ETHICS

WHY BE ETHICAL?

  Probably every religion stresses our need to give to the poor.  While it is certainly true that the poor do need help, the reason we need to do so goes beyond that.  When we do something for another, without any self-interest involved, our personal gain is often much higher than any gain realized by others. The true giver helps others quietly. To help others, and loudly proclaim your deed, is likely a selfish act with a personal gain sought, rather than true giving.

  What does this have to do with ethical behavior?  Ethics is not entirely about yourself; it is also about others.  It is not so much what one knows that makes an individual ethical, but rather what he or she understands.  A truly ethical person realizes that their behavior is their loudest statement about themselves and those they associate with.

  Making ethical decisions addresses four basic issues:

1.  Is it possible to teach ethical behavior?

2.  What is the scope of ethics?

3.  What does it take to be a moral person?

4.  What is a person's responsibility to other moral persons?

  There is no doubt that each of us, regardless of our occupation, faces ethical issues on a daily basis.  However, anyone in an occupation that has a "public interest" is especially faced with ethical issues.

  Ethics are standards to which an insurance agent or broker must aspire to; it is feeling a commitment to each client.  Every type of profession tends to have an informal code of ethics, which may sometimes be more understood than written.  Ethics are a means of creating standards within any given profession to upgrade it and give it honor.  It is a means of measuring performance and acknowledging outstanding individuals.  Ethics are often a means of providing priorities and building traditions based on integrity.

  It would be hard to imagine doing business with anyone that we knew was unethical.  Can you imagine turning over the control of your financial affairs to an attorney that had been convicted of stealing from his clients?  Would you buy a car from a person who had knowingly lied to others about the cars he represented?  Would you deal with an insurance agent who had repeatedly misrepresented the products he or she sold?   Ethics are the only element, other than legal mandates, that add an element of trust to many industries.  It is very difficult to mandate ethics. Only behavior, as we previously stated, may actually be mandated.  If a person is ethical, that is something within themselves that simply adds to their trustworthiness.

  No matter what our profession may be, as individuals, each of us faces ethical issues each day.  Some are very simplistic in nature while others are complex and may have many sides (and many correct answers) to them.  We face issues that are personal, such as How much should I give to the poor? Is it wrong for me to take drugs?  Should I report someone who is cheating (whether that happens to be in school or elsewhere)?  These types of ethical questions are all around us.

  Some types of ethical or moral questions can be directed to our religious institutions for support in determining the right answer.  Sometimes the answers can be found in our legal system.  If our state or federal government says commingling funds is illegal, for example, then we could also state that it must be unethical as well.  Sometimes, determining what is ethical is simply a matter of what feels right emotionally.  We have all said or heard someone else say: "It just doesn't feel right."  That feeling of right and wrong is probably the result of our childhood upbringing.  Even if we do not distinctly remember being taught that a particular action is either right or wrong, somewhere in our upbringing or past experiences, we have received such teachings.

  While this course cannot instill ethics into anyone who has none, it may provide the tools for determining the more complex issues.  By using basic concepts and theories and by having an appreciation of what constitutes an ethical solution, decisions may be made on the basis of reason.

  It should be noted that different conclusions may be reached to the same ethical question.  It does not mean that one solution is right and another wrong.  Ethical questions often have multiple answers, all of which may be correct.  Many ethical questions involve multiple hues; some decisions may be based solely on facts, while others may be based less on facts and more on emotional factors (or what simply feels right).

  We asked the question: Is it possible to teach ethical behavior?  This, of course, depends upon multiple factors.  First of all, does the person desire to be ethical?  As with all things, the person must want to achieve the goal at hand.  If other goals are more important to the individual, then it will perhaps not be possible to teach ethical behavior. If, however, ethical behavior is important to the individual, even if other goals are also sought, ethics may be taught.

  One of the first lessons taught to children by their parents is sharing.  Probably few parents think of this as "ethics," but it is.  Sharing is the opposite of greed. As adults, we learn to share in numerous ways, but sharing begins as children. The shift from securing our own interests to sacrificing on behalf of others is an essential part of what is meant by "ethical decision making."  This may especially come into play for insurance agents.  The choice to make a sale and earn a commission in any way necessary rather than sacrificing the sale in behalf of honesty is an ethical decision.  The selfish person cannot routinely make such moral decisions, or perhaps more correctly will not make such decisions.

