Customer Reviews

Ethics for the Real World: Creating a Personal Code to Guide Decisions in Work and Life

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is essentially a self-help book for clarifying ethical thought and improving ethical behavior. It's different from other such books in applying to ethics what the authors call "decision analysis," an approach to decision making the authors have previously applied in business and other practical fields. The focus is personal everyday ethics concerning things like white lies and cheating rather than "big" but less common issues like abortion and capital punishment. (If you're looking for a book to help with big issues like that, this isn't the book for you.)

The authors are experienced and well credentialed in business and higher education. The material is of the kind you might hear at a business workshop, not academic but pitched for astute readers, with particular attention to how the principles apply in business. At 154 pages plus some appendices, there's enough material for a series of workshops, though many of the basic ideas are repeated several times in somewhat different ways and contexts.

The basic plan of the book is to make us more aware of common ethical challenges and useful distinctions, to teach skills for dealing with them, and to apply the skills. There are step-by-step instructions for constructing a personal ethical code, examples of personal codes written by ordinary people, and suggestions for practical use.

A common problem with self-help books is that they overreach, often by trying to fit every person and problem into a simple solution or system. That's an issue here. The authors make some effort not to impose their view of ethics. They seek to help the reader discover and improve her own ethical views, in accord with her own "inner voice." But the system and advice they prescribe for doing this is still basically the same for all, and it's much better suited to some views than others. I'll explain more below.

Another limitation on the usefulness of the book is that, despite the emphasis on clear thinking, some of the basic ideas and supporting points don't seem clear or well reasoned.

It also seems to me that ease of decision making is sometimes favored over facing difficult ethical problems.

Here are some more details about the issues I mentioned, so you can better draw your own conclusions.

The ethical stance

The authors' preference is for something akin to Kantian morality (so-called after 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant). This includes what they call action-based ethics, according to which an act is right or wrong depending the nature of the act, not its expected consequences. That lends itself to a strict rules-based approach, which they also favor. Among their key tests for rules is a version of Kant's famous Categorical Imperative, simplified by the authors to "Would I want everyone to follow this rule?"

Most of us tend to mix (not always consistently) action-based thinking and consequence-based thinking. Some, such as utilitarians, believe only the consequences matter. The authors clearly disagree with consequence-based ethics, but they try to accommodate it, maybe because so many people's inner voices insist consequences matter. The authors frequently appeal to the consequences to imply the acts in examples are right or wrong (seemingly without noticing that this is a consequence-based approach). However, the difference in how action- and consequence-based ethics determine right and wrong is so fundamental that the authors sometimes can't give the same advice for both. Though book is written mainly with the authors' quasi-Kantian views in mind, occasionally some further or altogether different (and sometimes seemingly grudging) advice is given in regard to consequence-based ethics.

Unfortunately, the authors give a number of mistaken or confused arguments relating to consequence-based ethics, such as that it implies that self-interest can justify ethical compromise (108). They seem unaware of the ways a common type of consequence-based ethics called "rule utilitarianism" addresses many of their concerns. Their main objection to consequence-based ethics appears to be that it's messy and makes it easier to make excuses, but even if that's true (and some would dispute it) that wouldn't imply it's the wrong approach unless we assume the reality of ethics isn't messy. (More on that below.)

Some other ways of looking at ethics also get attention, in some way or other. Religion is treated as an important source for moral beliefs that can be sifted and refined by use of the tools in the book. Relationships are treated as one of the most important points of ethics.

There are other approaches to ethics that the authors don't consider so much. If you think of ethics mainly in terms of virtues, paradigms of good behavior, objective self-realization, or other less common views, you'll find little of that acknowledged.

Easy decisions vs messy reality?

This book seems to place a higher value on drawing clean, bright lines and being practical than on reflecting actual ethical complexity and difficulty. Maybe this is natural for authors who focus on efficient decision making. They object to consequence-based ethics in part because, as they see it, it doesn't lend itself to definite rules and can thus hinder their favored decision process.

They take a similar position in regard to deciding what counts as ethical. There is a distinction commonly made between what the authors call positive and negative ethics, or between "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." Negative requirements like "don't steal" are often easier to pin down and live by than positive ones like "help those in need." Because positive ethical rules can be so difficult to work with, the authors suggest we simply reclassify difficult ones as nonethical "concerns" or "aspirations," to get them out of the way, as it were.

