I sat down this morning to write a very different column from
this one. Let me explain.
I sat down this morning to write a very different column from this one. Let me explain.
An important part of my youth was spent in the Boy Scouts. I was in the organization for more than five years and was proud to achieve the rank of Eagle. Our Wednesday night troop meetings at Scout Hall in Mill Valley began by reciting, among other things, the Scout Laws. I can still say all 12 of them (A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent) in 2.8 seconds like some trained circus animal, although no one ever tosses me a treat when I do.
Most of us would agree that each of these “laws” is a virtue, and none of them would generate a heated debate. Embracing friendliness and cheerfulness is nearly as controversial as President Bush’s courageous stand against unwanted phone solicitations during dinner.
But I thought it would be interesting to write about the potential ethical dilemma presented by the first two Scout Laws. Is a loyal person always a trustworthy – a word I took to mean honest – person? There are certainly times when someone to whom you owe great loyalty may ask you to do something clearly dishonest.
Suppose the person who you worked so hard to get elected president of the United States and who rewarded your effort and loyalty with an important position in the administration asked you to shred damning evidence against her or lie to Congress. What would you do? You respect and admire this person. You are helping her stay in power which is, you are convinced, clearly for the best. Being near the center of power is intoxicating, and you know that the work of the administration is making the world a better place. But her request of you is clearly illegal and wrong. Loyal or honest, which will you be? You can’t be both.
Here is an interesting ethical tug of war, I thought “a column to tickle the intellect.”
As I picked up my pen and began the search for the right words, I took a second look at the word “trustworthy.” Does it really mean honest? I’d better check. According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, trustworthy means “worthy of confidence: DEPENDABLE.”
A dependable person might be an honest person, but he might not. If you are depending on someone to have the getaway car in front of the bank at exactly 8:07, you want to be sure that that person is trustworthy, but not honest. H. R. Haldeman was dependable. Bin Laden is looking for people who are trustworthy.
If trustworthy means dependable, then my trustworthy-vs-loyal idea does not create the ethical tension I sought. In fact, they appear to be kissing cousins whether in an honest pursuit or not.
Momentarily caught off balance, I took another 2.8 seconds to review the Scout Laws and pick the one that more closely means honest. Low and behold, there isn’t one. It turns out that as a Boy Scout, I am duty bound to be cheerful, thrifty, clean and nine other things, but honest just isn’t there. I even recited the Scout Oath to myself and there is nothing about honesty there either. Mentally awake and morally straight, you bet, but no mention of honest.
Now, I am really shaken. I dedicated so much of my youth to an organization that is a virtual dictionary of virtues, yet honesty isn’t among them. If there is nothing good on TV tonight, I might even write national Boy Scout headquarters and bring this oversight to their attention. I have not written to the Boy Scouts of America since I objected to their prohibition on gay adult troop leaders some years ago (Motto: Prohibit it, and it no longer exists).
They may be waffling on this honesty thing, but the Boy Scouts was the best experience of my youth.
