There's a solution but it's one people won't like:
Recognizing that "diversity" isn't a good. _Appropriate_ diversity - carefully selected and curated - is.
Two viewpoints that differ can provide parallax that reveals more of the world. They can also look in opposite directions and see nothing in common to discuss.
The way you cope with ethical diversity? The way you "talk about it"?
Is to deny it.
You cope with ethical "diversity" through _judgement_ and _character_.
You say "Your diverse perspective is WRONG and I judge you to be of poor character for having embraced it."
That is how you cope with ethical diversity: by avoiding it. And honestly I much prefer the fine distinction of "Morals are about what I think is right, ethics are what I have agreed constitutes the rules of a particular game because there has to be SOME kind of structure." I agree that people should be free to exchange money for whatever goods and services they want. We don't let them sell votes or organs or child labor because it breaks the system to do so. I want my blood to flow smoothly, but I need my veins to provide structure and restraint that keeps me alive.
I my own work, I am constantly confronted with this distinction. My moral perception and analysis says that Advertising and Marketing are _inherently_ immoral. That any communication meant to alter someone's opinion through means other than reasoned evidence-backed plea - is grossly evil and should get the perpetrator lit on fire.
My ethics say that I will build anything for anyone so long as it's not one of two or three predefined categories - nothing just for causing suffering, nothing based on or extending the work of deconstructivist thinking or any of its post-modern descendants, and I reserve the creators right to play the "That's too ugly to build and stick my name on it" card.
A large part of my business involves making tools I consider inherently immoral to use because my ethics demands it.
And if I hire a guy who disagrees with my ethics? I don't celebrate the Diversity his viewpoints give my team - I tell him he signed up for it and to either quit his bitching or quit his job.
Curiously, ethics and morals are one of the few areas where I DON'T value diversity pretty highly.
You have to take a stand and make choices about What You Think is Right.
Like, I know people who are so far into the more wooly-headed side of extreme identitarian thought who can't bring themselves to condemn female genital mutilation because "it's part of their culture".
Nope. It's wrong and their culture is bad for believing it. They should change and you should judge people who believe such very very poorly.
I feel the same way about marketing and the distinction of ethics and morality, and I think civics is poorly recognized as the third fallback. (Civics is to ethics as ethics is to morals, the pragmatic reconciliation of disagreements in the latter).
I also don't trust people who make to talk too much about ethics, bc it becomes a kind of gossip game, like you can talk your way into being the good guy. It makes no sense to apologize for immorality to anyone but yourself/God. It makes no sense to apologize for unethical acts because it's just strategy. Empirically: self condemnation and shame are not emotions I've detected from reliable, successful, or inspiring people.
That doesn't mean ethics isn't something solid people think about, I just think it's something they furrow their brow at, rather than jump to defense or apology. Accepting criticism, but viewing it as a problem to balance, or a negotiation.
There is also the fact that words are corrosive. You cannot keep integrity if you begin to doubt what anything means. This has put me at a loss with some deconstructionists. I'm willing to use your words, but if there is never an acknowledgement of mine, then it becomes structurally impossible for me to be honest.
I view ethics as being much more akin to the rules you've agreed upon. What's ethical for a priest or a doctor or a private eye are very different things. But I suspect what's "right" is gonna be the same for all of them and much more about principals like "Try to increase understanding. Try to reduce suffering. Try not to lie." with ethics being much more situationalist.
There are those of us lucky enough to land on our feet when there are leaders without integrity, not everyone has the financial cushion to quit a job when they are surrounded by unethical people doing unethical things.
I... appreciate your restraint there, but do understand:
I was homeless. I am now a C-suite founder. I know the whole spectrum top(ish) to bottom.
I am not saying you CAN quit a job. But you can be honest about it. You can look yourself in the face and say "I am choosing to be a bad person because I cannot achieve the resources to be a good one in my circumstances at this time without sacrificing more than I am willing."
