I’ve had the opportunity to develop and teach a few ethics courses at Armstrong. In those courses, which I base on Christian ethics, I often feel the need to outline for students the distinction between “deontological” and “teleological” motives in ethical decision-making. Let me explain.
In purely deontological decision-making, actions deemed “right” are those in accordance with some standard, such as a law, rule, or commandment of God, regardless of the possible outcomes. That standard drives actions from the start.
In teleological decision-making, often based on “utilitarian” views, actions deemed right are those that will bring about the most favorable outcome. So, possible results of different options are calculated, and the action likely to bring about the most advantageous overall result is deemed right. Outcomes drive decisions.
What I often explain in my ethics courses is that in business and commerce, teleology wins the day. That is, the primary motive of a business is to make a profit; therefore, its mission is by definition outcome-oriented. All actions the business undertakes are to be seen as means (“utility,” so to speak) to achieve the end result of profit. There is little reason to act in ways that do not achieve that primary desired outcome. So, if you look at where a business spends its money, you can be assured that someone in the decision-making process saw those expenses as an investment in the future to maximize profits.
I have seen and heard very interesting remarks about Kinder Morgan’s recent donation to South Effingham High School. The pipeline company gave $45,000 this year, and has committed to another $45,000 next year, to enhance SEHS’s Athletics programs.
Here are a few remarks I’ve heard. “How stupid do they think we are?” “Do they really think they can buy us?” I suppose I have a slightly different viewpoint.
I say: Take their money, thank them, and smile. And take every single dime they are willing to give us. That money can be used to improve our education programs and our community, and it takes some of the burden off local budgets.
You see, far too often there is an assumption that donations necessitate influence. They absolutely do not. Sure, companies donating in this regard want to show they have invested in the community, and clearly they hope these donations influence your opinion of them and their business. But in absolutely no way do such donations necessitate any kind of influence! In other words, you — and no one else — determine the extent to which you allow gifts or donations or relationships to influence you, if at all. After all, you are not that blind; give our local and state politicians some credit as well.
Kinder Morgan has undertaken a synchronized and concerted effort to sway the opinion of the public and the legislators voted into office by that public. Perhaps you have seen their television commercials and newspaper ads. Local donations appear to be part of that initiative. Such donations are commonplace in business, quite transparent, and in this case possess a subtlety that makes Donald Trump look like Scarlett O’Hara.
In the past few months, Kinder Morgan has made local donations up and down the Georgia coast. Some communities have taken their money; some haven’t. Good call accepting the check, Dr. Shearouse.
From a personal vantage point, the fact that Kinder Morgan is giving money to a program that will help my son’s teams and our neighbors has absolutely zero influence on whether or not I would support their proposed Palmetto Pipeline or encourage legislators to do so. That decision will be based on entirely different data.
And I have no problem whatsoever taking Kinder Morgan’s money hand over fist, while at the same time saying, “Gee, I’m sorry that whole pipeline thing didn’t work out for you all.” I’m sure our local politicians would make the same distinction as they engage in discussions with Georgia’s Department of Transportation (GDOT). On May 15, the GDOT ruled that Kinder Morgan can’t use “eminent domain” to seize private property along their proposed route. Kinder Morgan filed an appeal June 17.
Regardless of your opinion on the proposed Palmetto Pipeline, I believe we must be careful when we attempt to evaluate whose donations we will take and whose we won’t take. This community enjoys many benefits when it has more financial resources. We need things the federal, state, and local governments can’t afford. If some company feels it is a wise decision — or gamble — for them to invest in our community, I am all for it. It is simply a calculated investment for them. And sometimes investments pay off, sometimes they don’t. That’s business, and I don’t fault them for it.
In fact, just to make things easier for Kinder Morgan, perhaps we ought to provide them with a price list of sorts for Effingham. What about Kinder Morgan High School at a discount of 40 million? For a little more than that, maybe 50 million, we could completely revitalize downtown Springfield — or Kinder Morgantown. If they are on a budget, Kinder Morgan stadium will cost them a cool $25 million.
Heck, for enough money, which I can put to a lot of good use around here, I’d change my name to Kinder Morgan and tattoo their company logo on my forehead. But that still won’t affect my opinion on their pipeline.
And it shouldn’t affect yours.
In the end, while I am delighted to have local officials take every dime Kinder Morgan wants to donate to Effingham (thank you very much), I suppose my view on their pipeline arises from a deontological perspective. Here’s what I mean by that.
Kinder Morgan’s proposed pipeline runs through nearly 40 miles of our county. Almost 200 of our neighbors have land affected by the pipeline. That means those landowners may have no say in whether or not their land is “sold” (euphemism for “seized”), or even what the value of that land is. And that’s the data I need to know. That’s my standard, my rule, or law, so to speak, regardless of who gave what to whom or what the likely end results are.
Because if we have neighbors who have their land taken when they do not want to give it up, no matter the philosophy of your ethics, that’s just not right.
