Being Ethical Matters

People and institutions with power have the opportunity to use that power for gain or for good. It has always been thus, and there is no absolute moral imperative to choose good over gain. Yet it is pleasant to observe that making that choice can have visible rewards, as two experiences in the last 24 hours have reminded me.

The first experience was the annual Elston Ethics Lecture of St George's House at Windsor Castle. Prof. Mervyn Frost of King's College London spoke on 'Ethics, Foul Play and International Relations: Understanding Asymmetric Warfare'. In the event, Prof. Frost gave relatively modest attention to asymmetric warfare and more to a broader argument that those committing 'ethical fouls' are penalised in international relations. An example from asymmetric warfare was the argument that the primary effect of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States (on whose 12th anniversary the lecture took place) was not terror but anger, and that this anger drove the United States to commit ethical fouls (e.g. Guantanamo, war on Iraq) that have reduced its international status. While I somewhat disagree with his premise (most Americans would agree that the attacks at least initially produced great fear as well as great anger), the point is a strong one. He finished by observing that the recent decision by English cricketer Stuart Broad not to walk (leave the pitch) when clearly out in an Ashes test match, while debatable, would damage the man if it became a repeated pattern of behavior. Being ethical does matter.

The second experience was the exhibit Richard Rogers RA: Inside Out at the Royal Acadamy of Arts. Rogers is one of the world's great architects. I was struck by the broad influence he has had, designing things as different as Paris' Centre Pompidou, the Lloyds of London building and an unbuilt plan for Shanghai's Pudong district, and his early partnerships with Norman Foster and Renzo Piano, two of the world's other greatest architects. But equally impressive was the fact that his firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners is owned by a charitable foundation, gives 20% of its profits to charity, and directly links income of partners and staff. One is struck by the contrast to the bloated financial sector, which produces outsize incomes for bankers at the risk of financial stability, with recent shrinkage in profit pools leading those at the top to protect their income by substantially reducing opportunities for younger staff. One hopes that Rogers substantial success results in part from his firm's more ethical approach, and that the finance sector will eventually pay the price of its greed. Being ethical matters, one hopes.

On a personal note, I have not met Richard Rogers, but his firm's offices are next door to my office in Hammersmith, London, and a colleague is quite friendly with him. Rogers is often visible at lunch at the River Cafe, run by his wife in the building next to our offices. I will look for an opportunity to meet him, hopefully to learn something, and less likely to enjoy some reflected glory. No apologies that my motives for this are primarily personal not ethical -- being ethical matters, but it cannot be life's only goal.