You do NOT _EVER_ have the right to say "I chose evil because circumstances _made_ me!".
No one makes anyone do anything. You are responsible for your responses to feelings, not the person or situation that inspired them.
This is an important and interesting question: Can we rope ethical bad actors into the language game of civil discourse? I’m not sure the answer is no, and it’s better if it’s not. We have a lot of problems right now and I hope the two problems—of ethical diversity and incivility—are, as they say in constitutional law, severable.
I have been thinking about your comment since you posted. I'm a purist about ethics and yet I do not expect others to be. Still, civil discourse with someone whose politics are "the same" and ethics are not would be more difficult than someone whose politics are wildly different and ethical standards are the same.
I appreciate that, Hollis. I’m thinking of work on deliberative democracy, and public reason-giving, in which people get drawn into doing this, without any assumption about what they’re doing behind the scenes when they’re not being watched. It might not be the best model for civility in private conversation, but I’m overwhelmed by the suggestion that we need to solve both problems at once: the age-old problem of bad actors and the current one of the breakdown of civility. I’m working on a post/blog on Charlie Kirk. The left sees him as a bad actor, and has lots of comments to adduce in support of that, but for short periods he did the civil discourse thing and I think those can be recognized, whatever his real objectives were and whatever he did in other venues. But I know that’s hugely controversial.
It may be facile to suggest, but isn't this also a "top-down" matter? If leadership eschews ethical misconduct, and has courage to lead and development real enforcement (another difficulty!), then one would hope the rest would follow, even if begrudgingly. Perhaps pollyanna thinking on my part, even recognizing cunning bad actors will persist.
It is interesting! I confess that because of my aphantasia I have a hard time following the structure of an image followed by individual sentences that assume I still have the image in my head when I don't. But most of your readers likely do not have this problem.
Is speeding, which every driver does, an ethical lapse? (But officer, I’m sure I was less than 10 over the limit?). If ethics means following the rules, virtually all drivers are often unethical. Which seems linguistically unhelpful.
You are so right that we don’t have good language for it. Because it’s a spectrum, and ok, misdemeanor, & felony are not enough.
The bullying of the professor to nominate for an honor is much worse than asking to sign the petition. Part of it is signaling, Who’s Side Are You On? Are you just another friendly colleague, or the kind of Friend I can rely on for important help?
A huge number of successful business owners fail to follow all the rules—too expensive for too little advantage. But whenever rule-breaking is not punished, there is more rule-breaking. My wife and I agreed on one key child rearing parental principle, only make rules we’re willing to enforce. Tho in practice most were enforced when the violation was more than 10%.
Christian, or Boy Scout, virtues are an under-discussed topic. I like MBTI 4-axis personality more than OCEAN 5 for many things, but the latter’s C conscientiousness axis captures this pretty will. The addition of Honesty/humility in HEXACO might be even better.
But language to differentiate is even more important.
On viewpoint diversity, all the top colleges have been lying about being non-partisan. They are partisan. They all need more Republican professors, & admin. The best fast way to change would require those getting tax exemptions to have at least 30% Dems & 30% Reps. Quotas, which “nobody likes”, but Harvard showed certainly work for group numbers. No other proposal seems as effective, tho problems would still exist, especially the unethical one of claiming to be Rep while opposing all Rep policies.
Yes yes -- I'm so glad to be having this conversation. Nobody wants to talk about the lack of ethics one sees everywhere. I was surprised to learn that 31% of Gen Z shoppers admitted (admitted!) to stealing in the self-checkout.
That's because they live in a world where corporations steal from everyone all the time, where politicians are corrupt and in it for themselves and universities indoctrinate young people rather than teach them to think. A lack of ethics begets a lack of ethics but in what way is it unethical to steal from people who steal from you.
There's a solution but it's one people won't like:
Recognizing that "diversity" isn't a good. _Appropriate_ diversity - carefully selected and curated - is.
Two viewpoints that differ can provide parallax that reveals more of the world. They can also look in opposite directions and see nothing in common to discuss.
