There were a number of rumors has to what happened. Some reports claimed that the pilot and co-pilot were in a heated argument, others reports claimed that both were sound asleep. Neither one of these explanations is reassuring for travelers! The explanation the pilots gave the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is that both pilots has lost tract of time while discussing new flight schedules. (Time did fly!).” Northwest suspended both pilots and then the FAA revoked their licenses. It was later revealed that they both had logged on their laptops. The investigation continues, but we can safely assume that the pilots were indeed distracted, we just don’t know exactly by what.

We are all prone to distractions. Some people are more inclined to be distracted than others, such as the “absent-minded professor” type. Consequences to distraction can be insignificant or disastreous. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 80% of crashes are due to some form of driver distraction. Harvard University study revealed that cell phone distraction causes 200 deaths and 500,000 injuries each year.

How can we minimize distractions? 

1. We have to be aware that we can all be distracted at one point or another and therefore exercise caution.

2. We should think about the possible consequences of distractions.

3. We should remember that sometimes distraction occurs not necessarily when our minds are rambling but when we think or concentrate about what is to come next instead of what is now. Thinking about the immediate future rather than the current present.

In some way we are all pilots. We may hold in our hands, in certain circumstances, the destiny of those who depend on us and who can be impacted by our distractions and their consequences. Responsibility, an important value in ethics, is the best antidote to distraction.

Christopher Columbus, a great navigator once said:

 ”By prevailing over all obstacle and distractions, one may unfailingly arrive at the chosen goal or destination. “

“I lied about the fact that I am depressed and suicidal because I was afraid they would not renew my pilot license.”

More than 10,000 cards have been collected so far and Postsecret.com has more than 500,000 fans on Facebook. Frank Warren believes that revealing a personal secret is therapeutic and can have a life-changing effect.

We all have secrets, our own and those that were entrusted to us. Individuals, corporations and government have secrets.

There are however circumstances when a secret has to be revealed.  Let me list two:

• When the secret has the potential of causing physical or financial harm to yourself or to others. 
• When keeping the secret violate your legal obligations.

The U.S. Government has a special office (The U.S. office of Special Counsel) that “serves as a safe conduit for the receipt and evaluation of whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment.” One can file a report online!

Whistleblowers do perform important service to the community by exposing fraud and other illegalities. However in many cases their professional careers are permanently damaged. Whistleblowers Cynthia Cooper of WorldCom, Colleen Rowley of the FBI, and Sherron Watkins of Enron were named “Persons of the Year” by Time Magazine in 2002. Yet they were never again hired by neither the government nor by corporations. Cynthia Cooper created her own consulting firm and wrote a book, Colleen Rowley retired and Sherron Watkins write a blog called “The Insufferable Truth Blog.” She wrote a book as well. Could it be that people feel that someone that has been a whistleblower in the past is not to be trusted in the future?

Keeping a secret should not be difficult because the information we are given in confidence do not belong to us. It belongs to the person that trusted us with the secret. Disposing of something that is not ours is, in my view similar to stealing.

Respecting confidentially is an essential value in the profession or function of an ethics officer. Violating confidence even if it is only once can destroy the ethics officer’s reputation and ability to function effectively.

Furthermore, revealing a secret is a violation of trust and trust is at the core of all human relationships.

Unfortunately and sadly there are few people that can really be trusted with a secret. Some are careless and forgetful; others hope to gain recognition and acceptance by revealing a secret and some will do it just for personal financial gain.

King Solomon once said: “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.”

Here are some reflections on the incident.

It was moving to see that so many shared the anxiety for one little boy we believed was trapped in the sky. It is reassuring to see instinctive reactions of empathy manifest itself spontaneously. It indicates that people care.  No efforts to rescue him were spared. Yet, in the U.S. thousands of children die of hunger, neglect and abuse everyday but we don’t witness the same overwhelming sympathy and action.

Why?

There are many possible explanations.

One of them is that it is easier to relate to the plight of one individual, particularly if it is a child, than to relate to the despair of a large number of people.

A second explanation could be that we can become discouraged of taking any action when the demand is so overwhelming.

One way to combat such lassitude is to think of people in need in terms of individuals, not in terms of numbers. If an action we undertake helps just one person, then it is worth it. We should remember the quote attributed to the Talmud that says: “He who saves one life saves the world entire.” (This quote was mentioned in the last scene of Spielberg’s Oscar winning movie “Schindler’s List.” In that scene, Oscar Schindler, who is distraught and weeping for not having saved more lives is offered a ring by the people he saved with the quoted inscribe inside the ring.)

As to the hoax there is one question that comes to my mind:

Was Mr. Heene’s wife (the only other adult in this story) a willing participant or was she coerced?  Reports indicate that Mr. Heene has been investigated, in the past for spousal abuse. If she was coerced, to what decree was she truly responsible for her actions?

