What is the “Worst” Behavior? Don’t Ask Conservative Bloggers!

John Hawkins of Right Wing News persuaded 43 conservative bloggers to send him their list of the twenty worst Americans in history. He then compiled a list of “The 25 Worst Americans” using their responses, with the rankings based on the number of blogger who listed an individual.

The list is disturbing, but not for the reasons you think.  What does it say about the priorities and values of conservative bloggers that the “worst American” among all the criminals, serial killers, scoundrels and sociopaths America has produced is, by this method of measurement...wait for it…

...Jimmy Carter? Continue reading

And You Thought YOUR In-laws Were Bad…

Stuart R. Ross, a non-practicing lawyer who, among other dealings, once owned a chunk of the Smurfs franchise, ran out of his own money and began pestering his successful  son-in-law, David S. Blitzer, for investment capital. After Ross blew through the tens of thousands of dollars he got from Blitzer, he demanded more, and Blitzer, a senior managing director of The Blackstone Group, told him that he wasn’t getting any more. So Ross adopted another strategy: he told his daughter’s husband, through repeated e-mails and phone calls, that he would reveal unidentified, career-wrecking secrets about Blitzer if Blitzer didn’t hand over more money—$5.5 million, to be precise. Continue reading

On Unethical Tipping

I had an enlightening, even shocking, discussion last night with a young woman who waitresses as a second job. I asked her about her observations regarding customer tips during the recession and generally. From what she says, there are a lot of unethical diners out there. Continue reading

Porn: Finding Ethics in the Strangest Places

It should surprise nobody that Amy Fisher, the “Long Island Lolita,” now out of jail for shooting her lover’s wife, married and in her mid-thirties, is outfitted with nifty breast implants and making money shooting porn films. At least her notoriety is being exploited in a manner that does not confer true celebrity status for her misconduct, unlike, for example, Michaele Salahi, who has been featured in glamour shots by the national media as a  direct result of her crashing a White House social event with her equally shameless husband. Amy was dismissive of her part-time porno career in a recent interview, and the woman she shot in the head, Mary Jo Buttafuoco, suggested in a follow-up interview that Fisher was ethically clueless (a not too far-fetched conclusion, all things considered), and that the fact that she made her living being photographed performing various sex acts despite being the parent of small children proved it.

This got me thinking about pornography..no, no, wait!—I mean about the ethics of pornography. Continue reading

Ethics Heroes: The Billionaires of “The Giving Pledge”

Encouraged by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, more than 30 U.S. billionaires have pledged to give at least half of their fortunes to charity. Buffett and Gates launched The Giving Pledge project in June. The Giving Pledge does not accept money, or try to steer its participants to any particular cause.  Nor is it a contract. The project asks billionaires to make a moral commitment to give away their wealth to charity.

This is clearly the ideal time for such an effort, when state and local governments are fighting deficits and less wealthy donors are having difficulty meeting prior levels of charity. It is also an eloquent statement by a group of productive, talented, hard-working and patriotic Americans that has been unfairly used too often as a cheap political target by the Obama Administration, Congress and the media.

Nothing bad whatsoever can come from The Giving Pledge. Continue reading

Ethics Quiz: The Garage Sale Treasure

CNN is reporting the story of a man who bought two small boxes at a garage sale ten years ago and just discovered that they contained 65 previously undiscovered glass negatives by famed nature photographer Ansel Adams. He purchased the boxes for $45 (haggled down from $75), and their contents are now assessed to be worth at least $200 million.

Such stories raise interesting ethical questions. For example, if you were the lucky stiff who bought the boxes, would you give any part of it to the original owner? Continue reading

LaBron, Steinbrenner, and Warped Sports Ethics

Sports ennoble us through the  symbolic exploits of latter-day mythic heroes, who use their amazing skills and talents to exemplify courage, grace under adversity, loyalty, accountability, sacrifice, and, of course, sportsmanship.

Or so they say.

