05/15/02

"LIFE AND TIMES "THE ETHICS PROJECT"

VAL ZAVALA>> ON LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT --

JESS MARLOW>> IMAGINE YOU FIND A WALLET AND SOME CASH ON A BUSY SIDEWALK. WOULD YOU DO THE RIGHT THING?

>> OH, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

>> HE GOES, "MISS, YOU'VE DROPPED SOMETHING." IT'S THE PROPER THING TO DO, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

>> I GUESS I'M HONEST. I LIKE TO THINK I AM.

VAL>> HOW ABOUT A FRIEND WHO'S BEEN CHEATING ON THEIR SPOUSE? WOULD YOU BLOW THE WHISTLE OR KEEP QUIET?

>> YOU KNOW, FIRSTHAND, I WOULD TELL THE OTHER SPOUSE, YES.

>> YEAH, I WOULD TOO BECAUSE EVENTUALLY IT'LL COME OUT ANYWAY, SO, YEAH, BUT IT CAN'T BE RUMOR. (LAUGHTER)

>> (LAUGHTER) YEAH, AND IN A DELICATE MANNER.

JESS>> TONIGHT A LOOK AT EVERYDAY ETHICAL SITUATIONS. WHERE DO YOU DECIDE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG?

VAL>> IT'S ALL COMING UP NEXT ON "THE ETHICS PROJECT", A LIFE AND TIMES SPECIAL. LIFE AND TIMES TONIGHT IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE FOLLOWING FOUNDATIONS: THE L.K. WHITTIER FOUNDATION
DEDICATED TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE BY SUPPORTING INNOVATIVE ENDEAVORS IN THE FIELDS OF MEDICINE, HEALTH, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION. AND THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT THE STATE'S LARGEST HEALTH FOUNDATION SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS THAT DIRECTLY IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF CALIFORNIA'S DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. THE CALIFORNIA ENDOWMENT, A PARTNER FOR HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES.

VAL>> GOOD EVENING, I'M VAL ZAVALA.

JESS>> AND I'M JESS MARLOW.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF SOMEONE SHARED A SECRET WITH YOU, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO INVOLVE SOMETHING IMMORAL? WOULD YOU STILL KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL? OR LET'S SAY YOU DISCOVER THAT A CO-WORKER IS STEALING AT THE OFFICE. SHOULD YOU TELL THE BOSS? THESE ARE REAL LIFE ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND THEY'RE THE KIND OF THINGS WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT AS PART OF OUR CONTINUING "ETHICS PROJECT".

VAL>> WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO'S WRONG AND WHAT WOULD YOU DO? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE'LL ASK OUR GUESTS. AND THEY'RE ALSO THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY WANT TO ASK YOURSELF. WE BEGIN TONIGHT'S "ETHICS PROJECT" WITH A HOUSEHOLD NAME: DEAR ABBY. SHE FACED HER OWN ETHICAL DILEMMA WHEN A READER SHARED HIS SEXUAL FANTASIES ABOUT A LITTLE GIRL. HERE'S MORE FROM PHILIP BRUCE.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> "DEAR ABBY, I'M SENDING THIS LETTER....

PHILIP BRUCE>> 5,000 TO 10,000 PEOPLE WRITE HER EVERY WEEK HOPING SHE'LL SOLVE THEIR EVERYDAY ETHICAL DILEMMAS.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> I DON'T PREACH TO PEOPLE. I DON'T MORALIZE TO PEOPLE. I JUST TRY TO LISTEN TO THE ANGEL ON MY SHOULDER.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> HI. YES, IT'S JEANNIE CALLING...

PHILIP BRUCE>> JEANNIE PHILLIPS IS "DEAR ABBY", DAUGHTER TO THE ORIGINAL WHO WROTE THE COLUMN FOR DECADES. LIKE HER MOM, JEANNIE PROMISES ANONYMITY TO THOSE WHO WRITE HER, BUT A RECENT LETTER LEFT THIS "DEAR ABBY" WITH HER OWN DILEMMA. WHAT TO DO ABOUT A MAN WHO CONFESSED HIS LOVE FOR A TRUSTING TEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL, A MAN WHO WROTE HER IN CONFIDENCE?

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> I SIMPLY COULDN'T SLEEP KNOWING THAT THERE WAS A CHILD AT RISK AND SOMETHING DEFINITIVE HAD TO BE DONE.