We may find ourselves in our professional and private life in a situation where we are strongly influenced, if not coerced, to do something we know is not right. We need to have the moral courage and strength to overcome our fears and simply say “no.” 

As General Douglas McArthur once said:

“The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave - it’s the aged-old struggle - the roar of the crowd on one side and the voice of conscience on the other.”

Roman Polanski, a well known, some say brilliant, movie director was a fugitive. He fled from the United States more than 30 years ago when it became clear to him that he would have to serve time for the crime he committed in raping a 13-year old girl. He claims that the judge was going to ignore a plea bargain deal he had made with the prosecution and sentence Mr. Polanski to a long jail time. Mr. Polanski admitted at the time of having had sex with an underage girl.

The governments of France and of Poland (he is a citizen of both) came to his defense, as well as a large number of directors, actors and actresses.

Those reactions of support and requests that he be set free pose some serious ethical questions. Let me list just a few:

1. Does the fact that the defendant is a well-known artist in anyway diminish the severity of his actions?  In my view, if it does, it would violate the concept of equal justice.

2. Does the fact that the alleged crime happened more than 30 years ago, exonerate the defendant from having to face justice and to pay for his crime? The law does provide status of limitation for crime that may have happened a long time ago, because both the prosecution and the defense can no longer rely on people’s memory after a number of years. However, in this case, Mr. Polanski admitted having had sex with a minor, which in California is considered “statutory rape.”  Furthermore, if the document I read of the testimony of the victim is authentic, then Mr. Polanski’s action would constitute rape even if the victim has been an adult.

3. Does the fact that the victim has forgiven her aggressor reduces his culpability?

From a legal point of view, it is irrelevant because rape is not only a crime against the victim but against the State. However from a moral point of view, it is significant. The forgiveness of the victim might influence a jury in a trial and a judge in the sentencing.

4. Are plea bargains ethical? According the Justice Department, 90% of criminal cases end up in a plea bargain where the defendant admits to a lesser crime in exchange for a lesser sentence. It is, in my view an agreement of convenience. It guarantees a minimum sentence that is acceptable to the prosecution and relieves the courts from having to try in an insurmountable numbers of crimes. It also offers the defendant the possibility of a lesser sentence.  But is it justice?

I believe Mr. Polanski should take the responsibility for his actions, face the court and serve whatever sentence is imposed.

As Martin Luther King once said:

“Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere.”

I believe this quote does apply to the Roman Polanski because by becoming a fugitive he denied  justice to have its course.

ACORN’s CEO Bertha Lewis said in reaction to the incidents: “As a result of the indefensible action of a handful of our employees, I am, in consultation with ACORN’s Executive Committee, immediately ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN’s service programs until completion of an independent review.  I have also communicated with ACORN’s independent Advisory Council, and they will assist ACORN in naming an independent auditor and investigator to conduct a thorough review of all of the organization’s relevant systems and processes.”

Will that be enough to save the organization? The Congress voted for a suspension of public funding by an overwhelming majority of 345-75 in the House and 83 -7 in the Senate. Senator Gillibrand was one of the 7 senators who voted in favor of ACORN funding. Her office made the following statement: “Senator Gillibrand finds the actions of certain employees of these organizations to be reprehensible, and believes these individuals should absolutely be punished for their actions. However, thousands of New York families who are facing foreclosure depend on charitable organizations for assistance. Senator Gillibrand believes that eliminating funding would be harmful to the thousands of families who need assistance during this very difficult economic time. We should not punish hardworking families in need because of the abhorrent actions of a few.”

There are many ethical aspects as to what happened with ACORN last week.

The method of entrapment is one of them. It is usually done by the authorities such as the police or the FBI.  Female police officers pose as prostitutes to entrap “customers” and FBI agents pose as terrorists to apprehend a real terrorist. The moral justification for such deceptive method is that it prevents a crime from occurring and exposes the intent of the individuals about or in the process of committing a crime.

However it is rare that such method is used by private citizens. There is a moral difference between recording a conversation or an action that we consider illegal, immoral, or just inappropriate in order to expose the action and the individuals in question and actually provoking that action by assuming a false identity.  Although exposing evil has a positive outcome for society, does the end justify the means? In some case they do, in others maybe not. Each situation should be considered separately.

The aspect of the ACORN scandal also raises questions about the ethical culture of an organization.

An organization that is an advocate for the down trodden and poor will tend to find itself in adversarial positions against the establishment that it believes is the cause of poverty and injustice. There is however a difference between “beating the system” and breaking the law.  This recent scandal unfortunately is not an isolated incident and seems to indicate an endemic unethical culture. The incident was repeated in a number of offices in different cities. Furthermore ACORN has been in the past charged and fined for voter’s registration fraud and investigated by the FBI for mortgage fraud.

