Legally Right But Morally Wrong

Many years ago, I recommended a tax planning strategy  for the bank I was working for. I thought it was a very slick plan and it truly was when it came to avoiding ( as opposed to evading) taxes. Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is a crime.   Unfortunately, the strategy  looked very, very wrong when it hit the newspapers. Without going into details I didn’t personally profit from this action but the bank did. Despite this, and with hindsight, it just wasn’t the right thing to do.  As one of the directors of the bank said to me, “Mark, it was legally right but morally wrong”. There are many examples of this principle. Think about slavery.  For centuries it was legal in the United States but certainly ethically repugnant. 

 I learned a very important lesson that day.  Thinking about how people will perceive an action has to be included in the consideration of the action. The same director was later the Vice-chair of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.  She was one of the first (if not the first) female graduates of the Penn Law School. For those not following the latest news, the President of Penn resigned and is going back to teach at this same law school. Liz Magilll  was forced from her job when she, after  repeated questioning would not say  if calls on campus for the genocide of Jews would violate the university’s  conduct policy. Relying on what sounded like a legalistic defense, MacGill insisted this was a matter of “context”.  Those of us that work in academia understand academic freedom and how important it and context is.  I have wondered what my old director (who sadly passed away before her time) would say about this situation.  I can almost hear her say, “ Penn was legally right, but morally wrong.”  Perhaps the presidents of other colleges should evaluate their positions under this same standard. 

A similar situation has come up in the Vatican.  Pope Francis recently met with the staff of the office of Vatican Auditor General. He asked that disclosure of financial impropriety be balanced by “merciful discretion”.  Anyone that knows anything about auditing understands  auditors have a fiduciary duty to their client, in this case the Pope.  Francis was absolutely correct in asking for  confidentiality.  On the other hand, Francis was supposed to “clean up” Vatican corruption during his pontificate. One must ask in the wake of the trial of Cardinal Becciu for financial malfeasance writ large on a massive scandal (one financial deal on its own was said to lose $150 million dollars) whether this is the morally right thing to do. Aren’t donors entitled to see how their gifts have been squandered? 

 I have always been deeply distrustful of the excuse of letting something illicit  pass “for the good of the organization”.  This is often only code for “someone needs to be protected.”  In the case of the Vatican, too much water has gone under the bridge, and it is time to realize “merciful discretion” is interpreted by many as continuing to cover up corruption. Sunshine is the best disinfectant for the  disease of corruption. It is odd to say, but even the Pope can be legally right and yet morally wrong. 

The Ethics Resource Council advocates the use of the PLUS model of ethical decision-making.  PLUS stands for:

Policies–does an action conform to  the organization’s policies and procedures?

Legal–Is the proposed action legal?

Universal–Does the proposed action conform to the organization’s values and universal principles?

Self–does this action comply with my own view of right or wrong? 

I have proposed a variation of this model I have called PLUMS.  In the modern world, one has to consider how other people will view a proposed action.  How will it be perceived by others when it hits the media?  It is often a good idea to just step back and think about how your action will look when it hits X, Youtube, or Facebook.  Maybe this pause for reflection  can prevent you from doing something that is legally right, but yet morally wrong.