PHILIP BRUCE>> SHE SAYS SHE CALLED THE POLICE AND SUGGESTED A QUIET INTERVENTION. IT WAS ANYTHING BUT QUIET. THE POLICE ARRESTED THE MAN.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> THEY HAD FOUND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS COMPUTER.

PHILIP BRUCE>> SHOULD SHE HAVE TURNED HIM IN? JUST ASK THIS LETTER WRITER.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> "FIRST, I THINK YOU DID THE RIGHT THING. AS A SEX OFFENDER, THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED ME FROM HURTING ANYONE ELSE WAS GETTING TURNED IN."

PHILIP BRUCE>> SHE SAYS WE CAN ALL MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES EVERY DAY.

JEANNIE PHILLIPS>> I THINK WE KNOW IN OUR HEARTS WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING. I MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE.

JESS>> ALL RIGHT. DID "DEAR ABBY" DO THE RIGHT THING? HERE TO PONDER THAT IS MICHAEL JOSEPHSON. HE'S THE AWARD-WINNING "CHARACTER COUNTS" RADIO COMMENTATOR AND HE'S THE FOUNDER OF THE JOSEPHSON INSTITUTE FOR ETHICS IN MARINA DEL REY.

ALSO HERE IS BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL. THE WASHINGTON POST CALLS HER ONE OF AMERICA'S MOST IMPORTANT WRITERS. SHE'S ALSO A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR TO NPR'S "MORNING EDITION".

AND THE REVEREND KUSALA. HE'S AN ORDAINED BUDDHIST MONK WHO LIVES AND WORKS AT THE INTERNATIONAL BUDDHIST MEDITATION CENTER IN LOS ANGELES.

WELCOME TO ALL THREE OF YOU. LET ME THROW OUT THE QUESTION. DID "DEAR ABBY" DO THE RIGHT THING? THIS WAS IN FACT A CONFESSIONAL. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THIS WRITER HAD CONFESSED TO A PRIEST OR A CLERGYMAN?

REVEREND KUSALA>> WELL, I THINK "DEAR ABBY" DID DO THE RIGHT THING. ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN TO HURT THE GIRL AND CAUSE HER AND HER PARENTS A LOT OF SUFFERING. IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHERE THE ETHICS COME FROM? IN BUDDHISM, THEY ARE FOUND IN THE FIVE PRECEPTS A BUDDHIST TAKES. THEY ARE: NOT TO KILL, NOT TO STEAL, NOT TO INDULGE IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, NOT TO LIE, AND NOT TO CONSUME INTOXICANTS.

THE PRECEPTS ARE A REFERENCE POINT IN THE LIFE OF A BUDDHIST. WOULD THIS FALL UNDER THE THIRD PRECEPT OF NOT INDULGING IN SEXUAL MISCONDUCT? I'D HAVE TO SAY YES. TO BUDDHISTS, SPECIFICALLY, HAVING LUST FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE BEING SUPPORTED BY THEIR PARENTS IS WRONG. IT CAUSES A LOT OF SUFFERING.

VAL>> SO THIS USURPS HER PROMISE OF ANONYMITY?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> OH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT TO NOT HAVE TURNED THE MAN IN WOULD HAVE BEEN CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT ON HER PART. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT SUPERSEDE CONFIDENTIALITY. THERE ARE SOME SECRETS THAT HAVE TO BE BROKEN AND I THINK THIS MAN'S LETTER WAS IN ACTUALITY A CRY FOR HELP AND A CRY ASKING HER TO STOP HIM BECAUSE HE COULDN'T STOP HIMSELF.

JESS>> BUT IF HE HAD CONFESSED TO A PRIEST?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> I THINK THAT THE GREATER BURDEN OR THE GREATER -- WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AND THAT SUPERSEDES WHATEVER BREACH -- YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TO BREACH CONFIDENTIALITY TO PROTECT THE HELPLESS, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP A SECRET LIKE THAT.

VAL>> MICHAEL, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF THEY HAD ARRESTED THE MAN OR TRIED TO ARREST THE MAN AND THEY FOUND NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, AND IT TURNED OUT THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL HE HAD DONE?

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE HAD DONE ANYTHING ILLEGAL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD SOME EVIL INTENT OR MAY HAVE BEEN EVEN ENDANGERING THE YOUNG GIRL. I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS WE'RE ASSUMING THAT "ABBY" IS LIKE A PRIEST AND THAT'S NOT A REASONABLE EXPECTATION.

