The Ethics Ethos

Melissa Schorr

Monday, March 29, 1999 | 9:22 a.m.

In Sunday's installment of our two-part roundtable discussion on the state of personal ethics, our panelists looked at what ethics are, where we learn them, how we should teach them, and the challenges our community faces in establishing and enforcing them.

Today, we conclude with a look at whether our ethics have indeed become lax, what the significance is of President Clinton's recent impeachment by the House of Representatives and acquittal by the Senate, and whether people are longing for a return to ethical behavior.

Our panelists are:

Rabbi Mel Hecht: spiritual leader of Temple Beth Am and a Las Vegas resident for 19 years.

Hal Smith: Member of the Nevada Ethics Commission, former member of the state assembly, former state senator, and retired Navy captain.

Robert Johnston: U.S. Magistrate judge and former chief attorney of the civil division for the U.S. Attorney's office.

Craig Walton, Ph.D.: Professor of Ethics & Policy Study who created ethics orientation sessions for state legislators, and a Las Vegas resident since 1972.

William H. Stoddard: President of the Las Vegas stake of the Mormon Church and a trial attorney with Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright.

* Question: Do you believe there has been an erosion of our ethical standards?

Stoddard: As you read in the papers about the hoopla about ethics violations that are alleged to occur, I see that as part of a great big picture. Perhaps it's my generation growing up in the '60s, but people have a different mentality than perhaps my parents did. What it boils down to is not a question of how can we be brilliant enough to come up with a rule here and a law there to control people, but how can we get people to control themselves?

Many people believe there is no God, no supreme being, and we can do any darn thing that we want, and once we die, that's the end of it, and so who cares how bad we are? But I think God expects things of us, too, no matter what religion we are.

I think it comes from the breakdown of the home, quite frankly. I think the biggest single thing we can do in this country is try to strengthen the home the way it used to be, when you had a father and mother, parents who taught their children that to grow up, they needed to try to do all they could to be good citizens and obey the law and help other people and not hurt other people.

Walton: Little kids tend to emulate. They're going to look at you, and if the way you talk goes that way, and the way you act goes that way, they're going to go that way. Every time.

Stoddard: (I think) there may be a need to be, wherever possible, a loving mother and loving father in a home that tries to teach the children to be obedient, law-abiding citizens, to love other people, help other people. Then when they grow up and are elected to city council or commission and the problem comes up, they'll be able to say to themselves, based on their background of experience, this is not the kind of thing we ought to be doing. We ought not to be taking or giving special favors to our friends. I think then -- and only then -- will the problem go down.

Johnston: I think we need to be careful that we don't condemn ourselves for the age we live in and say we're so much worse than anything that's been before us.

Hecht: True.

Johnston: We have to be careful not to beat ourselves up. There's still a lot of really good people. And people who would abide by standards to allow the group to survive together. If not, we would be victims of chaos right now.

Stoddard: I didn't mean to leave the impression we have, but I think there's a difference now than to what my parents grew up under. I really do. Take when Gary Hart was running for president (and was caught with Donna Rice) -- this country was in an uproar. When President Clinton came along and did the same thing, it was no big deal. Maybe that's because people are used to it. Maybe we have slipped a little. I tend to think we probably have slipped a little. But I don't think we're all going to hell in a handbasket necessarily.

Hecht: I look at what (happened) with Clinton as a wonderful affirmation of the deep concern of this country for its moral and ethical health. The rest of the world (looked) at us like we are crazy. They cannot imagine why this (went as far as it did). The basis is, this is a fundamentally ethical, moral society that has a deep concern with regard to what is done in it -- or you wouldn't be having these kind of debates going on.

I see this as a way of potentially bringing a greater reassurance that there are limits to which our nation will not go. The act of Bill Clinton, which is repeated more than we could possibly count, when it is multiplied a thousand fold, becomes society. And society, to protect itself, needs to draw a line, even in those things that have no criminality about it. It's not just lying under oath. It's an issue of challenging the most basic premise of what human relationship is all about.