Sometimes it works out that way, but just as often an extraordinary athlete like LeBron James will choose to use his prominence to promote less attractive character traits, like greed, vanity, disloyalty, cruelty and boorishness. For some reason, the mega-millions LeBron was going to receive for fleeing Cleveland as an NBA free agent was not sufficient booty: the basketball star felt that “branding” required that he tease as many cities and franchises as possible, rub Cleveland’s loss in the faces of his previously worshipful fans in that city, and then announce his final choice of new employers in an ESPN TV special that embarrassed his sport and his species. James is not alone, of course; he has lots of company among college and professional athletes whose preening and selfishness make it impossible to use their names and “role model” in the same sentence.

But for the use of sport to warp ethical priorities, nothing quite matches the nauseating accolades being heaped on the late George Steinbrenner, whose ownership of  the New York Yankees was a decades-long advertisement for the principle that the end justifies the means, and as long as you win, nothing else really matters. Continue reading

The Senate Closes an Unethical Tax Loophole

When a defendant corporation is hit with punitive damages in a jury verdict, that means that in addition to causing the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, the corporation also was guilty of wrongdoing. Punitive damages are large amounts of money that the losing defendant must pay over and above compensatory damages, in order to make it too expensive for the company to keep doing what caused the original problem. This is one of the virtues of the civil justice system. Thanks to punitive damages, a lawsuit by a single injured party can result in a sufficiently painful financial penalty that the corporation has a significant incentive to reform.

So why do the tax laws allow companies to use punitive damages as tax deductions, since it 1) lowers tax revenues and 2) makes the damages less expensive, less painful, and less of an incentive to correct unsafe, dangerous or dishonest practices? Continue reading

The Incredibly Unethical BP Boycott

Readers of Ethics Alarms know that I think boycotting is at best economic bullying, at worst a non-violent form of terrorism, and generally unethical except in cases so rare that they are difficult to imagine. The current BP boycott is close to the worst variety, blunt and destructive mob anger akin to the reaction of the excitable citizens of Homer Simpson’s Springfield, whose solution to every crisis seems to be a riot.

BP was outrageously and perhaps criminally negligent in creating the conditions that led to the Gulf oil spill, and it is right and just that the burden of accountability and responsibility has fallen on them. And it certainly has fallen on them: as much as every citizen of the United States may want to personally kick the company while it is prone, the fact is that the dire consequences of its misconduct are already overwhelming, both long and short-term. Right now, the Gulf states are still dependent on the diligence and expertise of the company to try to limit the damage it has caused, and the company is, if only for its own survival, doing the best it can to succeed. This fact alone would make a public boycott of BP at this time senseless and counter-productive.

The boycott is also unfair. Continue reading

The Amazing, Versatile and Unethical Goldman Sachs Code of Ethics

Perhaps we all owe Goldman Sachs an apology. Everyone heaped outrage and ridicule the April spectacle of its executives going before the U.S. Senate and asserting under oath that they saw nothing at all unethical about intentionally selling “crappy” investment products to their trusting customers, then making money for their own firm by betting that the products would fail. Many were reminded of the tobacco executives, in the famous AP photo, all raising their hands to swear that they did not believe nicotine was addictive. After all, Goldman Sachs’s own website pledged openness, honesty, trustworthiness and integrity, saying,

“A critical part of running the marathon is acting consistently and playing a fair and honest game. ‘There’s only one thing we sell, and that’s trust.’ This applies to anything, but nowhere more than Investment Management. Clients trust us to do the right thing, and particularly when you’re in investment management and you’re appointed to manage clients’ money, they trust that you’re going to do it in a prudent manner. The worst thing you could do is breach that trust. We look for people who want to run the marathon, and who understand that trust fuels it.”

Now it seems that we were lacking a crucial document: the firm’s internal Code of Ethics, which Goldman Sachs recently made public. Under the provisions of this remarkable Code, what Goldman Sachs did to its clients wasn’t unethical at all; deceptive, conflicted, and unfair, yes…but not unethical, in the sense that it didn’t violate the Ethics Code itself. “Impossible!” you say? Ah, you underestimate the firm’s cleverness. Continue reading