Tuesday, June 24, 2014

The Spirit of the Law vs The Letter

I'm not sure how many of you have seen a television serial playing the last 2 years, written by Aaron Sorkin, who also wrote 'The West Wing' and also the one on Facebook owner Zuckerman. This serial is based on the goings-on behind the scenes in a newsroom. It is mainly about the anchor and what the executive producer brings to the table; it involves a lot of issues about credibility and how things are created. One of the things that grabbed my attention as I watched the concluding part of this serial was the issue that they called the moral high ground. Basically they had posted something, said that something had happened and had been taken for a ride by people, things had been doctored. When it finally came to light that it was wrong, then both the anchor and the executive producer felt that they should resign. The company saw that the ratings were going down and wanted to fire them. Then this whole issue of moral high ground came – that they did the right thing and should they take the blame for it?

 

But it made me think about the moral high ground and how we sometimes make decisions based on the reactions of people around us, forgoing what is the right thing when looking to see whether it is a profitable thing. There's this book by Robert H. Frank, "What Price The Moral High Ground" in which he looks at the whole notion and challenges the notion that doing well is accomplished only at the expense of doing good. Frank explores the exciting new work in economics, psychology and biology to argue that honest individuals often succeed even in highly competitive environments because their commitment to principle makes them more attractive as trading partners.

 

This almost seems contrary to a lot of thinking that has been at the center of the marketplace since 1970. Milton Friedman, quoted in this book that I am reading – "Leaders Eat Last" by Simon Sinek, says this: "There's one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game." By the rules of the game, he was referring to the law.

 

But it raises this question: Is that enough? Is that what business is about? Is there no other responsibility? I think that slowly business is beginning to change and think that it's got to do more. The introduction of CSR is one way of thinking and saying that it's not all about profits. It's about alleviating poverty. It's about helping people who are uneducated. But it kind of holds a tension between what Friedman is saying in 1970 and some of the writings that are coming out now like Robert Frank, who talks about the moral high ground that is greater than some of the rules that are set.

 

In this book, he gives an example of Apple. When Apple was doing well, they were incorporated in the United States. And US tax laws state that a company's tax liability is based on where it keeps its money. So they kept their money in Ireland – all the money that came from Asia and Europe. And Ireland's tax laws said that the taxes were based on where the company was incorporated. So Apple was able to fall between the cracks of these two countries' tax laws, and in so doing, between 2009 and 2012, kept about 74 billion out of reach of the IRS or any tax authority for that matter. When Timothy Cook, Apple's CEO was asked about this, he said, "Unfortunately the tax code has not kept up with the digital age. We are staying within the law."

 

You need to ask the question: do we stay with the spirit of the law or the letter of the law? What is important? The law is meant to show and give guidelines. But so often we look at the law and try to find the loopholes in that law.

 

If you want to take this a little further: The Titanic, which went down on April 14, 1912, four days after it left port, struck an iceberg and 1500 out of 2224 passengers and crew on board, died. Now, the thing here was that in 1912, the Titanic was 4 times as large as the largest legal classification of ships of that day. Based on that, they said that they had to have 16 lifeboats. And they had the 16 lifeboats. However, everybody in the shipping industry was fully aware that the outdated regulations about these lifeboats would soon be updated. In fact, on the Titanic, additional space was added for the lifeboats but it went against the aesthetic that they were trying to create on this ship, to make it nice and good-looking. So the executives of Oceanic Steam Navigation Company decided not to add the lifeboats until the regulations said they had to. The rest is history! There were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers on board the Titanic, but the company was in full compliance with the applicable rules.

 

It really made me think so much about the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It really is a matter of degree. Sometimes we need to stand by the principle that is being generated by the law and then be able to say, "That's what I have to follow." If we can hold on to the principle, then we are in a better position to be able to do the right things. As Robert Frank would say, "It is not accomplished at the expense of doing good." We can still do good.

 

Clayton Christensen talks about this as the marginal cost's mistake. He says, "The lesson I learned was that it is easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time than it is to hold to them 98% of the time. If you give in just this once based on a marginal cost analysis, as some of my former classmates have done, you regret where you end up. You've got to define for yourself what you stand for and draw the line in a safe place." One of his classmates was the chairman of Enron and he said that he never thought that it would end like this.

 

I was reminded of a story (not sure how true it is) of a woman who was sitting in a bar. A man walked up to her and said that he would like to hire her for the night. She slapped him in outrage. He said, "I'll give you a million dollars." She replied, "For a million dollars, OK." He sat down and said, "Well, I changed my mind. What about $10?" She looked at him in rage and said, "What do you take me for – a whore?" He said, "Ma'am, that part of our discussion is already taken care of. That is an accepted fact. What remains now is only the negotiation."

 

That's what happens when we let go of principles. Sometimes when we stick only to the letter of the law and forget that the law is there because it provides a guideline – a high ground that we need to take. I was challenged by this. Am I living my life for my work under the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law? That's the high ground that we ought to be at.

 

In our Scriptures, Jesus is quoted as saying, "You say you should not murder. But I say to you – even if you have anger against somebody, it's murder. Or the law that says – Thou shall not commit adultery. But even if you look lustfully at a woman, you have already committed adultery in your mind." How true! It's the principle that should be the guiding light for us. It's in keeping with the spirit of the law that is most important.

 

That was my challenge for me this morning and I want to put it out to you. I wonder whether we can look at all the activities that we do and say, "Am I looking at loopholes or am I embracing the entire spirit of the law and doing what is right and good." Maybe today we can have some course alignments in our life and in the way we work.

 

Can I pray with you? Almighty God. On each one of these precious ones on this call, help us Master, to reach for the moral high ground, to do what is right, not just what is right by the law, but what we know is right. Give us the conviction and the will to be able to do that. Along with that, I know Your blessings will flow into our lives and everything we do. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

 

       The Newsroom, TV serial, 2012. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1870479/

       Robert H. Frank, "What Price the Moral High Ground." http://books.google.co.in/books/about/What_Price_the_Moral_High_Ground.html?id=3i9XI3ZA5WIC

       Simon Sinek, "Leaders Eat Last." References to Apple, Titanic & Milton Friedman, Pages 104-107, "The Responsibility of Business"

       Clayton Christensen, "How Will You Measure Your Life?"

       Bible quotes from Matthew chapter 5.

No comments:

Post a Comment