  It is necessary to understand that one of the general features of taking an ethical point of view is a willingness to take into account the interests, desires and needs of others.  A person may argue that it is necessary to look out for one's own interests, desires and needs.  While this is certainly true to a point (we must cloth, feed and house ourselves and our families), taking our own interests into account need not mean making unethical or immoral decisions regarding others. Even commission salespeople are able to make a very good living while still maintaining ethical behavior.  In fact, the best salespeople do not need to behave unethically because they have mastered their trade through the development of communication skills and professional training.

  When a child asks his or her parent "Why do I have to share my toys?" the reply may be "Because if you don't share your toys with your sister, she will not share her toys with you."  This simple logical answer teaches the child a valuable lesson.  Our interests are tied to the interests of others.  Just as the man who is known as a liar or a thief will find others unwilling to trust him, the insurance agent who is not ethical will, at some point, find making a living impossible because no client will wish to deal with him.  We are better able to achieve our goals when we recognize the goals and interests of others.  Plato argued that immorality (unethical behavior) is ultimately self-defeating.  While the con artist may not believe this and some unethical people do seem to prove the point, most people believe that, at some point in time, each person receives what they have given.  The Bible says we will reap what we sow.  Even if we do not get back what we give others (whether that be good or bad), most people would agree that it is easier to be happy with ourselves when we feel we have done the right thing.

  Not everyone believes it is in their own self-interest to be ethical in their behavior.  Some who reject the idea of other's interests and desires are egoists.  Do not confuse this with egotism.  An egotist is a person who is self-absorbed or stuck on themselves.  These people make poor egoists.  Webster's dictionary defines egoism as the doctrine that self-interest is the basis of all behavior whereas egotism is the habit of being too self-absorbed, talking too much about oneself or conceit.

Psychological egoism maintains that people are always motivated to act in their own perceived best interest.  Psychological egoism is not an ethical theory since it does not tell people outright how to behave.  Rather it attempts to explain why people behave in certain ways.  Ethical theorists consider this theory, however, since it does have a bearing on their theories of ethical behavior.

  Another version of egoism is a genuine ethical theory.  Traditionally named "ethical egoism," it maintains that people ought to act in their perceived best interest. An ethical egoist argues that people should act in their best interest at all times because it is good for the general economy (providing industry and jobs, for instance).

  Although ethical egoism and psychological egoism are separate and distinct, they are often meshed together by writers and speakers.  Psychological egoism is an explanation of behavior, not a theory whereas ethical egoism is a theory of behavior.  In many ways, ethical egoism can be substantiated by those who prescribe to it. The English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, was a well-known believer in ethical egoism.  Of course, the interests of individuals come into conflict with others whose interests are different.  This is where the greater interest comes into play.  Even while pursuing our own personal interests, it is possible for those interests to be swayed or checked by the interests of others because of possible consequences, which one may wish to avoid.  That is how laws manage to control behavior even if they are unable to control ethics. Under the theories of ethical egoism, it is in the individual's best interest to follow the established laws because the fines or penalties imposed are not desired.

  In the marketplace we all try to buy low and sell high.  That is certainly an attempt to pursue our own self-interest.  It is unlikely that the buyer worries about the seller when buying low, nor does the seller worry about the buyer when selling high.  Individual self-interest is at work.  Even though this may be an excellent example of ethical egoism, it tends to be both orderly and productive to our society.  This points out that this theory has positive dimensions to it despite the selfish basis.

  A political economist, Adam Smith, believed in ethical egoism.  He felt that people, while being interested in their own needs and desires, created good for society as a whole.  Smith felt that economic conditions were created and expanded when people acted in their own behalf.

  If we were to fully believe in psychological egoism, which states that humans automatically act in their own behalf, many of the acts of heroism that we see could not be explained.  The passenger who survived the plane crash in the Potomac River only to drown because he repeatedly handed the rescue rope to others could not possibly have been acting in his own behalf.  Perhaps it could be said that he was not being heroic so much as he was avoiding guilt which he would have felt had he left the others behind.  This is not likely, however, since those he saved were strangers to him.

