Filling Ethical Gaps
By FASPE Chair David Goldman
I have written previously about the responsibility for individual leadership as America faces a less-present Washington, a smaller (even largely absent) “regulatory state.” And, as Washington is attacking many of the fundamental ethical constructs of our professions, I write again as we are now seeing the consequences.
We are seeing an administration that, as a matter of social, governmental and fiscal policy, is far less interested in providing social, health, environmental, food sufficiency, and education-opportunity safety nets, among many others—both in America and globally. As to the latter, any such assistance will be provided, if at all, on a purely transactional basis that only considers America’s economic self-interest.
Without debating the political questions around the role of government, without arguing over the effectiveness (or meaning) of a “trickle-down” economic philosophy, we know that there are significantly widening gaps today because of the speed of these transitions in policy. These gaps grow larger by the day.
Who will fill these gaps in healthcare, educational opportunity, environmental protection, scientific and medical research, new technologies, the rule of law, as well as racial, economic and gender justice? Do we sit by, wring our hands, and bemoan the very existence of such gaps?
The answer can only lie with individuals and non-government institutions—providers of services of all kinds (medicine, law, consulting, etc.), philanthropists, manufacturers, designers and algorithmists, and many more.
Perhaps all of us—on the right, left and middle—should acknowledge the certain failure of a structure in which we relied on the government to fill all gaps, to act as culture-carriers, to impose regulations on almost everything, to provide all the safety nets, thus allowing (inviting?) us to cede social and individual decision-making responsibility to the government.
Why did we cede that responsibility? Why have we taken no ownership for that failure? Why do we confuse legal compliance with personal ethics? Why did we think that “legal ethics” has only to do with fees and conflicts rather than choices and defense of the rule of law? Why do we think that equality and equity can be measured by obligations and restraints imposed by regulation rather than engrained social shifts? Why do we believe that fairness and altruism cannot live organically alongside capitalism?
What might such a shift in our perspective and approach look like? Some ideas—naïve or silly as they may be at this early stage:
- Universities: many of the greatest research universities, i.e., those that are under attack where the weapon is the largest reduction in government support, have endowments that exist to protect the future. Perhaps the future is here: take the risk and draw down on those endowments to fill the gaps in funding rather than reducing education and research opportunities in the humanities and sciences.
- Manufacturers, many of whom first railed against, and then developed means of complying with, environmental regulations, now have the basic understanding of the environmental consequences of their industrial processes. They know the environmental consequences of their activities and, through their historic compliance structures, can create and enforce their own policies to protect the environment rather than seek to reduce costs by abandoning environment-protecting behavior.
- Private philanthropists and philanthropy organizations possess unimaginably vast resources and infrastructures. They are devoted to different things—some to the narrow interests of their founders, many limit their annual giving in order to protect their principal and ensure unlimited futures. They were created for altruistic purposes; so, they have the ethical fundamentals and capacity to rethink those narrow purposes and limited annual gifts and work harder to meet gaps—from replacing the traditional US government provision of vaccine protections throughout the world to supporting responsible scientific research, to developing theories and supporting efforts to protect the rule of law. Of course, even combined into one big pot, they do not have the capacity to fill more than a small fraction of the gaps, but perhaps creative and organized behavior can help.
- Our giant technology companies are behind the social media that thrives on misinformation. They build the algorithms behind artificial intelligence. They employ the technologists who have been trained to solve problems, to develop solutions, often without regard for the moral consequences. These companies can devote their resources to deploying these technologists to develop protections against misinformation and in the name of responsible AI. Their approaches might also include reallocating budget monies from lobbyists who seek to avoid such threatened regulations.
- Big Pharma provides the drugs and devices that advance medical care; individual doctors provide healthcare in giant hospitals and individual practices; private equity funds own many of the country’s hospitals and clinics. They have the means and ability to continue to develop groundbreaking medical treatments, to fill the gaps in what are flawed healthcare policies in Washington, to establish a commitment to patient care, to find workarounds to what are certainly burdensome government/insurance company processes.
- Law firms are today producing profits at levels that would make others blush. They devote millions of dollars each year to pro bono services—largely meeting the minimum levels dictated by their self-governing bodies. They have the economic wherewithal to far exceed those minimum levels, and they have partners and associates who feel committed to the causes represented by their pro bono work, even if these are not popular with the Trump administration.
- We live in a world in which decline in church and other religious institutional attendance has been well documented while, at the same time, Christian nationalism is on the rise. Religious and faith leaders exist in numbers and intent sufficient to provide the faith-guidance that remains in demand—in hospitals, educational institutions and even corporations. They can fill these gaps through a creativity that recognizes faith leadership beyond the pulpit.
- The private sector provides the vast majority of employment to America’s workers. While the government may wish to impose political policy affecting qualifications for employment, the private sector need not bend to any such effort. The private sector has the ability to hire whom they wish in their own self-interest, which, again, includes commitments beyond short-term economic returns.
Perhaps the above and other similar examples represent the rant of a naïve optimist. Perhaps the above appears unrealistic for the single individual or single corporation. Perhaps the above ignores the power that the administration is seeking to employ through control over government contracts. But ethical leadership makes its own demands, including the need for individual action as well as group action and commitment. Professionals of all sorts have the ability to make an impact. We need their leadership now; we need ethical leadership across professions and within professions, including even among economic competitors. Where regulations have been taken away and because of the absence of government, we owe it, as a matter of ethical responsibility, to act on our true and better ethical impulses.
"Considering Professional Ethics" is a monthly essay shared in the FASPE e-newsletter.
Click here to sign up for future newsletters.
Comments are reviewed and approved before being published to reduce spam on posts. Please note that your comment will not be immediately visible for this reason.