Right and Wrong Decisions - How to Know?

Each morning, to battle my advancing arthritis, I go for a forty minute walk in the neighbourhood. One of the cautions I have learned is to watch the cars making a right turn when I am  crossing to the other side. It seems that when the light turns green the drivers don't look to see if anyone is about to cross the street. They whip around the corner to the right, anxious to beat the heavy traffic heading down town,  without  watching for the poor pedestrian about to expose his or her life to a disaster.

On the other hand, when I am driving the car and the pedestrians are on the sidewalk about to cross, I sometimes make the same mistake. In other words, the way I see the situation is contingent upon whether I am the walker or the driver. When I am driving I am critical of the slow walking pedestrians, and when I am walking, I hate those drivers that pay no attention to us walkers and simply barge through.

This experience reminded me of a movement I first heard about back in the 1960s called Situation Ethics. Without getting into its origin, suggesting that the first law is the law of love, it implied that the application of moral or ethical principles vary according to the circumstances. Simply put, there is no absolute ethic.

It reminded me of a tourist guide we once had in Rome. He wanted us to cross the street but the traffic just continued, even when the light was red. I asked the guide why this was so and he replied, "The light is only a suggestion." The only way to cross was to step off the curb and slowly move into traffic hoping the drivers will stop to let you pass!

So instead of judging our acts by some universal moral or ethical absolute law, should we judge our behaviour based on the situation we find ourselves in? For example, a soldier, dressed in a uniform can  shoot and kill the enemy on the other side. But, if that same soldier were out of uniform and shoots somebody on the street we call it  murder. If you are waiting patiently in line and somebody cuts in front of you, you see them as selfish and inconsiderate. However, if you are really late for an appointment and you cut into the line, you feel justified and give the complainer a 'dirty look'.

So every day we make snap-shot judgments. The same is true of professionals, whether they be engineers, lawyers, doctors, or the TV repair man.  And most decisions affect others.

But there are times when making ethical decisions really gets tough: Should I download movies without paying? Remember the downloading of music a few years ago? (Limewire!) Should I buy a 'knock-off' product and save money? What about the underground economy? What if the only way I can afford something is to circumvent having to pay for it? Should I cheat on my taxes, after all the government seems to waste so much of our hard earned money! Are not many of these big organizations ripping us off, so if I can beat them at their own game, good for me! What if it was a bad law in the first place? Should I be obliged to keep it? The examples are legions...and perhaps so are the offenders!

Certainly the example currently being set by some of our elected representatives, seemingly at every level, encourages us to find ways to satisfy ourselves and the hell with everyone else. But wait, what would happen to our society if we all take the laws and rules into our own hands? The answer is simple: It is called anarchy - just the opposite of democracy!

I can't justify the behaviours of some politicians, large businesses, organizations or selfish individual citizens, and I am sure there are occasions when the situation justifies ignoring the ethical standard, but to ignore it all the time by many people, is a very slippery slope that could ultimately mean the end of this great land we call Canada.

And that's Dick's View of the world this Week