Employees of an organization that has an ethical culture will instinctively react to a blatant immoral proposition. Once the words “under-aged” (child?) prostitutes were uttered, the right thing to do would have been for the ACORN employees to terminate the conversation and walk the two individuals out the door. They did not.  

This is very unfortunate because ACORN is fighting for a good cause and has done a much good to many people.

One lesson we can all learn from this deplorable story is that the end rarely justifies the means.

As George Bernanos, the French author once said:

“The first sign of corruption in a society that is still alive is that the end justifies the means.”

Writing is very time consuming and many executive simply do not have the time. David Finn, in his article published by Fortune magazine back in 1986 titled: Exorcise the Executive Ghostwriters-Businessmen cheat their audiences, and themselves when they rely on others to pen their words wrote that:  ”Writing takes time because thinking carefully is time-consuming. The more time executives spend writing, the more time they will spend thinking.”

Ghostwriting is a common practice, in other fields beside the medical industry although it is not always called as such. We all know that presidents do not write their speeches but once the speech is given, he becomes the author. No one would imagine a president blaming the “ghostwriter” for something that was said and later regretted. In public relations we are often asked to write the draft of a statement, a press release or a speech for a client. We would not expect the client to reveal the fact that we authored the document that is made public. I have been asked in the past to write letters of recommendations from people who work for or with me. I sometimes ask them to write a draft that I edit (or not.) Once I signed the letter, I am the author.

Likewise, in my view, it is acceptable for a physician to sign an article if he or she fully endorses the content. As David Finn wrote in his article: “Executives should ask themselves whether the words on paper regardless of who wrote them, truly reflect their point of view and contain a message they believe is worth delivering.”  

There is no doubt that ghostwriting can be beneficial to the many of parties involved. Universities get funding from the pharmaceutical industry; physicians and consumers are provided with information about a particular drug; and yes, the pharmaceutical companies get a marketing platform for their products.

However, ghostwriting can present an ethical problem if it creates a conflict of interest situation.

If a physician or an academician is paid either to endorse a particular drug or write about it, (with or without the help of a ghostwriter,) the question will rise in peoples’ minds whether he really believes what he said or wrote. The independence and credibility of the author will be questioned even if the fact that the author was paid for an article had no influence whatsoever on its content. Unfortunately truth is not always believable.

As Professor and Psychologist David G. Myers once said:

“There is an objective reality out there, but we view it through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes, and values.”

It is a hot issue in France whether to allow women to wear the Burqua. President Sarkozy made a public statement saying the Burqua was not welcomed in France. He said: “The problem of the Burqua is not a religious problem. This is an issue of woman’s freedom and dignity. It is a sign of subservience.” A parliamentary commission has been created to decide if a law banning the Burqua should be passed by the Assemblée Nationale (the French equivalent of the U.S. Congress.) Fadela Amara, the French minister of Urban Regeneration and a Muslim herself declared in an interview with the Financial Times that: “the Burqua represents not a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of religion that enslaves women and disputes the principal of equality between men and women, one of the founding principles of our republic.” She added that the vast majority of Muslims are against the Burqua and that it was necessary to fight the “gangrene of radical Islam which completely distorts the message of Islam.”

It is difficult to imagine the U.S government getting involved in what Americans (citizens or not) are allowed to wear. The laws in this country dealing with apparel only imposes a minimum (not the maximum) of what one is allowed to wear, i.e. nudity is not allowed in public places. Woody Allen imagined in the movie Bananas? a dictator issuing a decree imposing that its citizens wear their underwear on the outside. 

The issue of the Burqua is very complex because it involves religion, culture, identity, integration, tolerance and most importantly, in my view, freedom.

There are many different cultures within the Moslem world. Some cultures impose the Burqua, others do not.

In some Islamic societies such as the Taliban, women who refuse to wear it can be and have been publicly executed. In such a society the Burqua is not only a symbol but the reality of the suppression of women’s freedom by a male - dominated society.  

I have discussed this issue with a colleague, here at Ruder Finn which wears the headscarf. She told me that she decided on her own, at one point in her life that she wanted to wear it. She was not expected, much less demanded to do so it by neither her husband nor by her father before she was married.

The fundamental issue is one of freedom. If a woman freely wants to wear a Burqua, for whatever reasons, she should be allowed to do so. The same applies for any religious clothing should it be the habit for Catholic nuns and priests or the Kippa for Jewish men.

However we should oppose oppression in all its forms whether imposed by the military, political or religious authorities that abuse fundamental human rights.

As Thomas Carlyle once said:

“Everywhere the human soul stands between a hemisphere of light and another of darkness on the confines of two everlasting hostile empires, - Necessity and Free Will.”

