All too often the financial news, especially when viewed from an ethical perspective is disheartening. The Talmudic adage that all sin with regard to money matters is unfortunately observed meticulously by too many. Yet like the complaints the most newsworthy stories focus on the negative such is the nature of ethics that honest behaviour is generally not considered newsworthy.
Thankfully most people are for the most part law abiding, the Talmudic adage noting that absolute honesty is a most elusive goal. Whether this honesty is by conviction or due mainly to circumstance – many are in no position to easily commit financial wrongdoing – is not really important. It is crucial that we recognize our weaknesses and not put ourselves in a position where immorality can even tempt us.
It is gratifying to see the Toronto Transit Commission turn down large sums of money in refusing to accept advertising from a firm promoting infidelity, an activity that Jewish law classifies under the category of “be killed rather than transgress” – just like murder.
Our society correctly regards the enablers of wrongdoing to be a greater threat than the perpetrators themselves. The drug pusher is treated more harshly than the drug user as is the organized crime boss who never actually commits a crime himself. Aiding and abetting the moral failings of others, aka, being an enabler, is a violation of the Biblical verse not to “put a stumbling block before the blind”. Even if the “blind” do not actually stumble, it is the offering of ill-suited advice be it financial or moral that is prohibited, not the following of such “advice”.
This biblical mandate must resonate deeply with all those who serve in advisory roles (agents, brokers, councilors) and those who wield influence over the moral behaviour of others which include each and every one of us be it our capacity as parents, teachers or friends.
The obligation to avoid being a party to wrongdoing places much responsibility on the larger media to screen ads for their appropriateness. Governments both in Canada and the United States understand this as demonstrated by their banning of tobacco advertising in consonance with the view of Jewish law that prohibits smoking. Jewish ethics however goes beyond physical danger and eschews advertising that would negatively impact one’s character.
While specific ads would have to be analyzed on a case by case basis, advertising that encourages one to live beyond one’s means would seem to violate this principle. It was the encouragement of people to take on debt they could not afford that led to so much financial pain. The recent statement from the bank of Canada governor Mark Charney warning Canadians about taking on excessive debt prior to the inevitable rise in interest rates is most appropriate. Such moral sensitivity would be demonstrated by a liquor company noting the dangers of drinking and driving even as they legitimately advertise their product. Unlike smoking, drinking can be done in a responsible way and thus there is no need to ban their marketing efforts.
A most tricky area is that of comparative advertising where companies highlight their superiority by pointing our deficiencies in their rivals. While one should is allowed to state that one’s product is better than the competition one must be exceedingly careful that we are comparing “apples to apples” i.e. the exact same phone plan would run faster on a particular system. However to highlight a particular flaw of the competition without noting its offsetting strength renders such comparison ethically wanting. Thus pointing out the extra features of one’s product over the competition without noting the price saving the competition offers, unfairly converts a trade-off into a most questionable claim of superiority.
