Ethics Newsline®

Agony in Albany

Mar 17th, 2008 • Posted in: Commentary

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Last week’s pyrotechnic transformation of Eliot Spitzer — from governor of the state of New York to Client 9 in an international prostitution ring — left his supporters speechless, his Wall Street enemies elated, and the nation grasping for meaning. As his career pinwheeled into millions of glittering bits, it provoked a shower of responses to the one-word question on everybody’s lips: Why?

Some charge it up to the pride and ego engendered by power. Others see it as the bitter fruits of a neglected marriage. For some, it’s nothing but garden-variety lust. For others, it evinces a deep psychological dysfunction. But on one point the public, the pundits, and the press are in wide agreement: What Spitzer did was wrong.

That, of course, is a moral judgment. It depends on a values-based perspective. But is such a perspective valid? Is ethics (as the relativists want us to think) merely subjective, existing only in the eye of the beholder? Or is there a platform of widely shared values from which to judge right and wrong?

Our research at the Institute for Global Ethics convinces us not only that such a global platform exists but that it can be articulated readily as a kind of five-fingered hand. When Spitzer’s actions are assessed against these five core values, it’s clear why the public is so quick to say he was wrong.

Honesty. Spitzer’s liaisons with prostitutes betray a calculated dishonesty even with those closest to him — his family, staff, and probably even his security team — in order to cloak his secret life.

Responsibility. Using his governorship for personal indulgence, he irresponsibly risked extortion, kidnapping, even assassination. Knowing what a prostitute will do for a thousand dollars from a client, what might she do for a million from his enemy?

Respect. The disrespect for his close associates, as well as for his elected office, is evident. Even more appalling is his apparent contempt for the public, whose trust he betrayed in such an egregious ways by twisting public service into private exploitation.

Fairness. As a public prosecutor, he demanded exacting penalties for those found guilty. As governor, he placed himself above the law, in blatant disregard of the principle that the law must be fair, even handed, uniform, and equitable.

Compassion. The most haunting photographs of this saga will include those of his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, whose face captured the enormity of a betrayal of compassion — for her and for their daughters — by the one who should have been the most caring.

Not surprisingly, then, the public confidently reads Spitzer’s story as a tale of moral failure. But what makes it particularly offensive is the searing hypocrisy of his stand. Not only did he set himself up as the reformer. Not only did he go after financial deviousness and constitutional lawbreaking — two charges he himself now may have to face. Not only did he earlier attack prostitution rings in New York. But he clothed his crusade in the garments of high moral outrage and ethical probity.

Of the three salient lessons from his case, that’s the first. Hypocrisy, cynicism, and apathy are the greatest challenges to ethics. But cynicism and apathy are less formidable — the former because cynics are often self-critical and are smart enough to change, and the latter because the apathetic often can be shaken awake when the issues become engaging and relevant. Hypocrisy, however, grows more entrenched with every successful deception. Spitzer’s history as a prosecutor suggests that behind the moral righteousness lay an ego and a will that used the language of the five values without always embodying their spirit.

The second lesson concerns the devastations of unbridled sexuality. As Spitzer’s revelations were unfolding last week, two parallel stories hit the papers. One, based on a survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that a quarter of the country’s teenage girls have been infected with some form of sexually transmitted disease. Another, from Mexico City, reported that groping and verbal harassment of women on public busses has grown to such proportions that a new women-only bus service is being offered and is scheduled for expansion. At their core, these two stories are about disrespect for the dignity of women and the tendency of men to treat women as objects rather than as individuals. Seen in this light, the Spitzer story is not about a victimless crime. Nor is it about an unwarranted invasion by the public into a man’s private life. It’s about a high-profile example in an epidemic of unpunished sensuality that is global in its scope and devastating in its consequences.

The third lesson is the hopeful one. It concerns David Paterson,the legally blind lieutenant general of New York, who suddenly has become the state’s governor. Apparently as jovial and decent as his predecessor was prideful and harsh, he reminds us that even the worst organizational cataclysms can have positive outcomes. That’s a needed reminder just now, as trust in individuals, institutions, and markets is being tested. Spitzer, falling so suddenly from such a height, made us ask, Can anyone be trusted? Paterson at least gives us hope that the answer is yes.