A question of ethics.

During a discussion in the Blue Room on Tuesday, the topic of ethics came up, as it does from time to time.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that ethics is concerned with the question of morals and moral principles, and that morals, in turn, are concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition, or the distinction between right and wrong.

The problem with discussing morals and ethics is that the distinction between good and bad, and right and wrong, is often not as clear-cut as we might like it to be. Yes, in general the distinction is quite clear. However, we often encounter situations which are somewhat ambiguous — the proverbial "grey areas." Also, what is clear-cut for one person might be quite not so clear to another.

This is often demonstrated in a feature column in The United Church Observer known as "Everyday Ethics." In this column, an ethical dilemma is presented, and two guest panelists provide their take on the situation. Sometimes they agree, other times they do not.

A few of the dilemmas presented over the past year include:

• a friend who confides to you that she is pregnant, but asks you to keep this a secret. The friend then accepts an assignment to a work area that is off-limits to pregnant and nursing mothers.

• a car dealer wants to donate a van to your church in return for a charitable tax receipt for an amount you feel is higher than the value of the van.

• as a pediatrician at a local hospital, you see an older couple who bring in their grandchild who urgently requires a blood transfusion. The grandparents don’t tell you that the parents object to transfusions on religious grounds, but a nurse who knows the family informs you of this.

• after returning from a trip overseas, you show a friend a small, woven wall-hanging you bought as a souvenir in a street market. The friend tells you that this country is notorious for the poor working conditions in its factories, where young children work long hours for very little pay. The friend suggest you should throw away the wall-hanging.

For some of you, the resolution to the above dilemmas may seem obvious. To others, this is where the head-scratching and chin-rubbing begins as you debate the merits of the situation.

Those who do find the resolution obvious: would it be as obvious if the variables were altered slightly, if the situation were tweaked just a little? Is the answer always ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ or does ‘maybe’ ever creep into the discussion?

You see, I have some degree of concern when people hold the attitude that "this is the way it is."

I prefer to believe that "this is the way it should be, but I recognize there may be extenuating circumstances." Each situation ought to be judged on its own merits.

It may well be that the situation I am facing today is very similar to a number of situation I have faced in the past, and I can therefore make a quick decision as to my response. However, the situation this time may be similar to, but have a distinct difference from, previous situations, which will require me to give more consideration to my response.

As many of you will know from reading my columns, I tend to explore both sides of an issue before arriving at a position on that issue. Even when I hold a firm opinion on an issue, I am prepared to acknowledge other points of view.

While ethics is considered a science, like psychology it is not an exact science. The studies conducted in either discipline utilize scientific methodology, to ensure that others can repeat and verify the research that was conducted, but by no means are the outcomes a certainty.

It is my belief that our personal sense of ethics are, and must be, flexible. Oh, we’re often very definitive in our public expression of what we believe to be right and wrong, but when we become involved in a situation we find that things aren’t quite so absolute.

Here’s a personal example:

My late step-father, when he worked at Algoma Steel, had a habit of sticking his pencil behind his ear when he wasn’t using it. At the end of the day he would often forget to remove the pencil. Once he arrived home he would become somewhat flustered, and place the pencil on the counter near the door, so that he could bring it back to work the next day. He wasn’t going to be accused of stealing.

I would laugh, and tell him that it wasn’t stealing, and that the company name was embossed on the pencil not to discourage theft, but as a means of advertising; the company intended for those pencils to make their way into the community.

One situation, two points of view. There may be others.

In some cases the issue of right and wrong is more clear cut. I knew someone who worked at Plant Security, who ran over to help someone who collapsed while waiting in line to punch-out at the gatehouse. As he knelt beside the man and began to loosen the man’s collar, he noticed several turns of what appeared to be extension cord wrapped around his chest. The man was attempting to steal a substantial length of electrical cable. This was wrong, and he was fired.

So, where does ‘flexibility’ come into the situation? Well, not merely to permit one to justify one’s actions. In the case of the electrical cord theft, I have had people say to me "well, the company makes huge profits, and fifty bucks’ worth of cable isn’t going to break them." Hmm. Considering how many times Algoma has skirted with bankruptcy, I’m not sure that argument will wash any more. But whether or not the company can afford such losses, doesn’t alter the fact that theft is theft.

Ah, but what about my Dad and his "stolen" pencils? Was that "theft," or did the company intend for those pencils to be used as advertising in the community? Not so clear cut, is it?

When I worked at the Water Plant in Mississauga, a catering truck would pull up out front every weekday morning. One co-worker, who was known to be quite well-off financially (he held three cab licenses in Mississauga), would buy a coffee and a pastry, and then take several packets of condiments — mustard, ketchup, relish, salt and pepper — which he would then place in his locker.

I once asked him why he did this. His reply was "With the prices they charge, I’m just trying to get my money’s worth."

He didn’t agree with my contention that with the prices he charged for a cab ride, I should be entitled to take his spare tire to "get my money’s worth." Neither did he seem to think that he could simply bring his own snack and drink the 50-cent coffee from the lunch room if he felt that the prices were too high from the "roach coach," as we called it.

Maybe the problem with ethics is that there is a very clear sense of right and wrong when others are involved, but the situation becomes a bit murkier when we are involved ourselves?

But… that’s just my opinion.