Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Defining "ethics".

There are as many definitions as there are mouse clicks
following a google search. Most are distinctions without a
difference. Most fall back on simple, intuitive explanations;
what is "right" or "good".

People who would not have accountability to any code of ethics,
understandably focus on the vagary. And then they cite the
vagary as the compelling flaw in "legislating ethics".

It might well be that an all encompassing definition cannot
be found.

Perhaps it would serve us to focus on a single issue at a time.
We need to look not at everything ethics means,
but on what it means at the very least.

At the very least, ethical means honest.

Honesty happens to be the issue that provokes the most
resistance. For the most, people do not want to be honest,
because being honest exposes them to the consequences
of their choices and their conduct.

It is not Character Counts! that Winston Brooks is afraid of.
He is afraid of having to tell the truth.
He is afraid of the consequences of telling the truth.

So what does "telling the truth" mean? What is "the truth".
The truth is the actual state of a matter, the reality, the actuality.

In my experience, those who would seek to split those hairs,
are not looking for a definition of truth, but rather
are looking for an excuse to not tell the truth.

APS students are expected to tell the truth;
to the best of their knowledge, candidly, forthrightly,
without deception, without creating beliefs or impressions
that are untrue. They are expected to volunteer information
that they know another person needs to know, even if they
have not asked for it.

Either the truth belongs to all stakeholders, or
the truth belongs to a few who will then share it
as suits their personal best interests.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to the same
standards of truth telling as students, the truth belongs
to stakeholders.

If the leadership of the APS are accountable to any other
standard of conduct at all, the truth belongs to them.
Stakeholders have to prove their right to know the truth,
often in court, before it will be shared with them.

Winston Brooks wants not to be held to a standard of
conduct which requires him to tell the truth.

The leadership of the APS wants to control the truth,
in order that it can be spun their interests.

It doesn't require an entire "communications" division to
tell the truth. A communications division is justified only by
the need to "spin" the truth.

The bottom line;
If one is accountable to a code of ethics, they are required
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.*

Winston Brooks and the leadership of the APS will oppose
honest accountability to any standard of conduct that requires
them to tell the truth, even while holding students accountable
to standards of conduct that do.

And shame on them for their hypocrisy.

And shame on them for their unwillingness to tell the truth.

*There are a very few exceptions which are specifically and
explicitly provided under the law. There are no other justifiable

No comments: