To ordinary people who strive to get along in the everyday world, the Clarence Thomas saga is surreal. What he did, as reported widely, is not only beyond our imaginations, it’s really quite sad. 

Politics and opinion aside, it’s particularly upsetting because the one thing we all expect from our highest court is ethical behavior.

What’s really crazy and almost impossible to comprehend is why all the focus seems to be solely on a legal analysis: whether or not his aberrant behavior violated any specific laws, and the minutiae about what exactly he was required to report.

The press and the legal pundits are hung up on all the fancy nuances involved which would potentially disqualify him. What and when was he required to report, etc.? 

When does common sense enter the equation and we begin to look at his misdeeds through a moral lens? Is this the way we want our children, friends, and associates to act?

Why is so little attention being paid to what matters most? Are we ignoring the most obvious questions people are asking?

As someone involved in the study, practice, and teaching of ethics, we carefully try to consider the enormous differences between our moral and legal worlds. Can some laws actually provide absolution from having to think and act ethically?

Can the law be conveniently used to protect and justify unethical practices? Can it be a comforting shield that provides justification and actual cover to the offenses and offenders?

There are countless examples of this throughout present and past history but perhaps the most stark illustration of what I’m talking about is the perfectly legal annihilation of so many people during the second world war. Here the law actually encouraged and protected those perpetuating the Holocaust.

We teach that ethical behavior begins with moral courage.  When you identify an ethical dilemma, think it through carefully, using as much data as you can possibly gather and look for a solution which considers all sides, angles, perspective.

‘What Would Superman Do?’

Search for a practical answer, but be certain it conforms to your ethical values. Ask some simple questions. Does it pass the smell test? How does it look to others?

How would you justify it to your mother, to your kid sitting on your shoulder? How would you feel if you woke up and saw your decision or action prominently displayed on the front page of your favorite newspaper?

Will it stand the test of time? One of my personal favorites is: “What would Superman do?”

We believe that honesty is absolutely essential to the successful continuance of society as we know it. We have moved way past “ethical relativism.” “It depends” is largely absent from our vocabulary. 

Ethics is a way of life in which the rules apply everywhere. We recognize that there are many shared values that help define moral behavior, but perhaps some of the simplest, most important, and most consensual are compassion, respect, fairness, humility, and responsibility.  Feel free to add your own.

A noted scholar at the University of Texas teaches us that ethics is a way of life, that the rules apply everywhere and determine the legitimacy of everything we do. They ask simply, “Can I, should I, do it?” They require us to distinguish between what I have a right to do and what is right to do.

Herein lies the hypocrisy of this entire controversy. We would condemn this behavior if it belonged to an ordinary member of the universe, even if he weren’t one of the most powerful people, determining crucial aspects of all of our lives.

What he has done is impossible to ignore or excuse. The women and men who fight every day to do the right thing must be honored and respected.

Ethics is a way of life in which the rules apply everywhere.

The example he is setting is scarily negative and if all of us were to follow it, would lead to total chaos and an end to democratic capitalism as we know it. The common refrain is some version of: “Of course he is guilty, but nothing will happen.”

Is that the outcome that we as a society find acceptable? While the legalese may prevail for the moment over what we all recognize as common-sense thinking, Justice Thomas will never escape the collective judgment of history.