For example, they write, "Instead of thinking we have a positive ethic to feed the hungry, we might think, 'I have a positive concern for feeding the hungry'. We reclassify an ethic as a concern and can then calibrate our charity to match our energy and resources--without jeopardizing our commitment to skillful ethical thinking." (40, cp 56, 79-80) As they see it, there is nothing unethical about failing to achieve concerns or aspirations. (Others, including Kant, have tried to distinguish strict duties from what might be called virtuous behavior, but such a division remains problematic and controversial, and doesn't imply that virtuous behavior isn't part of ethics.)

We get to choose which positive requirements are to be regarded as ethical. "These positive ethics can be thought of as a set of behaviors filling a periodic table of ethical elements. Our job is to decide which elements to call our own." (54)

For the authors this is ultimately a matter for our "inner voice" to determine. That opens yet another issue, which the authors don't discuss, about whether ethics should be treated as ultimately subjective in the sense that what you think is right is right for you. They define "ethics" in terms of what we *believe* is right or wrong (8), and sometimes write as though the point is to avoid future remorse from the inner voice rather than to achieve something more objective (e.g. 73). A subjective approach makes it easier to prune our ethics to a size we're comfortable with.

Now, it might not be a bad thing, practically speaking, to look for ways to make ethics easier. As the authors see it, "Committing to a code we can keep is far better than committing to one that stretches us too far, forcing us to break our own rules." (80) But the most difficult and messy ethical obligations may also be among the most important. The fact that they're hard to spell out or live by doesn't imply they aren't ethical or are less than central to our ethical lives. The book invites us in various ways to put them to the side, in favor of neater duties.

A couple other things

There are numerous other points where I thought the logic was less than clear. Here are a couple examples.

The authors limit (without argument) the ethical to what affects others, but they seem to decide arbitrarily what does affect others and what counts as ethical. They don't count environmental issues or historical preservation (8-9), both of which seem to me to affect others. Whether we should work less so we can be at home with the kids they consider merely a prudential matter (that is, a matter of self-interest) and not a matter of ethics "because we are trading off pluses and minuses, not separating right from wrong." (36) I was unable to see how weighing pluses and minuses implies a focus on self-interest rather than right and wrong. Much of their talk about prudence vs. ethics didn't make sense to me.

The examples used to illustrate points are of variable aptness. They often don't definitely exemplify the point but require the authors to speculate. In some cases the authors seem to abuse examples, as with Kurt Gerstein, an enigmatic figure in the history of resistance to the Nazi Holocaust whom the authors return to several times. They suppose things about his story that are unknown, and treat him as guilty of ethical mistakes without sufficient evidence or argument. I felt their treatment was careless and unfair. Guilt is merely assumed in some other cases too.

Worth trying?

All in all, despite the issues outlined above, this book may still be helpful to some. As a book about clear ethical thinking, I can't give it a passing grade. But even with the risk of some fuzzy thinking and potential wrong turns, it still might improve at least some aspects of your ethical life to try some of the methods the authors suggest. The book will be more appealing and less frustrating if you happen to share the basic moral views of the authors.

Ethics For The Real World was a challenging book for me. Howard and Korver have written a very well organized book that lays out a highly systematic approach to ethical decision making. They do a great job of explaining the problem that they are trying to address: unskilled ethical thinking and decision making. Further, they outline a highly logical bottom up, step by step approach on how one can make improvement in recognizing compromises and sorting out the legal and prudential issues that obscure ethical decision making. Their writing style is not the most engaging, but it is on par with what you would find in most philosophically based books.

So what's the problem? In their guidance of establishing one's own personal code of ethics, the authors encourage the ultimate in relativism. They encourage the reader (as well as their students) to take a cafeteria approach to building their code of ethics by choosing what they will accept and reject whatever they choose from what they have learned from religion, family, society, etc. While the authors draw a distinction between morals and ethics, this seems like cheating to me. Readers who believe that right and wrong are objectively defined apart from any individual will also find this book to be challenging. My suggestion to such readers is to use your moral code as your ethical code and apply the "action based" rather than "consequence based" approach to ethics. You will still have to sift through a lot of relativism so you will have to decide if it is worth it or not. If you tend to take a more post-modern approach, you will find no such dilemma.

Everyday we are faced with many situations where a decision will need to be make and ethics is involved. A lot of times we choose the less ethical route, and try to justify our decision with excuses like, nobody is getting hurt, or it's not illegal, or the end justify the means, etc. And even though we know that those unethical behavior is not right but we did it anyway. One thing lead to another (of unethical decisions), soon it will become a habit and negatively impact our character and life.

