18. In this argument, the head of a government department concludes that the ( H! V1 C, l4 ~1 K
department does not need to strengthen either its ethics regulations or its enforcement
, u! o, w# K. l; i. Kmechanisms in order to encourage ethical behavior by companies with which it does 1 w3 H9 l. A3 [& K
business. The first reason given is that businesses have agreed to follow the 0 `' H2 a# X4 o# [4 \/ m
department's existing code of ethics. The second reason is that the existing code is ' }! T$ ]* |. M# j6 F! h& J" A; G
relevant to the current business environment. This argument is unacceptable for several
- }- ^ U% t" m0 Greasons.
! A) B" w( ?. s. Y# d The sole support for the claim that stronger enforcement mechanisms are
0 M4 E2 T* q' t2 \unnecessary comes from the assumption that companies will simply keep their promises
# w) f# }$ t: ?" k" y) F* o& `to follow the existing code. But, since the department head clearly refers to rules
9 f8 t$ n/ h) uviolations by these same businesses within the past year, his faith in their word is
9 u' g7 w& `1 Robviously misplaced. Moreover, it is commonly understood that effective rules carry
: A$ m1 r! I Zwith them methods of enforcement and penalties for violations.6 N+ q/ y$ w; {+ L; p
To show that a strengthened code is unnecessary, the department head claims that " H- g+ O2 S7 ?* a( L
the existing code of ethics is relevant. In partial clarification of the vague term
# L/ @$ ^8 U8 }4 o"relevant," we are told that the existing code was approved in direct response to
5 K( O r" b7 a! |7 `violations occurring in the past year. If the full significance of being relevant is that the ' x% @9 I1 q/ a* L5 j5 s9 C1 q& Y
code responds to last year's violations, then the department head must assume that those ( h& W$ w3 D5 C7 d* v5 q
violations will be representative of all the kinds of ethics problems that concern the
Z1 I; ~; c9 E# L7 O. y& |5 mdepartment. This is unlikely; in addition, thinking so produces an oddly short-sighted ; _8 Q$ I9 T( x9 _5 m9 k3 n7 N
idea of relevance.
( s* v+ X; S- C6 p7 U9 { Such a narrow conception of the relevance of an ethics code points up its
( _) ~ S; ]- z: Z, \! W8 ~0 @. f! rweakness. The strength of an ethics code lies in its capacity to cover many different
3 K8 l) l- E6 e, y" Kinstances of the general kinds of behavior thought to be unethical to cover not only last , P# m7 D1 k& l! U' o- q& F: d
year's specific violations, but those of previous years and years to come. Yet this author ; \4 X2 L, ]; M% e* } t; Z$ d/ k
explicitly rejects a comprehensive code, preferring the existing code because it is 6 J" [5 i5 Y2 ^
"relevant" and "not in abstract anticipation of potential violations."
4 Y6 S5 U: S3 \ In sum, this argument is naive, vague and poorly reasoned. The department head ) U; E6 e- _7 o& l4 E+ v& F
has not given careful thought to the connection between rules and their enforcement, to
) `. H) u& R; D7 W$ a+ ~ ewhat makes an ethics code relevant, or to how comprehensiveness strengthens a code. ! y5 L% t! w& T% k
In the final analysis, he adopts a backwards view that a history of violations should
) O, q3 z* w/ p+ R0 D6 Jdetermine rules of ethics, rather than the other way around. |