  There is more day-to-day heroism than one might realize.  Such simple things as the child who shares his lunch with another student, the woman who gives her last dollars to a homeless person, the man who donates his only day off for a food drive are all acts of kindness that consider the needs and desires of others.

  This still brings us back to the basic question:  Is it possible to teach ethical behavior to others?  There is no clear answer.  An agent who has never considered ethical behavior might suddenly begin to do so if the agency where he or she works begins a strong ethics campaign.  On the other hand, an agent might continue to act unethically even if threats are made to recall his or her license to sell insurance.  One thing is certain: the effort must be made to emphasize ethical behavior because there will always be those agents who will respond favorably to such efforts.

  Question number two asked:  What is the scope of ethics?  This is a massive question that could be carried to great depths if we chose to.  In many industries, including the insurance industry, the professionals have knowledge that the general population does not have.  As a result, those individuals who seek out the professionals must rely upon their honesty and integrity.  Therefore, a feeling of ethical standards must exist.  It was the potential for abuse of power that provided a set of rules for what is commonly called "ethical behavior."  Sometimes, ethics are written standards, which may be mandated by law on either a local or federal level.  The premise upon which practical ethics must be based, according to Stephan R. Leimber of the American College where he is a professor of taxation and estate planning, is that power must be exercised in the interest of the clients who seek the professionals out and may not be exercised solely in the best interest of the professionals themselves.

  Parts of the insurance industry have been labeled (often unfairly) as lacking ethical standards.  Usually what we find is not an industry as a whole without ethics, but rather some individuals who have received much publicity.  The insurance industry that deals with senior products is one insurance division that has received bad publicity off and on.  Part of this has to do with the age of the victims.  If a 25 year old were taken advantage of, many would think he was simply stupid or uneducated to have allowed it.  If a 75-year old is taken advantage of, however, publicity is sure to follow.  This is not surprising since a 25-year old is more likely to have the ability to make sound judgments in comparison to a 75-year old person.  Also, our older population controls most of the nation's wealth.  If a salesperson (in whatever industry) is greedy and unethical, he or she is most likely to hit those with money.  That would typically be older people.

  We should also ask ourselves why society seems to consider it less offensive to take advantage of a 25-year old person.  If unfair advantage (a con job) exists, why does it matter how old or young the victim is?

  When we look at what the scope of ethics is or could be, one might be surprised at the extent to which it could be taken.  Amy L. Domini and Peter K. Kinder have jointly written a book called "Ethical Investing" which looks at how our standards may even be brought into the field of investing.  For example, if an agent were an animal activist, would it be ethical for them to represent companies that use animals in the laboratory or for testing?  If a client is an environmentalist, should he or she invest in any type of investment that is detrimental to the environment?  The aspect of ethical investing will be discussed towards the end of this course, but these questions do illustrate how wide the scope of ethics can be.

  Sometimes, people or cultures do not agree on what is ethical behavior.  What one culture or society may consider ethical another may not.  Even within the same culture or society, people may disagree on what is and is not ethical.  We often see these differences between religions as well.

  Every person probably has some degree of greed or selfishness within them.  The ethical person realizes this possibility.  Since ethics is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions, the ethical person will bypass their own greed and do what is perceived as best for the majority of people or best for the person they are dealing with.  In choosing his or her actions and goals, constant alternatives are faced.  It is not always easy to decide which choice is best and ethical.  Without a standard of values, ethical choices would be very hard to make.  At some level, our religious background may set the standard of values by which we make our choices.  However we arrive at it, at some point, understanding of how others feel determines many of our ethical decisions.

  In a book titled "Everything You've Heard Is Wrong" Tony Campolo recites this experience:  "I had spent the afternoon at a sales conference sponsored by a large insurance corporation.  The executives of the company had brought in an array of top-flight speakers to teach the sales force the most successful techniques for marketing their product.  The audience listened with riveted attention as they were instructed how to "set up" clients, push the right emotional buttons, and close the deal.  What they heard were the best insights about marketing that the experts in the field of behavioral psychology could provide.  Surefire sales pitches were demonstrated that, according to the speakers, were certain to elicit the desired responses from even the most reluctant prospects.  The presentations were brilliant!  It was my task to end the day with a motivational talk that could "psych up" the sales teams to get the job done.  I was supposed to get the audience's juices flowing so that they would be enthused about doing the things they had been taught all day long.  You can imagine the surprise, if not the shock, that greeted my opening words:  "Everything you've heard today is wrong."