I MEAN, THE PRIEST IS IN A VERY DIFFERENT SETTING VIS-À-VIS THE PARISHIONERS AND THERE MAY BE SOME REAL REASONS WHY, FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THAT VALUABLE ISSUE, THE CONFESSIONAL, LET'S SAY, IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PASS UP CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF JUSTICE BECAUSE I THINK A PRIEST WOULD NOT TELL IN THIS CASE.

VAL>> WELL, HOW INTERESTING THAT IS BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THE BEHAVIOR OF "DEAR ABBY" MAY BE RIGHT, BUT DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR BY SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD BE WRONG?

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> BECAUSE THEIR OBLIGATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT. THE FACT THAT SHE'S A NEWSPAPER PERSON, YOU KNOW? THIS IS AN ENTERTAINMENT COLUMN. THERE MAY BE SOME KIND OF EXPECTATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SANCTITY. NOW THE MOST PRECIOUS OF THE PRIVILEGES GENERALLY ARE THE LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE PRIEST-PENITENT PRIVILEGES. YOU PEOPLE THINK IT'S THE REPORTER (LAUGHTER), YOU KNOW, INFORMANT PRIVILEGE.

IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, YOU HAVE AN ETHICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN KEEPING A PROMISE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT MORAL OBLIGATION, AND ALSO IN SOME CASES AVOIDING SIGNIFICANT HARM TO OTHERS. I THINK MANY PEOPLE COME OUT -- FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S A BIG CHALLENGE IN THE LEGAL FIELD RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE TRIED TO MODIFY THE PRIVILEGE FOR LAWYERS SO THAT LAWYERS CAN IN FACT REPORT CLIENTS WHO ARE GOING TO DO HARM IN THE FUTURE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST. THERE ARE MANY STATES THAT ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE THIS AND A FEW STATES THAT ALLOW THIS. I THINK WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT'S AN ETHICAL DILEMMA BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

VAL>> OKAY. THAT WAS TOO EASY. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A HARDER ONE. HERE'S ANOTHER REAL LIFE DILEMMA. IMAGINE THAT YOU DISCOVER A TRUSTED FRIEND IS CHEATING ON HIS OR HER SPOUSE. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? TELL OR KEEP QUIET? HERE'S WHAT SOME PEOPLE TOLD US.

>> I WOULD DEFINITELY CONFRONT THAT PERSON, ABSOLUTELY, AND TELL THEM THAT IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING.

>> I WOULD JUST GIVE THEM SOME GOOD SOUND, MAYBE SPIRITUAL, ADVICE CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH BEHAVIOR.

>> I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

JESS>> (LAUGHTER) SURVEYS INDICATE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON ETHICAL PROBLEMS, SO HERE'S THE QUESTION FOR THE PANEL. WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. IT DEPENDS ON THE FRIEND. I MEAN, IF I'VE GOT A GIRLFRIEND WHO IS WITH A MAN WHO IS A SERIAL PHILANDERER AND IT'S CLEAR THAT SHE KNOWS, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO LET HER KNOW EACH TIME. I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE AGREED UPON. IF I THINK THIS IS WHERE THIS GUY IS PERHAPS -- I'M BEING SEXIST BECAUSE (LAUGHTER) I'M ASSUMING IT'S A GUY --

VAL>> -- GO AHEAD. BE SEXIST.

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> IF IT WERE MY GIRLFRIEND, I WOULD SAY, LOOK, I'D HAVE A TALK. IF --

VAL>> -- I'M SORRY, IF YOUR GIRLFRIEND WERE CHEATING ON HER HUSBAND, YOU WOULD TALK WITH THE GIRLFRIEND?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> RIGHT. I'D PULL HER ASIDE AND TRY -- AS THE LAST PERSON SAID -- I'D TRY TO --

JESS>> -- BUT YOU WOULDN'T TELL THE HUSBAND?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> I MIGHT, DEPENDING ON MY RELATIONSHIP -- OH, TELL THE HUSBAND THAT -- NO, I DON'T THINK I WOULD. NO, I WOULD TALK TO THE PERSON WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE BEHAVIOR.

VAL>> WHAT'S THE MALE PERSPECTIVE ON THAT?

