With somewhere in the range of 400 essays being submitted, I did not expect to be selected as one of the four finalists. But, I thought I might have a shot at it--after all, you just never know. And so it came as a pleasant surprise to be named one of the two "compromise" advocates for the event.
Defending that case for compromise in a public forum--attended by maybe 250 people in the local high school auditorium--proved to be a daunting challenge. My semi-final foe, who turned out to be the eventual champion, was a wise and gracious man by the name of Paul Terry. I think that my essay was quite competitive with his, but in the end, he may have had a slight edge in the "Q & A" segment, hosted by a moderator and culminating in an audience ballot.
Anyway, the whole event was an unexpected shot in the arm. For all of us, any sort of recognition for what we do is a rarity--to appreciate that, all you need to do is watch an episode or two of Undercover Boss. So, under the circumstances, I tried just to soak it all in--despite failing to make the final round, and despite all of those voices within us that wonder, still, if we're really good enough.
Oh, and for the record, here's that essay:
____________________________________________________________________
This year’s Great American Think-Off question
is rooted in a longstanding conundrum: is it better to regard ethics as more
absolute, or more relative? Like any
worthwhile question, there is no definitive one-size-fits-all answer. Still, I would contend that in general, an
approach based on compromise is the better way to go.
We have been cautioned not to dwell on
national politics. But to ignore
politics entirely would be to miss an important teaching/learning opportunity. In the last few years, we have basically been
held hostage by people who are convinced that they must stick to their
principles. The only problem is that
little can be accomplished by those who use principles to promote moral purity
and take some perverse pride in their intransigence. Where’s the virtue in that? Principles tend to operate independently of
context, and more importantly, of other people.
Those who stick to their principles may not be “selfish,” but an
orientation to life that excludes the views of others and refuses to compromise
is itself ethically suspect. And so when
advocates with principles square off in the public forum, the result of
everyone sticking to those principles
is gridlock, and a collective sense of loss and frustration.
Compromise is an interesting word. It has a pejorative sense: if you “compromise
your principles,” it sounds as if you lack integrity. But in another sense, compromise is truly
honorable: it demonstrates sensitivity to details, and nuances, and the ideas
and feelings of other people. Compromise
shows a healthy respect for others and a healthy degree of humility as well. Indeed, it is a false dilemma to suggest that
either you stick to your principles or you “abandon” them and don’t have any. It is misleading to suggest that compromise
shows a lack of principle--because compromise is itself a principle.
My definition of ethics is not very fancy: if
you have a choice to make, and that choice can affect others, then there is an
ethical issue at play. So, on a daily
basis, we make many ethical choices: whether to drive our car or take the bus,
whether to let our teenager stay out until 2 a.m. on a Saturday night, whether
to buy from a company that exploits its workers, whether to be totally candid
in our evaluation of our fellow employees, or the greatest moral quandary of
the millennium: paper, or plastic? In
every case, the answer always becomes: it depends. There are simply too many variables to
consider. If I have learned anything
over the years, it’s that life is messy.
Unwavering principles, on the other hand, are just too darn neat.
One principle that I have stuck to since my junior year in college is to refuse to eat
meat. That does not mean I am totally
unwilling to compromise. I don’t carry
placards in front of factory farms and fast food restaurants. With comfort, style, and durability in mind,
I tend to wear a little bit of leather.
I’ve never forced the rest of the family to go vegetarian; indeed, I
cook hearty meals for the carnivores in the family regularly because it’s
something that they want, and it needs to get done in our household. But as far as I’m concerned, I’ve nonetheless
done my part for animal welfare and made a difference; in this case, all that
“sticking to my principles” would do is tick people off and make the rest of my
family unhappy and inconvenienced.
Where I work, “transparency” is a celebrated
concept. But complete transparency would
be a colossal mistake. What about the
practical limitations? The economic and
legal considerations? And plain old
human decency? Once these competing
considerations are offered, transparency suddenly gets a little more murky, and
some element of compromise clearly emerges as the more sensible orientation.
The problem with principles is that they are
like cotton candy—sweet, but lacking in substance. You can offer a litany of saccharine platitudes
(be fair! be honest! be nice!), but the question still lingers:
what does it mean to be fair, honest,
or nice? That’s another reason why
principles will only take you so far.
Of course, an ethical stance based on compromise
is not without its potential pitfalls.
It could lead us to make inconsistent or contradictory decisions. Rationality could be replaced by
rationalizing. Nonetheless, compared to
the alternative, it’s way ahead. For the
problem with sticking to your principles is that, well, you are stuck.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks again to all who made it a memorable weekend, including my entire family who showed up to provide support, along with our very special friends Steve and Shirley Mellema!
No comments:
Post a Comment