  He went on to say that he felt people were not things to be manipulated by techniques and sales pitches.  Mr. Campolo feels manipulating people shows a lack of respect for who they are.

  Most salespeople would probably prefer to work with Tony Campolo's perspective.  It is often stressful to feel that selling is a combative situation.  The point is, if you are representing a product that you believe in and the consumer needs, it would seem that good communication skills would be more important than manipulative skills.

  Our third question, What does it take to be a moral person?, is probably simpler than any of the other questions asked.  Most people do know right from wrong.  While what is right may not always be agreed upon, as long as a person acts on what they perceive to be right, then they are acting ethically.

  It is unfortunate that so many people in the insurance sales force perceive their industry to be one of disdain.  Insurance is something that people really do need for the security of themselves and their families.  There is a remarkable story about an insurance salesman named Martin England, who was white and from the South.  He learned that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not adequately covered by life insurance.  Realizing the dangerous job Mr. King was performing, he was understandably alarmed.  In fact, he was so concerned that Mr. England began to try to contact Martin Luther King.  As you can imagine, that was not an easy task.  Finally, Mr. England did succeed in getting Mr. King to sit down with him and allow him to present the situation as he saw it.  Martin Luther King, Jr. did buy life insurance from Mr. England.  Only a short time later Mr. King was killed by an assassin.  Of course, his death was difficult on his family, but think how much worse it would have been had they also been left destitute.  An ordinary insurance man went to un-ordinary lengths to help another.  In the process, he earned a commission, but what he gave the King family was much more valuable than what he earned.

  The "ethical" person simply believes in right and wrong and chooses to do right.  The ethical insurance agent does not believe it is necessary to trample their potential clients in order to get the sale, they do not believe it is necessary to tell half-truths or leave out needed information.  Of course, it is necessary to be well prepared and to understand good communication techniques, but any job requires some types of skills.  

  It is common for ethical people to have some form of religion in their lives.  They make no apology for accepting God and religion into their lives and work.  Ethical people tend to be warm and caring by nature, it is said.  Whether or not this is true, we cannot say, but ethical people do certainly seem to place a value on others.  In fact, valuing others is an aspect of ethical behavior.  Perhaps you cannot have one without the other.

  It is not possible to be one person off work and another person on work.  Who we are is defined everywhere we go and in everything we do.  Three questions must be addressed:

1.  What kind of person am I?

2.  What kind of work do I want to do?

3.  What do I want my legacy to be?

  Just as a man is defined by the lies he tells, and a thief is defined by his actions, even we are defined by our everyday activities.  We do not necessarily have to be a liar or a thief to define ourselves as less than honest.  Many of our political figures are not actually dishonest and yet they are not perceived to be honest either.  How do we want ourselves defined?  Answering such questions cannot be avoided.  Even when we try to ignore them, we are still answering the questions by our actions.  It must be realized that the questions are asked in the minds of every person we come in contact with.  They look at us and they form opinions to these questions.  Coming to terms with the basic philosophical questions about what we are doing with our lives may be the most practical of all possible ventures.

  If we have children, it should also be pointed out that they are very good at defining who we are.  Children may not voice the image they see, but little is missed.  How do you wish your children to view you?  What you do in your every day lives will form their opinions.  It will also demonstrate to your children what path in life they might take.

  When we ask: What kind of work do you want to do? we are referring to the quality of your work.  Forging signatures, misstating health conditions, omitting information for the sake of a sale, and so forth, determines your quality of work.  True professionals simply feel their integrity is worth more to them than a quick commission.  Certainly, anyone can make an error and that may not be a reflection of their professionalism, as long as the error is corrected.  If an error is made (even an honest error), and no effort is made to correct it, then again that reflects on the type of work performed.

  The question: What do I want my legacy to be? refers to how others will remember you.  Some may not care about this point, but it will be important to those who love you.  Most of us probably do wish to be remembered in a favorable light.  Can you imagine being remembered for the quantity of errors made or for the dishonest and unethical actions taken?