REVEREND KUSALA>> WELL, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO A CELIBATE MONK --

VAL>> -- WELL, THAT'S EVEN MORE INTERESTING. (LAUGHTER)

REVEREND KUSALA>> IT MAKES IT MORE INTERESTING? I SUPPOSE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS REALLY DIFFICULT.

IN BUDDHISM, WE'D SAY HAVING A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP IS VERY IMPORTANT. ONE OF THE WAYS THE THIRD BUDDHIST PRECEPT IS BROKEN, WOULD BE TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH SOMEONE WHO'S MARRIED OR SOMEONE WHO'S ENGAGED OR IF YOU'RE MARRIED.

WOULD I TALK TO THE PERSON WHO'S COMMITTING THE ACT?

PERHAPS, I COULD OFFER COUNSELING. I WOULD TRY AND ADD PERSPECTIVE TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WOULD I COUNSEL THE PERSON WHO WAS BEING CHEATED ON? PROBABLY NOT, UNLESS I WAS ASKED DIRECTLY BY THAT PERSON.

JESS>> THOSE CLEARLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, AREN'T THEY? WHETHER YOU WOULD TELL THE PERSON WHO'S DOING IT AND TRY TO LECTURE OR TALK THEM OUT OF THIS AFFAIR, OR WHETHER YOU'D TELL THE INJURED PARTY.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> AND THE POINT IS, ALL OF THIS EMERGES OUT OF THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OF TRUST AND TRUSTWORTHINESS. THE WAY WE WOULD VIEW IT IN "CHARACTER COUNTS", WHICH IS OUR PROGRAM, IS TO SAY WE WANT TO FIRST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ETHICS OF THE ACTOR AND THE ETHICS OF THE POLICEMAN. YOU SEE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT REPORTING SOMETHING, THIS PERSON IS NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. THE PROBLEM IS, THEY'VE OBSERVED SOMETHING AND NOW THEY HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION. THAT OBLIGATION IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE OBLIGATION OF CANDOR.

WHEN ARE YOU OBLIGATED TO VOLUNTEER INFORMATION THAT YOU KNOW TO SOMEONE? THAT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF TRUST IN THE RELATIONSHIP, YOUR RELATIONSHIP BOTH WITH THE CHEATER AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PERSON CHEATED. BUT ALSO A MORAL PERSON, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS TO ASK HIM OR HERSELF WHAT AM I SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? YOU KNOW, IN SOME CASES, TELLING MIGHT SAVE SOME PAIN TO THE OTHER PERSON. IN OTHER CASES, IT MIGHT INFLICT PAIN IN A VERY SIGNIFICANT WAY. SO I WOULD SAY YOU'RE ACCOUNTABLE TO THINK "WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO?"

VAL>> SO A QUESTION WE MAY ASK OURSELVES IF WE'RE IN THE SITUATION IS "WILL I BE DOING ANY HARM?"

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> WILL I, ON BALANCE, BE DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM?

VAL>> MORE GOOD THAN HARM.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> YOU MAY BE DOING HARM, NO MATTER WHAT. I MEAN, IT'S A BAD THING. BUT I THINK WE'RE RESPONSIBLE TO TRY TO SAY AM I DOING THIS FOR MALICE? AM I JUST DOING IT BECAUSE I HAVE SOME VIEW MYSELF OF WHAT FIDELITY IS? OR AM I DOING IT BECAUSE THIS IS A FRIEND AND I THINK SHE HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW? OR THE OTHER PERSON IS DESTROYING HIS MARRIAGE.

JESS>> LISTENING TO THE THREE OF YOU, IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THERE MAY NOT BE ANY ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTES (LAUGHTER) IN ETHICS.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> NOT WHEN THERE'S AN ETHICAL DILEMMA. YOU SEE, IN EVERY CASE YOU'VE POSED, AND THIS IS WHY THEY'RE INTERESTING, YOU'VE DELIBERATELY POSED CASES WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. THAT ISN'T THE CASE ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE THE ANSWERS ARE CLEAR. YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEM HERE. (LAUGHTER)

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> AND YOU CAN'T IMPOSE YOUR ETHICS ON SOMEONE ELSE. OBVIOUSLY, THE PERSON WHO IS CHEATING, AT LEAST MOMENTARILY WHEN CAUGHT UP IN THE PASSION OF THE AFFAIR, HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW OF ETHICS, OF WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> BUT BE CAREFUL. IF HE WAS MOLESTING HIS DAUGHTER, I THINK YOU'D SAY YOU WOULD IMPOSE YOUR VIEW OF ETHICS ON THAT, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SAVE THE GREATER GOOD OF THE CHILD IN THIS CASE.