The way you cope with ethical diversity? The way you "talk about it"?
Is to deny it.
You cope with ethical "diversity" through _judgement_ and _character_.
You say "Your diverse perspective is WRONG and I judge you to be of poor character for having embraced it."
That is how you cope with ethical diversity: by avoiding it. And honestly I much prefer the fine distinction of "Morals are about what I think is right, ethics are what I have agreed constitutes the rules of a particular game because there has to be SOME kind of structure." I agree that people should be free to exchange money for whatever goods and services they want. We don't let them sell votes or organs or child labor because it breaks the system to do so. I want my blood to flow smoothly, but I need my veins to provide structure and restraint that keeps me alive.
I my own work, I am constantly confronted with this distinction. My moral perception and analysis says that Advertising and Marketing are _inherently_ immoral. That any communication meant to alter someone's opinion through means other than reasoned evidence-backed plea - is grossly evil and should get the perpetrator lit on fire.
My ethics say that I will build anything for anyone so long as it's not one of two or three predefined categories - nothing just for causing suffering, nothing based on or extending the work of deconstructivist thinking or any of its post-modern descendants, and I reserve the creators right to play the "That's too ugly to build and stick my name on it" card.
A large part of my business involves making tools I consider inherently immoral to use because my ethics demands it.
And if I hire a guy who disagrees with my ethics? I don't celebrate the Diversity his viewpoints give my team - I tell him he signed up for it and to either quit his bitching or quit his job.
Curiously, ethics and morals are one of the few areas where I DON'T value diversity pretty highly.
You have to take a stand and make choices about What You Think is Right.
Like, I know people who are so far into the more wooly-headed side of extreme identitarian thought who can't bring themselves to condemn female genital mutilation because "it's part of their culture".
Nope. It's wrong and their culture is bad for believing it. They should change and you should judge people who believe such very very poorly.
I feel the same way about marketing and the distinction of ethics and morality, and I think civics is poorly recognized as the third fallback. (Civics is to ethics as ethics is to morals, the pragmatic reconciliation of disagreements in the latter).
I also don't trust people who make to talk too much about ethics, bc it becomes a kind of gossip game, like you can talk your way into being the good guy. It makes no sense to apologize for immorality to anyone but yourself/God. It makes no sense to apologize for unethical acts because it's just strategy. Empirically: self condemnation and shame are not emotions I've detected from reliable, successful, or inspiring people.
That doesn't mean ethics isn't something solid people think about, I just think it's something they furrow their brow at, rather than jump to defense or apology. Accepting criticism, but viewing it as a problem to balance, or a negotiation.
There is also the fact that words are corrosive. You cannot keep integrity if you begin to doubt what anything means. This has put me at a loss with some deconstructionists. I'm willing to use your words, but if there is never an acknowledgement of mine, then it becomes structurally impossible for me to be honest.
I view ethics as being much more akin to the rules you've agreed upon. What's ethical for a priest or a doctor or a private eye are very different things. But I suspect what's "right" is gonna be the same for all of them and much more about principals like "Try to increase understanding. Try to reduce suffering. Try not to lie." with ethics being much more situationalist.
There are those of us lucky enough to land on our feet when there are leaders without integrity, not everyone has the financial cushion to quit a job when they are surrounded by unethical people doing unethical things.
I... appreciate your restraint there, but do understand:
I was homeless. I am now a C-suite founder. I know the whole spectrum top(ish) to bottom.
I am not saying you CAN quit a job. But you can be honest about it. You can look yourself in the face and say "I am choosing to be a bad person because I cannot achieve the resources to be a good one in my circumstances at this time without sacrificing more than I am willing."
You do NOT _EVER_ have the right to say "I chose evil because circumstances _made_ me!".
No one makes anyone do anything. You are responsible for your responses to feelings, not the person or situation that inspired them.
Totally agree. Then disempowered have it worse than those of us who have options, to walk away from evil.