  Good business requires that you know what you are doing.  Sometimes this involves competency.  Of course, most people would not view themselves as incompetent even if they were.  Sometimes, the industry itself must remove those within it that are not competent. Sometimes, competency is merely a matter of obtaining required or necessary education within any given industry.  It is always interesting to note the amount of sincere education acquired by the leaders in an industry.  The leaders are nearly always more concerned with educating themselves to a greater degree than are those at the bottom.  Education and ethics do tend to go together.  It should be noted that success and education also go hand-in-hand.

  How many times have you, as an insurance agent, sat in an educational seminar and observed the quantity of others who are obviously not interested in learning.  Of course, it is also the responsibility of the educators to make the seminars interesting.  However, there are always those who attend simply because they must.  In our business, this constitutes unethical behavior.  Constant learning is very important in the insurance industry and those who realize this will be better equipped to do a good job.

  It is also important to know why you are doing what you do.  For insurance agents, that means it is important to understand why your industry and services are valuable.  We have all known an agent who seemed to just be going through the motions of their job (selling insurance) without any pleasure being received from it.  Whether a person is an insurance agent, a plumber or a teacher, there must be pleasure derived from what they are doing.  Unless there is some pleasure in the job, the job will be done poorly.  Few of us could do an outstanding job at something we hate.

  Often the reason an agent is not enjoying their job is simply because they do not understand why they are doing it.  If their agency has lost sight of ethics chances are their agents will not know why they are doing the job (beyond making money for the agency).  In the midst of the Watergate investigation, Jeb Magruder announced that he became involved because he had misplaced his "ethical compass." Newspaper columnists grabbed on to that phrase and many jokes evolved from it.  The truth is, however, that it is a very fitting way to describe the situation.  The majority of people do know what is right and what is wrong.  That is not to say that, if surrounded by only one type of morality, that one's "ethical compass" cannot only be misplaced, but set off its direction as well.

  It is unlikely that most agents would consider whom they work for to be a matter of ethics.  However, it may end up being connected if ethical behavior is not deemed important by the company.  When an agent (or anyone, for that matter) feels that their role day-in, day-out is primarily connected to making money without any regard as to how the money is made, ethics may easily take a back seat.

  How does an agent know, except in the extreme cases, if their agency lacks ethics?  It may not always be a black-and-white situation.  Sometimes the decision can only be a personal one if the agency is not noticeably to one extreme or the other.  One would not expect an agency or brokerage to be outright unethical.  Each state has mandated certain procedures that a company must follow, which usually prevents such outright unethical behavior.  It is more likely that the company would ignore unethical or questionable actions of their agents, which would, therefore, condone such actions.

  Some examples of this might include:

EXAMPLE #1

  Joan, an insurance agent, is sitting in the agent's room of the agency where she works.  As she is completing her paperwork on the business she has written that week, she notices that she forgot to have one form signed.  Another agent in the room, Matt, suggests: "Don't worry about it.  Just put one of his signatures against the window pane and copy over it onto the one you need."

  Joan: "Isn't that illegal?"

  Matt: "Maybe, but everyone does it.  If you're not, then you're the only one who isn't."

  As Joan asks around, she discovers that Matt was correct. Virtually everyone she spoke to about it confirmed that they too copied signatures where one was forgotten.  Joan found that nearly every agent intended to get all required signatures, so it was not a matter of purposely omitting them. Rather, it was an easy way to perform below necessary levels of competence.  Several agents even mentioned that the management had sometimes been present when signatures were copied.  They simply left the room and acted as though they had not seen it.

  While we know Joan was unethical in copying the signature, there are additional ethical questions involved.  Is Matt unethical for advocating that another person forge a signature?  Is the agency unethical by ignoring the behavior going on?  By ignoring the behavior, is the agency condoning it?  If Joan had decided against forging the signature would she then be free of any other agent's ethical behavior?  Or, having the knowledge of what was going on, would she be unethical to remain at the workplace?  Should she go elsewhere to work and leave it at that or, in the interest of ethical behavior and responsibility, should she report the behavior to the State Insurance Department and perhaps to the insurance companies as well?  Since Joan had developed several good friendships among the agents, how would loyalty to those friends and her responsibility to ethical conduct correspond?

  As you can see, ethical behavior is not a simple matter.  Do your standards of what is ethical apply only to yourself or to others as well?  If your views do not correspond to the views of others, who is right?

