In early November, the White House staff was required to start attending ethics lectures in response to the CIA leak investigation. Indeed, taking revenge on a Bush administration naysayer by putting his undercover wife in jeopardy, is hardly ethical. These days, it seems like hardly anyone on top is using ethical judgment.
One school wants to change that trend. An international business school called Instead wants to graduate students who are socially responsible in their money-making practices. Instead requires entrance exams which test ethics along with aptitude, and ethics lectures are worked into finance classes. In an interview, Instead Dean Gabriel Hawawini discussed the school’s admission criteria and classroom content: “We have to make sure that our curriculum has enough ethical and social responsibility issues in … We should try to identify the kind of people who have ethical standards.”
Considering the U.S. government’s recent flirtation with developing moral fiber, ethical training may soon become a key facet of training public officials, or anyone in a position of power.
Would a school system built upon ideas of the Ethical be a good idea for the United States? Can ethics training sessions help end government corruption? Will newly moral businessmen quell all insider trading? Not necessarily.
To begin with, it is important to remember that the definition of ethics is squirmy, at best. Ethics, like morals cannot fall under a static definition for every person or situation, and maybe that is why everyone seems to spend so much time defining and defending their unethical actions.
According to Merriam-Webster, ethics are “a theory or system of moral values.”
According to Scooter Libby, ethics are making sure that your kin, and their values and judgments, are always safe from attack.
According to Dean Hawawini, ethics are not falling into “the trap of saying: ‘Everyone else is doing it. I have to do it, too.’”
If pinned down, I suppose that I define ethics as the ability to think outside of one’s own interest for the purpose of furthering the greater good. Though I suppose the definition of “greater good” is still a bit murky.
If ethics cannot be defined, it is easy to see why everyone has such a hard time being “ethical.”
Was it ethical for President Bush to begin his term in office by ending pregnancy planning services that mention abortion to women overseas? I would argue that said policy decision was an unethical one. For Bush to cut off medical resources and knowledge to a group of already underprivileged citizens, simply because of his own stance on abortion, is a political move which prizes the desires of the President over the desires of the women. Of course, as far as President Bush sees it, the really unethical thing, the thing that is evil and amoral and bad for society, is killing unborn fetuses.
A school and training sessions designed to promote the Ethical seem like a good idea, but the trend begs the question, whose idea of ethics will be adhered to?
Some of Instead’s values sound very positive. Demanding honesty, working against bribery, using time in every course to expand upon the play of ethics within the business world. Ethics schools are not a bad idea; I only hope that they don’t become the lame ducks in place of people actually thinking out their actions, and coming to a smart, cohesive conclusion on what is ethical and what is not in the business world.
Ethical schools in the United States would have a decidedly thornier time sorting out the unethical practices from the modern manifestation of capitalism. After all, a George W. Bush Business Ethics University would not necessarily be the correct avenue with which to create a morally sound workforce. From his past policy decisions, it seems that Bush’s idea of ethics involves giving bonuses to the rich and degrading the poor. If capitalism says that those who work hard get rich, then the poor must be lazy.
A government ethics lecture at this point might say “never mind!” to the well-documented trend that upward social mobility is becoming harder and harder to attain.
The White House shouldn’t be chided for trying to be ethical. The White House should, however, be chided for not being ethical. Whether or not ethics classes or ethics schools can eliminate the discrepancy between what is defined as ethical, and what is not just in the interest of the person with power, remains to be seen.

[email protected]