greece and Italy. Dr. Paul Thind, of Switzerland in a letter to the Editor entitled “Don’t blame the virtuous for the sinner’s fault” writes that “one cannot separate the culture and value system of the inhabitants of nations from the type of economy that has evolved.” He then goes on to praise the financial prudence of both the Germans and the Swiss in not getting their “personal balance sheets in a state of distress.”

He is making an interesting point. In the U.S at both the individual and national level, the tendency is to spend more that what one earns or has. I wonder if this is not at the root of the economical problems we have encountered in the past years and might explain the financial crisis we are facing. There is a paradox in our economic system whereas in order for the economy to grow, consumers have to spend money they don’t have and therefore be indebted.

But can virtue ever be excessive?

Virtue is an interesting concept. The etymology of the word comes from the Latin word “virtut” which means strength. Can you ever be too strong or too powerful? Aristotle and Plato defined virtue as Temperance, Wisdom, Justice, and Courage. Can one ever be excessive in those attributes? I would think not.

However the real moral or ethical question is: How do we use the strength we have, whether it is physical strength, the financial resources at our disposal or the influence we may have? Do we use it exclusively for our benefit? Hopefully we do not. Do we use it at the detriment of others? Most likely we do, to some degree. To what degree is an individual moral decision we have to make.

It is written in Leviticus “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

That means that we should consider, in what we do, our own interest as well as the interest of those we can or should consider to be our neighbors.

As the American journalist and author Sydney J. Harris once said:

“The three hardest tasks in the world are neither physical feats nor intellectual achievements, but moral acts: to return love for hate, to include the excluded and to say <I was wrong>.”

No risks of excess here!

Nobody likes to be taken for a ride. That included the 1.8 millions New Yorkers who were “taken for a ride” in a taxi. The New York Times reported on the front page of its Saturday March 13, issue that approximately 3,000 New City taxi drivers overcharged their clients for a period of 2 years by switching their meters to out of borough rates for City trips. The investigation conducted by the Taxi and Limousine Commission discovered that 36,000 drivers switch their meters at least once (possibly in error) but that 3,000 did it more than 100 times. The total amount over-paid is $3.8 millions.

Why do we detest being had? There may be many reasons but let me list three:

1. Loss: Obviously nobody likes to lose money but in most cases the loss is not the prevalent reason of our resentment, unless we have been a victim of the Madoff fraud!
2. Shame: When we are deceived we may feel embarrassed by what we, or more importantly others might consider as poor judgment, or lack of paying attention. The meters in the taxis do indicate a change of rate, however not in a very visible manner.
3. Betrayal: We feel betrayed when someone or some institution breaks a promise whether explicit or implicit. We feel betrayed when our sense of fairness and justice has been violated.

How should we deal with betrayal? Here are some suggestions:

1. We should recognize that the feeling of betrayal is a legitimate emotion. Betrayal is a violation of trust. Trust is a core value in any relationship and without it society cannot function.
2. We should take action whether it is to confront the violator by expressing our disappointment and/or report the incident to the proper person or authorities.
3. We should also be aware that we too may have in the past, betrayed someone’s trust. We should try to make amends by apologizing and if possible find a way to compensate the person we have betrayed.
4. We should be outraged at betrayal when others are the victims.  It is interesting to note that we generally do not feel the same acuteness of betrayal when others are the victims. We should show as much concern when someone else is being betrayed.

As the American playwright Steven Deitz once said:

“One should rather die than be betrayed. There is no deceit in death. It delivers precisely what it has promised. Betrayal though… betrayal is the willful slaughter of hope.”

On a personal and anecdotic note: Not too long ago, engaged in conversation with a taxi driver and I shared with him three amusing riddles. He found them very funny. When we arrived at destination he refused to charge me for the fare. “You made me laugh, and that was worth it” he said. I insisted but he would hear none of it. We finally came to a compromise and he accepted that I pay at the most half of the fare. I did not  know that there was no special discount category on the meter for making the driver laugh!

Yesterday’s New York Times article -Private Matters-When Free Worlds Collide, reported on the ruling of an Italian court against three Google executives for violating Italian privacy laws by allowing the posting of a video back in 2006.  The video shows an autistic boy being bullied by other students. The executives were sentenced to 6 months of jail but the sentence was suspended. The video was online for two months and removed once Google received a formal complaint. Professor Jane Kirtley who teaches media ethics and the law at the University of Minnesota said: “Americans to this day don’t fully appreciate how Europeans regard privacy. The reality is that they consider privacy a fundamental human right.”

There is a historical explanation for Europeans’ strong concern about privacy. During the Nazi occupation of Europe and later during the Communist domination of Eastern Europe, both regimes used fear, surveillance and denunciation (often by private citizens) to exert their power.

There is also a historical reason why Americans are so insistent on free speech.  The American Revolutionary War was in reaction to excesses by the British Government including in the area of free speech and the media.

It is interesting to know that the word privacy does not figure anywhere in the constitution, but it does in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

It seems to me that this is a case of a conflict between free expression and privacy both important values.  Where does the right of free expression ends and where does the right of privacy begins and who is entitled to impose that boundary?

Privacy is difficult to define and privacy online is even more problematic. I believe it is a very personal matter. We should each be allowed to set the boundaries between the private and the non-private or public. I believe that we are also bound, sometimes by law, but certainly by ethics to respect those boundaries where ever they may be.

A lesson we can learn from Google’s recent dispute with the Italian court is not to hesitate to complain, officially, if we feel our privacy or the privacy of others has been violated. Why did it take two months for a complaint to be made and for the video to be removed? YouTube offers viewers tips and resources on reporting and taking actions on such issues as teen safety, sexual abuse of minors, harassment, and privacy.

As the Irish 18th century politician Edmund Burke so rightly said:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”