This is an important and interesting question: Can we rope ethical bad actors into the language game of civil discourse? I’m not sure the answer is no, and it’s better if it’s not. We have a lot of problems right now and I hope the two problems—of ethical diversity and incivility—are, as they say in constitutional law, severable.
I have been thinking about your comment since you posted. I'm a purist about ethics and yet I do not expect others to be. Still, civil discourse with someone whose politics are "the same" and ethics are not would be more difficult than someone whose politics are wildly different and ethical standards are the same.
I appreciate that, Hollis. I’m thinking of work on deliberative democracy, and public reason-giving, in which people get drawn into doing this, without any assumption about what they’re doing behind the scenes when they’re not being watched. It might not be the best model for civility in private conversation, but I’m overwhelmed by the suggestion that we need to solve both problems at once: the age-old problem of bad actors and the current one of the breakdown of civility. I’m working on a post/blog on Charlie Kirk. The left sees him as a bad actor, and has lots of comments to adduce in support of that, but for short periods he did the civil discourse thing and I think those can be recognized, whatever his real objectives were and whatever he did in other venues. But I know that’s hugely controversial.
It may be facile to suggest, but isn't this also a "top-down" matter? If leadership eschews ethical misconduct, and has courage to lead and development real enforcement (another difficulty!), then one would hope the rest would follow, even if begrudgingly. Perhaps pollyanna thinking on my part, even recognizing cunning bad actors will persist.
Greetings Hollis, your posts appear on my feed often, and I thought I ought to drop a comment, to say how interesting I think they are.
I thought you might enjoy one of my articles, pertaining to some strange aspects of Londons history:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/questionable-english-architecture?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
It is interesting! I confess that because of my aphantasia I have a hard time following the structure of an image followed by individual sentences that assume I still have the image in my head when I don't. But most of your readers likely do not have this problem.
Is there anything I can do to help accommodate you Hollis? Just let me know friend.
Is speeding, which every driver does, an ethical lapse? (But officer, I’m sure I was less than 10 over the limit?). If ethics means following the rules, virtually all drivers are often unethical. Which seems linguistically unhelpful.
You are so right that we don’t have good language for it. Because it’s a spectrum, and ok, misdemeanor, & felony are not enough.
The bullying of the professor to nominate for an honor is much worse than asking to sign the petition. Part of it is signaling, Who’s Side Are You On? Are you just another friendly colleague, or the kind of Friend I can rely on for important help?
A huge number of successful business owners fail to follow all the rules—too expensive for too little advantage. But whenever rule-breaking is not punished, there is more rule-breaking. My wife and I agreed on one key child rearing parental principle, only make rules we’re willing to enforce. Tho in practice most were enforced when the violation was more than 10%.
Christian, or Boy Scout, virtues are an under-discussed topic. I like MBTI 4-axis personality more than OCEAN 5 for many things, but the latter’s C conscientiousness axis captures this pretty will. The addition of Honesty/humility in HEXACO might be even better.
But language to differentiate is even more important.
On viewpoint diversity, all the top colleges have been lying about being non-partisan. They are partisan. They all need more Republican professors, & admin. The best fast way to change would require those getting tax exemptions to have at least 30% Dems & 30% Reps. Quotas, which “nobody likes”, but Harvard showed certainly work for group numbers. No other proposal seems as effective, tho problems would still exist, especially the unethical one of claiming to be Rep while opposing all Rep policies.
Yes yes -- I'm so glad to be having this conversation. Nobody wants to talk about the lack of ethics one sees everywhere. I was surprised to learn that 31% of Gen Z shoppers admitted (admitted!) to stealing in the self-checkout.
That's because they live in a world where corporations steal from everyone all the time, where politicians are corrupt and in it for themselves and universities indoctrinate young people rather than teach them to think. A lack of ethics begets a lack of ethics but in what way is it unethical to steal from people who steal from you.
Not long ago it was not complicated - just a matter of simple good manners .