 Thirty hours ago, Euna Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment, we could be sent to a hard-labor camp. And then suddenly we were told that we were going to a meeting. We were taken to a location. And when we walked in through the doors, we saw, standing before us, President Bill Clinton. We were shocked. But we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end. And now we stand here, home and free.

 President’s Clinton’s trip was, in my opinion a diplomatic coup to his credit but also to the credit of the Obama Administration.

 However some have argued that President Clinton’s trip to North Korea to obtain the freedom of the two women was “rewarding bad behavior.” Among them former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton who said: “The symbolism of a former president going to meet with Kim Jong II. I think is something that benefits Kim Jong II a lot more than the United States, and it only encourages others to do the same thing.”

 The argument poses the question of whether one should make a deal with evil. Should we, for instance, pay ransom for kidnappings? If we do, we know that more kidnappings will occur. Should we agree to sacrifice the lives of a few to save many others?

These are complex ethical dilemmas. It is quasi impossible to do a risk-benefit analysis when the lives of human beings are at stake.

Maybe a better way to phrase the question would be to ask instead “How do you deal with evil?” We all at one point in our lives have faced or will face such a question. There are, of course no generic answers and each situation has to be addressed specifically.

However some guidelines might be helpful. I suggest the following:

We should, 

1) Remember that the ultimate goal is to stop evil and since it is rarely possible to do so, we have to do all we can to reduce its impact.

2) Identify the specific values involved in the situation such as life and compassion.

3) Try the best we can to put ourselves in the shoes of the person that will be most impacted by our decision. In other words, “do to others what we would like them do to us.”

4) Consider the long-term real (not hypothetical) consequences of our decisions.

5) Know that whatever decision we make, it will not be perfect but rather a lesser of two evils.

Max Lerner, the American educator and author was correct when he said:

“When you choose the lesser of two evils, always remember that it is still an evil.”

The questions are whether Prof. Henry Louis Gates’s conduct was disorderly enough to warrant an arrest and suffer the indignity of handcuffs and why did the Boston Police Department later dropped the charges? Was it because they concluded that his conduct did not warrant an arrest or did they give Prof. Gates a preferential treatment because of his stature, position and race?

Preferential treatment is most often also wrong because by definition it is unfair. Fairness is an important value in ethics.

Yet in some cases preferential treatment is justified.

Persons in authority should receive special honor and respect, not because of who they are as individuals but because of the function they hold. When a judge walks in the courtroom the people do rise.

The elderly or the weak in health deserve it because of their condition. We still see today in public transport someone giving up his seat for an older person or a pregnant woman. 

We sometimes think we are entitled to preferential treatment when we are not. A little dose of humility will clear the matter very quickly. I am still impressed when I see the chairman of our company wash his coffee cup himself and wait in line with all the other employees to get his yearly flu shot. (I would not be surprised if it never even occurred to him to ask the doctor to come to his office.)

The incident in Cambridge would most likely not have happened if both parties, once the burglary misunderstanding had been cleared, had shown some respect to each other. They had the opportunity to do so at the White House last week during the so-called “Beer Summit.” Professor Gates said of Sgt. Crowley after they met privately, “We hit it off right from the beginning (actually not from the very beginning!) When he is not arresting you, Sgt. Crawley, is really a likable guy.”

As Henri Frederic Amiel once said:

“There is no respect for others without humility in one’s self.”

I did not know that indiference, be it extreme, could be a crime. Although there are no statutory definition of “extreme indiference’ it has been used in court to prosecute criminals that have shown by their actions extreme contempt for human life such as in a hit and run situation.

Are we not all, to some degree, guilty of indifference to the plight and life-threatening conditions of others? How could we not be? The constant exposure through the media to dramatic situation around us and around the globe can make us less caring and discouraged and maybe even cynical. We can all suffer from compassion fatigue. The gradual lessening of compassion over time is a known phenomenon.

In ethics, doing the right thing often involves making a difference and not being indifferent.

How can we prevent indifference from happening?

1. We should be encouraged by the fact that there are millions of people who care and who make a difference in other people’s lives. We are not alone. There are more than a hundred thousands NGO’s and not for profit organizations in the United States that spend billions of dollars a year improving people lives.

2. We should not disregard that small (and not so small) steps or actions we can take individually to help others. You may only have one cup of water to give when there are millions around you that are thirsty. However that one cup is everything to the person that receives it.

3. We should accept that we have limited resources, both emotional and financial and not feel guilty when we face, as a global citizen what may seem insurmountable tasks and responsibilities.

As Elie Wiesel once said:
“For one who is indifferent, life itself is a prison. Any sense of community is external or, even worse, nonexistent. Thus, indifference means solitude. Those who are indifferent do not see others. They feel nothing for others and are unconcerned with what might happen to them. They are surrounded by a great emptiness. Filled by it, in fact. They are devoid of all hope as well as imagination. In other words, devoid of any future.”