VAL>> ABSOLUTELY.

REVEREND KUSALA>> IF I COULD DEFINE, FROM A BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, WHAT A GOOD ACTION WOULD BE.

A GOOD ACTION WOULD BE, FIRST, THE INTENTION. IS THE INTENTION BASED ON RENUNCIATION, LOVING KINDNESS, COMPASSION, GENEROSITY OR WISDOM? WILL THE ACTION ENHANCE MY SPIRITUAL GROWTH? WILL I COME CLOSER TO THE BALANCE OF GREAT WISDOM AND GREAT COMPASSION? AND WILL THIS LEAD TO THE END OF SUFFERING OR AT LEAST A REDUCTION IN SUFFERING?

IF I CAN LOOK THE ACT AND ANALYZE IT IN THAT WAY, THEN I CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION WILL BE SKILLFUL OR GOOD, UNSKILLFUL OR BAD.

JESS>> AND SOME OF US WOULD ASK, "AM I BEING JUST A NOSY BUSYBODY?" (LAUGHTER)

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT FOUND MONEY, CASH IN A WALLET SOMEONE HAS DROPPED ON A BUSY SIDEWALK. WOULD YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO RETURN IT TO THE PERSON WHO LOST IT?

VAL>> WE USED A HIDDEN CAMERA TO FIND OUT WHETHER PERSONAL ETHICS SURVIVE WHEN MONEY IS INVOLVED. YOU MAY BE SURPRISED AT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN OUR PRODUCER HIT THE STREETS WITH A HANDFUL OF WALLETS AND $10 DOLLAR BILLS.

PHILIP BRUCE>> TAKE YOUR AVERAGE COIN PURSE AND STUFF IT WITH KLEENEX, A COMB, A BUSINESS CARD AND CASH. MULTIPLY THAT BY TEN AND HEAD FOR THE STREETS, LIKE THE PROMENADE IN SANTA MONICA AND LYNBROOK DRIVE IN WESTWOOD. NOW DROP THE PURSE AND WATCH OUR HIDDEN CAMERA TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENS. CAN YOU RELY ON THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS?

>> OH, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

PHILIP BRUCE>> HOW ETHICAL ARE THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU?

>> I GUESS YOU WERE RAISED WELL, HUH?

>> YEAH, PROBABLY MY MOM. (LAUGHTER)

PHILIP BRUCE>> WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE GOOD SAMARITANS?

>> AND HE GOES, "MISS, YOU'VE DROPPED SOMETHING." IT WAS THE PROPER THING TO DO, IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

>> I GUESS I'M HONEST. I LIKE TO THINK I AM.

>> OH, IT'S PART OF MY DUTY, CIVIC DUTY, RIGHT?

PHILIP BRUCE>> TIME AFTER TIME, CARING FOLKS SHOWED US THAT HONESTY REALLY IS THE BEST POLICY.

>> YOU'RE AN HONEST PERSON.

>> I TRY.

PHILIP BRUCE>> BUT FOR OTHERS, THE TEMPTATION WAS JUST TOO GREAT. IN LESS THAN FIVE SECONDS, THIS PURSE FOUND ITS WAY INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S HANDS. IT HAPPENED AGAIN AND AGAIN. REMEMBER, THERE'S A BUSINESS CARD INSIDE EACH ONE, BUT WOULD ANYBODY USE IT TO CONTACT US?

>> HELLO, THIS IS THE SANTA MONICA POLICE. I HAVE A FOUND LITTLE WALLET WITH A KEY WITH YOUR CARD IN IT.

PHILIP BRUCE>> EIGHT PEOPLE MADE A SPECIAL EFFORT TO RETURN THE PURSE TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER. FIVE PEOPLE PICKED IT UP WITHOUT SEEING WHO HAD DROPPED IT. ONE TURNED IT INTO POLICE. FOUR PURSES ARE STILL MISSING IN ACTION. THE HONEST SOULS IN OUR EXPERIMENT ALL AGREED IT WAS THEIR INSTINCT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

>> YOU DROPPED YOUR PURSE.

>> MISS, YOU DROPPED THIS.