EXAMPLE #2

  Jerry, an insurance agent, is in the home of a retired couple.  He is there representing a Medigap policy from a well-rated company.  The company that the couple, Marge and Herb, currently have is also with a well-rated company.  They purchased the policy several years before and have not used it very much since both Marge and Herb have enjoyed good health.

  Jerry: "You said you haven't used your policy very much, is that right?"

  Marge: "Yes.  Luckily both of us do enjoy excellent health.  Of course, we watch what we eat and we do exercise during the week."

  Jerry: "I don't want to alarm you, but the policy you have probably would not have done a very good job.  The company is in financial trouble and we don't know yet if it will make it or go under."

  Herb: "That is certainly a surprise.  We were told it was an A-rated company when we bought it."

  Jerry: "It might have been at the time.  So many companies that were previously strong have had problems in the last few years.  I'm sure you've seen that in the news."

  Jerry does replace the policy owned by Marge and Herb.  Jerry knew that their policy was actually safe because the company was not in any financial trouble.  The company he gave them was also sound and did give the couple basically the same coverage they already had.  There would be no problem with pre-existing conditions, so that was not a concern in the replacement.  Even the price was approximately the same.

  Since he did Marge and Herb no harm, was Jerry justified in replacing their policy?  Jerry is basically a responsible person who will keep in touch with Marge and Herb.  If they need any help with claims, the agency that employs him will help them.  Even so, there is no doubt that Jerry lied in order to get the sale.  Most states require that an agent truthfully represent the financial status of an insurance company (theirs and others), so it is likely that what he did was illegal.  Aside from that, however, was what he did serious?  Is it ever acceptable to misrepresent another company?  If the couple, Marge and Herb, no longer had an agent representing them or if they never had any contact from their agent, would Jerry be justified in taking over the business?  Jerry will keep in contact and will give good service.  Can the misrepresentation be rationalized from that standpoint?

EXAMPLE #3

  Jenny, an insurance agent, has a lead card for a couple regarding life insurance.  They sent it in about 60 days earlier.  Jenny does not call, but stops by their home unannounced.  When she does so, she discovers that they think she is from a company who had called them on the phone and set up an appointment.

  Glenda Maxwell: "Aren't you a day early?  I thought we set this up for tomorrow night."

  Jenny: "Oh I'm so sorry.  I thought it was for tonight."

  Glenda: "Since you're here, we may as well go ahead.  It really doesn't matter anyway.  Ted is in the garage.  I'll go get him."

  While Glenda goes to the garage, Jenny notes the company name on the calendar along with their phone number and the agent's name.  The next morning Jenny calls the company and cancels the appointment using Glenda Maxwell's name.

  Since Jenny supplied the couple with the insurance they were looking for, does it matter that they thought she was representing the agency that called them?  Should Jenny have given the couple a chance to hear the other agent's presentation, which would have allowed them to compare products?  Since selling is so competitive, is this merely an aspect of the selling game, having nothing to do with ethics?

  When Jenny relays what happened at her agency's office, everyone tells her how lucky she was to happen into the situation.  No one, including the management staff, seems alarmed that she did not straighten out the misunderstanding.  No one seems alarmed at her call to the other company (pretending to be their prospect). 

  If there is an ethical question here, does it only concern Jenny?  Is the company she works for responsible for guidance in such situations?  Since this is not something that would routinely come up, is there any need for the company to address this situation at all?

EXAMPLE #4

  John works for a large investment company. John is a strong believer in environmental issues.  Because of his beliefs, he will not refer any client to any stock or company that John feels harms the environment.  John seldom allows his clients to see any investment that he does not agree with.  John's company knows that John will not present any company that he does not agree with.  The company says nothing as long as John brings in a good quantity of business.  If his business is down, however, they do bring up the matter.

  Is it ethical of John to only show those companies that he agrees with?  Secondly, is it ethical of the company he works for to only be concerned about it if his sales are down?  Could John ethically represent companies that he opposes?  Which set of ethics should come first:  his own regarding the companies or his responsibility to his clients to allow them to make their own choices?

  If the company that employs John should require that he show all options to their clients, is John ethically bound to follow his employer’s requirements?  Whose ethics come first?  John's, the client's, or the employer's?  Different people or groups often do not agree on what is or is not ethical.  Who should decide which ethics come first?  This question might come under the heading of "What is a person's responsibility to other moral persons?"