Most people (if not everyone) have lied or act unethically in their life and most likely will do so again in the future, but each of us have the power to choose whether we want to be ethical.
If you want to be more ethical but not sure what to do or where to start, then Ethics for the Real World is a great start.

This book isn't about telling us what is right or wrong (The author leaves this task for us), but it is about how to create our own rule (personal code/philosophy) and then implement strategies in order to be able to apply (and stick) to those rule in our work and personal life.

The core message of this book is the following:
In order for us to become a skillful ethical decision makers, we need to:
1. Master ethical distinction to enable clear ethical thinking
2. Commit in advance to ethical principles
3. Exercise disciplined decision-making skills to choose wisely

What I like about this book:
1. Practical (simple concept and instruction)
2. A lot of real-life (and relevant) example of situations
3. Tips on how we can make ethical choice a habit
4. Serve as a framework rather just telling us what is right or wrong
5. Help us identify potential issues (makes us more aware)

I think ethics is similar to integrity. It is about doing the right thing even when nobody is watching.
Even though ethics should be be common sense, I think this topic/book should be explicitly taught in school (business school etc).

All the best in your effort to be more ethical and lead a happier life,

Sidarta Tanu

We often think of ethics as a code of conduct about how we want to treat other people. Yet one of life's great lessons is that committing to ethical behavior is as much or more about making a better life for ourselves than for other people. Howard and Korver begin this valuable book by making this case and then providing a process to make it practical and real in our lives. Their examples and the clarity of the writing will make it easy for the reader to distinguish between true ethical dilemmas (rare) and bad choices people make (too frequent). I know few people who do not want to live a more ethical life and here is a book that can really make a difference.

Having worked with the authors for many years, I have seen these ideas in action - both in business and personal situations. I am better off for the experiences and you will be too.

The news today is filled with stories of people who made poor ethical solutions. The problem in some cases is that people did things that they simply knew was wrong, but that is most likely only a fraction. The greater problem is people who don't have a clear and complete set of personal ethics. When they encounter an ethically gray area, their code fails.
Virtually every rational human being accepts that the Nazi's gassing millions of Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Catholics, and others during the holocaust was a bad thing. We wonder how anyone could have participated in one of history's great evils. But the authors of this book take you through several real life situations where normal, everyday people were co-opted into working to make the Holocaust happen. What if you were an oven maker in Germany, and you received an order to make large industrial ovens? You haven't been told specifically what the ovens are for, but you could probably guess. You won't have to put anyone in an oven yourself, and you probably could live in self-imposed ignorance of their dark purpose. You will be paid quite well for providing this equipment. If you refuse, the ovens will be built by someone else, most likely, and you run a very serious risk of falling under suspicion yourself if you don't make them. If you take the easy way out, though, you become part of unspeakable evil. What do you do? This is a true story that is highlighted in the book to illustrate the challenges of having and maintaining ethics.
The book is replete with dozens of real world examples of people whose ethical codes led them to participate in very bad things, not because they are "action movie"-style villans, but because of a series of logical and very understandable decisions. It explains how to avoid these pitfalls, but perhaps even more importantly, it shows that easiest way is frequently not the best way. The book has clearly defined exercises that allow us examine our own personal beliefs and to create a clear ethical code for ourselves that works. This book is written in the style of an excellent college textbook, and it would be great at that, but it can also benefit anyone who needs a clear personal ethical code.

I had high hopes for this book, but unfortunately it fell rather short of my expectations. It promises to give a comprehensive view of ethics as applied to the real world situations, but what it provides instead is a lot of examples and vignettes that try to showcase a certain moral dilemma. The stories are actually interesting in their own right, but in the end they don't provide a cohesive whole from which to extract important real world lessons. There are plenty of specific advices in the book, but they don't seem to fit any comprehensive ethical system. They are the kind of advice that you could easily pick up from a wise uncle or a senior colleague at work. The book is fairly light on ethical theory, which is not all that surprising considering its title, but one would still wish for a deeper grounding in the millennia of ethical thinking and practice. The authors claim not to advocate any particular ethical tradition or general approach to ethics, which I find a bit naive.

Some suggestions for dealing with difficult moral situations are quite ridiculous. The authors seem to have an inordinate appreciation of the power of rational persuasion in conflict-resolution situations. This may hold true for some people, but the kind of people on whom this would work are oftentimes the last persons who would put you in a moral quandary.