>> OH, MY GOSH, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

JESS>> AS PHILIP INDICATED, EACH OF THESE WALLETS CONTAINED A BUSINESS CARD AND THAT MAKES IT EASY TO FIND THE OWNER, BUT WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CARD? IS IT THEN OKAY TO KEEP THE MONEY?

REVEREND KUSALA>> NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE, AGAIN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE POISONS WE DEAL WITH AS A BUDDHIST IS GREED. TO BALANCE OUR GREED, ONE OF OUR PRACTICES IS GENEROSITY.

VAL>> WHAT IF YOU'RE A HOMELESS PERSON AND YOU NEED THE TEN DOLLARS AND YOU'RE NOT BEING GREEDY AT ALL?

REVEREND KUSALA>> IT BECOMES PRACTICAL. (LAUGHTER) THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. IT MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO PRACTICE GENEROSITY WHEN YOU'RE HOMELESS, BUT THE SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENT WILL BE THAT MUCH GREATER.

JESS>> BUT IF THERE'S NO CARD IN IT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IT BELONGS TO --

VAL>> -- HOW CAN YOU RETURN IT?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> I'D LIKE TO THINK I WOULD DONATE IT. IF I SEE SOMEONE HOMELESS, I WOULD PASS THE MONEY ON. YOU KNOW, BEING ABSOLUTELY HONEST, KNOWING WHAT MY SCHEDULE IS, I THINK IT WOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, I JUST CAN'T SEE MYSELF GOING TO THE POLICE STATION. SO WHAT I WOULD HOPE I WOULD DO WOULD BE TO GIVE IT SOMEONE WHO NEEDS IT.

JESS>> WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE HOW MUCH MONEY IS IN THE BAG?

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> I THINK IT WOULD. IN FACT, I DID A COMMENTARY ON THIS. ACTUALLY, IT GOT A LOT OF LETTERS ON EXACTLY THIS BECAUSE I TOOK THE POSITION THAT THERE ARE TWO FACTORS. ONE, WHAT IS INTRINSICALLY VALUABLE THERE AND ALSO WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S ESPECIALLY VALUABLE TO THE PERSON WHO LOST IT? FOR INSTANCE, IF IT WAS A CHILD'S PURSE, I'D MAKE A GREATER EFFORT TO TRY TO RETURN IT ON THE THEORY THAT IT MAY BE EMOTIONALLY IMPORTANT TO THAT PERSON AS WELL AS INTRINSICALLY.

MY OWN VIEW IS, THOUGH, THAT ETHICS DOESN'T REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS IF AT LEAST THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE EXTRAORDINARY STAKES IN THE ISSUE. NOW THE MORE MONEY THAT'S INVOLVED, THE MORE LIKELY THE OTHER PERSON IS TO MISS IT, TO LOOK FOR IT AND THEREFORE IF YOU TRIED TO FIND -- IF SOMEBODY LOST A DOLLAR, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT LEGITIMATELY RETURNING IT. IF IT WAS A HUNDRED DOLLARS, HE WOULD PROBABLY BE REPORTING IT TO SOMEONE. SO I THINK IT ISN'T THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO IT BECAUSE IT'S A LESSER AMOUNT, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SORT OF THE INNOCENT BYSTANDER HERE AND WHAT BURDEN IS REASONABLE? I LIKE THE IDEA OF FINDING THE MONEY AND GIVING IT AWAY. YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE, BUT I DON'T THINK --

VAL>> -- SO THIS ALL SOUNDS LIKE ETHICS BY DEGREES. YOU KNOW, SITUATIONAL DEPENDS. IT SEEMS LIKE IS THERE NO SIMPLE RIGHT, WRONG --

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> -- BECAUSE YOU WANT ETHICS BY MATHEMATICS.

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> WELL, WITHOUT A BUSINESS CARD, YOU REALLY CAN'T IDENTIFY WHO THE OWNER IS, SO THEN AM I GOING TO TAKE THIS TEN DOLLARS AND SPEND IT ON MYSELF OR AM I GOING TO TAKE TEN DOLLARS DOWN TO THE POLICE STATION?

REVEREND KUSALA>> CAN I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FOUND IN THE THAI BUDDHIST TRADITION? IN THE THAI FOREST TRADITION, THE MONKS ARE FROM THE EARLY BUDDHIST TRADITION OF THERAVADA.