  Basically, all of these concepts or questions bring us back to the original point.  A person must know why they are doing a particular thing.  In the case of selling insurance, if the agent does not understand the reasons why insurance policies are important to own, it would be very easy to lose track of important ethical elements.  The lack of this understanding might eventually force the agent to deal with the basic inquiries that come about when ethics are pushed to the background.

What are our responsibilities to other moral persons?  (Question #4).

  Most people realize that they are responsible for their actions.  In sales, we often hear the statement "For every action, there is a reaction."  This is generally true in life as well.  It goes beyond the obvious situations (if you smack someone, they may smack you back).  If you are rude to a person, you may not realize the "reaction" at that moment, but one will surely follow.  The reactions may not always be noticeable to others.  This is especially true when it involves emotions, such as hurt feelings.  Since each of us is responsible for our actions, the question then is "Are we responsible for the reactions that follow?"

   Some reactions are directly tied to our actions and are predictable.  If we lie in order to obtain money, our actions are then directly tied to the reactions that occur.  What we did was deliberate and the "reaction" should be no surprise.  In such situations, we are responsible for the reactions.

  In other situations, we cannot be responsible for the reactions.  If we act in a responsible manner and a reaction occurs that hurts or offends others, we may not necessarily have any responsibility.  What a person does in everyday life is the result of multiple decisions made over their lifetime.  Those decisions include our perception of who and what we are.  Our character (or lack of it) is made up of our day-in, day-out decisions.  The irresponsible person will not care what his or her responsibility to other moral people may be. Therefore, we will look only at what an ethical person's responsibility is towards other ethical persons.

  Let us look at our example of John, the investment counselor.  He would not present any investment to his clients that he did not personally agree with.  Let us assume that most of John's clients are themselves ethical people.  Since his clients are themselves ethical, is John wrong in making such investment choices for them without giving them a chance to bring out their own sets of ethics?  What is John's responsibility to other moral or ethical persons?

  Moral or ethical responsibility is not a single choice.  Such choices are made daily in many things that we do.  If we assume that our children are basically moral people, then what are our responsibilities towards them?  This may also be said of our peers at work.  If the majority of the agents at the firm we work for are ethical people, do we then owe it to them to also be ethical?

  Agency XYZ prides itself on being ethical.  The owners and managers stress such behavior at all company meetings.  While sales are certainly promoted, it is made clear that the sales must be honestly come by.  XYZ Company seeks out the very best products available so that their agents can present a superb policy to their potential clients.  Training and education is given a top priority by the company as well.

  It would probably be safe to say that XYZ Company has invested not only time, but money into their company and their sales force.  Since they have stressed ethical behavior, it is also probably safe to say that they do not feel such behavior will hurt them financially.  In fact, they probably feel it will benefit them financially.  Given this scenario, XYZ Company has probably attracted those insurance agents who also give a high priority to ethical behavior.  If an unethical agent came to work there and misrepresented the products (theirs or others), XYZ Company, or any other aspect involved in the sale, how would this affect the ethical agents?

  An agent once relayed this true story.  She had been building a client base for about two years when the agency she worked for became the subject of an investigation by the state's insurance department.  Since she had always prided herself on giving her best efforts to her job and her clients, it was distressing to see the agency she worked for on the evening news.  It did not matter whether the agency had actually done anything wrong.  It did not matter whether she had done anything wrong.  Simply being connected by virtue of employment caused credibility problems.

  In this same context, the agents at XYZ Company would be affected by an unethical agent even though the other agents were very ethical in their behavior.  People believe in the old saying "It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel."  Therefore, one unethical agent will affect how others in the same agency are viewed.  In this context, every agent has a moral or ethical responsibility to all the other agents.  In the case of the agency being investigated, that agency had a moral or ethical responsibility to all of its agents.  Of course, it is the job of the state's insurance department to investigate any complaint.  That certainly does not mean that anyone is actually guilty of doing something wrong.  Chances are, however, if it hits the evening news or the newspapers, it will not matter whether there is any guilt or not.  Opinions will be formed.  Therefore, each insurance agent and each insurance agency has an ethical responsibility to act in a way that will not cast doubt on themselves or others.

End of Chapter 2

United Insurance Educators, Inc.