One constant theme that propagates throughout the book is the general aversion to lying, which obviously puts the author in the camp with those who advocate the existence of absolute moral imperatives. This is a viable moral stance, but in the real world there will be many situations where lying would be absolutely necessary in order to prevent some greater moral evil. The lack of appreciation for the trade offs between different moral actions is rather baffling.

Overall, this is an easy and readable book, but not the kind that will challenge your preexisting moral principles.

Fuzzy Wuzzy's Summary:
**** Recommended with warm fuzzies.

I found this to be a timely read during a time when it seems that fewer politicians, business leaders, sports athletes, and other public figures see nothing wrong with duping the public, and do not even bother with apologizing anymore when their lies are exposed, instead preferring to dress up their distortions with self-righteous claims that either they were not aware of the wrongdoing or that they felt the wrongdoing was necessary (e.g. Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, or companies receiving billions of dollars in government bailout money while giving lavish bonuses and sending employees to Las Vegas shindigs). However, this book does not deal with the bigger ethical questions affecting issues such as abortions, stem cells, bad financial practices, or steroid usage, but is more microscopically oriented at helping one develop a personal code of ethics for oneself.

The book starts off by describing the common ways of being unethical, like lying, stealing, and harming/injuring people. But even in this beginning, the authors present examples and questions to consider of when certain scenarios should allow for such behaviors. The remainder of the book guides you into drafting your own personal code of ethics. While I found it to be a highly thought-provoking and enlightening exercise, I also found it to be a very slippery slope to stand upon, and to live up to 100% on a day-to-day basis. It is easy to say "I will never harm anyone physically". But when it comes to what constitutes "lying" and being totally honest all of the time, I see a bazillion shades of gray and countless scenarios of where being "brutally honest" would not be the correct approach, even though it would be highly ethical, and so I have a tendency to flip-flop between what the authors refer to as "action-based" and "consequence-based" approaches. In an ideal world, one should be able to distill each subtle ethical dilemma into black and white partitions, but in many situations, I find that the best I can do is to delineate where along the shades of gray my own personal code of ethics reside, and this book helps me to think about such concepts ahead of time. This book is not a quick read; at times, its concepts can be dense, thick, academic, or contemplative.

I found this book hard to follow and digest. Could it be that I just didn't care?

I dove into it with an open mind, looking for some insight on ethics and its place in the real world, as the title suggests. What I found was more in depth talk than I, a person with no educational ethics background to speak of, could 'get'.

This might be a good book for someone who has studied the topic before and wants to put it into practice in every day life situations. For me, I just wanted examples of where these situations come up and how society as a whole fails.

This book just didn't do it for me.

I tried. I really tried to read this whole book, because I am indeed interested in the topic, and think we are on a slippery slope made less so by the gritty sand of ethics. But I couldn't make my way through the whole book, because I couldn't find the need to actually write down my personal ethical code.

I do not discount the exercise of writing down an ethical code, by any means. Part of what made me interested in the book is how easily it seems my co-workers, friends, family and others are able to make what I think are clearly unethical decisions with nary a second thought. I tend to find that I don't do what others do.

So perhaps I don't need to write down my code of ethics? Indeed, this is where the book lost me -- I would like to explore the boundaries of real, everyday ethical questions I face. But for me, writing it down isn't a likely outcome. Were I in the course taught by the authors, I might end up writing it down (I dunno, maybe I could just copy someone else's from the Internet :-). I don't find myself pondering what is right and wrong a lot, and I think this book is aimed at people who do.

I was seeking a book that was not too polemic and distant, but was real and relevant. I do think the authors found a straightforward and concise set of constructs that help boil down the elements of ethics, and also do a good job making the important distinction between ethics and morals.

But our personal ethical decisions are all different -- a book that seeks relevant examples from our daily lives is likely to "miss", at least if you're not like the model. So the book tends to waver towards more philosophical issues, more abstract. In the end, I think it finds its examples in the middle place, neither relevant in many cases where examples are specific, nor specific enough to be relevant in others.

This book would be good if you were young, or coming to a point in your life where you were faced with the realization that you were not sure how you needed to act when faced with ethical challenges. While this does not describe my state, perhaps it describes yours?

We all know the importance of ethics in business and decision-making. There is lot of material available on this topic, but most of it fails to explain how to identify the ethical dilemma. Somethings are so ingrained in our way of working that we fail to recognize the unethical part there.

This book tells a way not only to identify such situations but also how to deal with them. They stress on integrating the code of ethics in our personal life and thinking, so that it get ingrained in our way of working itself.

This book is must for everyone interested in a career in business.