IF A MONK IS EATING AND SOMEONE PICKS UP HIS APPLE, LOOKS AT IT AND SAYS, "MY, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL APPLE" AND PUTS IT BACK IN THE MONKS BOWL, THE MONK NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH THAT APPLE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE OWNERSHIP IS NOW IN QUESTION. THE PERSON THAT TOUCHED THE APPLE LAST OWNS ITAND THE NEW OWNER HAS TO FORMALLY GIVE THAT APPLE BACK TO THE MONK.

OF COURSE, THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS DON'T TOUCH A MONK'S FOOD (LAUGHTER) OR HE WON'T BE ABLE TO EAT. HE DOESN'T OWN IT AND CAN'T EAT IT, AFTER IT'S BEEN TOUCHED BY SOMEONE.

VAL>> REALLY?

REVEREND KUSALA>> YES.

JESS>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO A DILEMMA THAT YOU MIGHT FACE AT WORK. WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU DISCOVER THAT A CO-WORKER IS STEALING AT THE OFFICE? HERE'S WHAT SOME FOLKS TOLD US.

>> I THINK I WOULD GO TO THEM AND TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT'S WRONG.

>> TALK TO EITHER THAT PERSON OR MY OWN SUPERVISOR AND LET THEM DEAL WITH IT.

>> I'D WANT TO TELL THE BOSS BECAUSE THEN OTHERWISE I'M AN ACCOMPLICE.

JESS>> NOBODY LIKES A SQUEALER, BUT IS IT ETHICAL TO KEEP QUIET IN THIS SITUATION?

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> I THINK, AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STAKEHOLDERS. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE HERE WHO'S STOLEN, PROBABLY WILL STEAL AGAIN. I THINK YOU HAVE A HIGHER OBLIGATION. FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO STOP IT. IT'S POSSIBLE, IF YOU HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE THIEF, THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN STOP IT. HAVE THE MONEY RETURNED BY DIRECT CONFRONTATION WITH THE THIEF. I THINK THAT'S A LEGITIMATE ETHICAL OPTION.

I DON'T THINK DOING NOTHING IS A LEGITIMATE ETHICAL OPTION. IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT STOPPING IT IS REALLY FEASIBLE IN TERMS OF TALKING TO THE PERSON, THEY'LL SHINE YOU ON OR MAY RETURN THIS ONE, BUT STEAL, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY, "I NEED TO REPORT YOU BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND IT'S WRONG."

VAL>> WHAT IF YOU WORK IN A PLACE THAT HAS CAMERAS ALL AROUND? YOU SAY, "LOOK, THEY'VE GOT CAMERAS WATCHING EMPLOYEES AND WATCHING WORKERS."

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> SO WHAT? THAT'S A RATIONALIZATION. YOU'RE A CAMERA TOO. DON'T PUT IT ON SOMEONE ELSE. IF YOU SAW IT, YOUR CAMERA TOOK THE PICTURE. BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE.

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> I THINK YOU CAN'T -- IT THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DICEY GOING TO THE THIEF. DEPENDING ON HOW CLEVER THIS THIEF IS, YOU COULD JEOPARDIZE YOUR OWN POSITION THERE BECAUSE MAYBE THIS THIEF COULD TURN IT AROUND AND MAKE IT APPEAR THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WAS STEALING. SO I THINK THE FAIREST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO GIVE THE THIEF WARNING THAT, AT SUCH AND SUCH A TIME, A SMALL WINDOW OF TIME, I AM GOING TO REPORT THIS.

VAL>> HOW ABOUT GOING ANONYMOUSLY TO THE EMPLOYER?
REVEREND KUSALA>> I WOULD HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THAT, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE POSSIBLE PERHAPS TO WORK WITH THE THIEF FROM AN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE AND ACTUALLY EXPLAIN WHY IT MIGHT BE UNSKILLFUL TO TAKE MONEY AND THE KARMIC RAMIFICATIONS, IF YOU WILL, OF THAT ACTION?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> THAT'S A GREAT RISK. THAT'S A GREAT RISK.

VAL>> BUT, REALISTICALLY, WOULD MANY OF US FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT? GOING TO A PERSON WE DON'T KNOW THAT WELL, JUST A CO-WORKER, AND GIVING THEM SOME KIND OF MORAL LESSON?
MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> VERY FEW PEOPLE APPRECIATE IT AND FALL TO THEIR KNEES AND SAY THANK YOU FOR CALLING MY MORAL FAILINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION. (LAUGHTER) I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO ANALYZE AND I KNOW THAT BOTHERED YOU LAST TIME WHEN I SAID IT DEPENDS. BUT WHAT'S YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT PERSON? IF THEY TRULY ARE A STRANGER, IT'S ONE THING. IT COULD BE SOMEONE YOU KNOW VERY WELL AND YOU'VE WORKED WITH HIM. YOU SAY, "LISTEN, I'VE NOTICED YOU DOING IT." IT'S LIKE CHEATING ON THEIR SPOUSE.