Q: Isn't the fact that Clinton continued to have a lot of public support during the impeachment process indicate that our country is divided between people who saw this moral issue and those who didn't?

Walton: I haven't heard anybody say the way he betrayed his wife and family is noble. Nobody's admiring that kind of behavior. But the question for the Senate (was) whether he betrayed his oath of office. We've never removed a president for having deplorable moral character.

Stoddard: I see it all as a question of honesty. It's a question of being honest, telling the truth, not being deceptive.

Johnston: We all, in our daily conversations with each other from time to time, will not be honest. Do any of you, when you travel, have radar detector? Would you characterize that person as honest? Why would you have such an instrument? I think there has to be some tolerance, that's part of our tradition also. Compassion.

Walton: Society is capable of forgiving, but I don't want to say a person is to be forgiven whenever they ask for it, completely irrespective of what they do next. That doesn't make any sense of me. (Clinton's) response to the problem (didn't) look like genuine contrition or remorse, because there isn't any sense of shame and deep regret. Or any undertaking to change himself -- or at least, not that he's talked about.

Stoddard: My view of the forgiveness is we all have a duty to forgive everyone. We have a scripture that we quote where the Lord says, 'I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but for you, it is required to forgive everyone.' And I truly think we are obligated to forgive everyone, irrespective of what they've done. But there's a difference of my forgiving someone, and someone who's broken a serious law or committed some transgression against the country that needs to be dealt with.

Johnston: Everyone recognizes the conduct is reprehensible, inappropriate and shameful. The Senate recognized that something needed to be done to say this is not right. That's the whole reason censure was a topic of discussion. It's a reaction of the community and the country that says, "Something has to be said that this is wrong." Which I think is a very strong statement -- that there's an ethical and a moral base operating here.

Smith: The genesis of "high crimes" occurred in the 900s, some duke in England was being tried, and a "high crime" was a crime committed by a person in a high place, differing from a crime committed by somebody who was stealing a loaf of bread.

Johnston: So, in terms of moral and ethical society, if a person occupies a higher office, is there a higher standard?

Smith: I think so.

Hecht: I absolutely believe so. He is absolutely without question guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors by this definition, and by the definition that when you take on that office you become representative of something more than the occupant of that office. Whether it is an individual on the city council or state legislature, when they take their office, they are sworn to uphold the high standards of that office. When they abuse that and premeditatively misuse it, they need to be held responsible.

Q: Does it stand to reason that because Clinton was unethical in his personal life, he would also be unethical in his professional life -- that he'd steal or conceal from the people? Does one lapse mean you are unethicial overall?

Stoddard: One thing you can argue with a jury is, if you get a guy to tell a few fibs on a jury stand on relatively inconsequential things, it's not at all uncommon to say, well now, he lied to you about this, so if he's going to lie about all these small things, it just stands to reason he would lie about this big thing that means a whole lot more to him.

Q: Is that necessarily true, though?

Walton: I don't think it's true but it's a real problem, because we want to believe in character. Normally, one would think in terms of the consistency of character, but it doesn't work that way.

Stoddard: Doesn't it?

Walton: It seems to me that all of us here would admit -- I've had occasions where I did things that normally I just don't do. Maybe there were circumstances I couldn't handle, or I was weak that time. I don't think my having weaknesses at certain times or under certain conditions makes me entirely weak. It doesn't. We all have cases like that.

Q: Do you see signs that people are looking for moral guidance in their lives -- such as the popularity of radio talk host "Dr. Laura"?

Walton: Good Lord, yes. There's a movement called Character Counts, which is nationwide. There's (former Education Secretary) William Benenett's "Book of Virtues" (and) the "Children's Book of Virtues." In the last several years, there's been a boom in the making of materials for parents and teachers that could be helpful in the moral education of kids.

Johnston: The characterizations of the court on TV -- Judge Judy, Mills Lane. The judge who just belittles, berates, mocks. That's not what the instituiton is about.

Hecht: Without a doubt, people are looking for some definition, some structure in their lives. We live in a transient, mobile society. By and large, people want guidance. They want the integrity of their own ability to make up their minds -- but they desperately want guidance.

archive