Recently, I wrote a rather judgmental article about the personal shortcomings of individuals who find themselves caught up in a possible home foreclosure. My goal with regard to writing about the mortgage crisis is not to berate individuals who have chosen poorly, although it may seem that this is the case. Rather, the mortgage crisis represents a stellar example of what I refer to as “everyday ethics.” This is the notion that not only is the world full of opportunities to develop yourself as an ethical person, it is also full of lessons in what being an ethical person really means. Everyday ethics is about seeing the world as your teacher as well as your classroom, and the mortgage crisis is just one of the many lessons out there.
Already the mortgage crisis has offered us a lesson about taking accountability for our choices. Perhaps there is also an opportunity to flex our ethical muscles. Whether you are actually facing a potential foreclosure, or simply engaging in philosophical thought experiments, thinking about the ethics associated with financial problems is a great source of personal moral development.
Consider the following scenario. You made a bad choice about home loan financing, and now you find yourself facing financial obligations that far exceed your means. An opportunity presents itself for you to be freed of your financial burden, but it requires that you participate in an embezzlement scheme hatched by one of your co-workers. What should you do?
From the standpoint of ethical theory, this is an easy question. Embezzlement is stealing, and most people agree that stealing is wrong under almost any circumstances. But in the world of everyday ethics, this question is not so easy to answer. If you don’t participate in this scheme, you lose your home. If you do, you are stealing. How do you decide what is more important?
This is a challenging situation, as are most real-life ethical problems. It won’t do to suggest that possibly losing your home makes stealing morally acceptable. But we can consider what ethical theory might offer us with regard to settling this confusion. One popular theory of ethics is known as utilitarianism. This theory says that being moral requires us to maximize happiness or good consequences in our moral decision-making. So the question of whether to participate in the embezzlement scheme becomes a question of what will lead to the most happiness.
Utilitarianism may not be what leads us to the best decision in the end, but it will definitely help us get clear about the problem, and hopefully provide insight into what we really ought to do. First, we have some questions to answer. First of all, are we likely to get caught? Second, what are some possible consequences if we do get caught? Will our family be ashamed of us? Will we be setting a bad example for our children? Will this cause other people to lose trust in us?
There are many factors associated with making this decision, and most of them suggest that their really is a lot of potential for trouble if we do decide to pursue the embezzling scheme with our coworker.
Ethical theory is a great tool, even for those who don’t want to spend all day arguing about morality. In this case, a simple theory like utilitarianism helps us to realize that most of the potential for negative consequences and unhappy results lies on the side of doing the unethical thing and stealing to try and get out of financial trouble. It seems that stealing is not only morally wrong, it’s also not conducive to making us happy or creating positive consequences in our lives. A confusing problem where we might be tempted to take shortcuts has been turned into a very clear scenario where the right decision is apparent.
Who knew ethical theory could actually be useful?
Comments
One Response to “The Mortgage Crisis & Everyday Ethics Part 2”
Leave a Reply
[...] key to this discussion, with regard to everyday ethics, is to be aware of what we mean when we talk about morality being real, and what implications this [...]