I THINK WE, FIRST OF ALL, WANT TO BE COMMITTED TO HELPING PEOPLE. WE WANT TO BE COMMITTED TO A WORLD AND A LIFE OF INTEGRITY, SO WE HAVE TO SAY, "WHAT IS THE BEST ACTION THAT I CAN TAKE THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT PARTICULAR RESULT?" WHAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT, IN MY VIEW, DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OPTION.

VAL>> WHAT IF -- HERE'S ANOTHER ONE -- WHAT IF THE WORKER IS SAYING, "I'M RIPPING OFF THIS COMPANY BECAUSE I KNOW THIS COMPANY IS RIPPING OFF CONSUMERS"?

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> THEN DON'T WORK HERE. YOU KNOW, THEN FIND ANOTHER JOB. THAT'S WHY I REALLY DON'T FEEL ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION WITH THE THIEF IS GOING TO BE PRODUCTIVE OR SUPERIOR IN AN ETHICAL WAY. I THINK YOU JUST SAY "THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT 3:00 TOMORROW." GIVE HIM ENOUGH TIME TO TURN HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN AND THAT'S IT.

VAL>> END OF STORY.

JESS>> ALL RIGHT. HERE'S ONE THAT, PARTICULARLY FOR YOU WRITERS, WILL BE IMPORTANT. LET'S TALK ABOUT PLAGIARISM. LATELY RESPECTED AUTHORS SUCH AS DORIS KERNS GOODWIN AND STEVEN AMBROSE HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF "LIFTING" OTHER PEOPLES' WORK, PASSING IT OFF AS THEIR OWN. AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE STUDENTS WHO ACQUIRE THEIR TERM PAPERS OVER THE INTERNET? WHO DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN RESEARCH AND CHEATING? PHILIP BRUCE TAKES US TO A COLLEGE CAMPUS TO FIND OUT.

>> STRESS, PIMPLES, BREAKING OUT.

>> STAYING IN YOUR PAJAMAS.

>> EATING, SLEEPING AND STUDYING IS ABOUT ALL YOU DO.

>> AND SEX. (LAUGHTER)

PHILIP BRUCE>> IT'S THE PRESSURE OF ASSIGNMENTS, MIDTERMS AND FINALS AT UCLA. ON ANY COLLEGE CAMPUS, IT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE SOME STUDENTS CROSS THE LINE.

DR.STEVEN HARDINGER>> THERE'S JUST A HUGE PRESSURE WITH A LOT OF THESE STUDENTS TO CHEAT.

PHILIP BRUCE>> DR. STEVEN HARDINGER SAYS ABOUT FIVE TO TEN PERCENT OF HIS CHEMISTRY STUDENTS CHEAT BY COPYING MATERIAL FROM THE INTERNET AND CALLING IT THEIR OWN.

DR. STEVEN HARDINGER>> EVERYTHING WHICH HAS BEEN PLAGIARIZED IS COLOR-CODED TO THE SITE IT CAME FROM.

PHILIP BRUCE>> HIS NEWEST WEAPON IN THE WAR AGAINST PLAGIARISM? A WEBSITE CALLED TURNITIN.COM.

DR. STEVEN HARDINGER>> AND RIGHT DOWN IN HERE, THEY WOULD PUT THEIR MAIN TEXT.

PHILIP BRUCE>> STUDENTS ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT THEIR ASSIGNMENTS TO THE SITE. IT USES A DATABASE TO SCAN EACH PAPER FOR SIGNS OF PLAGIARISM.

DR. STEVEN HARDINGER>> THIS PARTICULAR PAPER, AS WE CAN SEE OVER HERE, IS ORANGE WHICH MEANS THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IT.

PHILIP BRUCE>> HOW DO STUDENTS REACT WHEN HE QUESTIONS THEIR ETHICS?

DR. STEVEN HARDINGER>> ANYWHERE FROM "NO, I DIDN'T DO IT, YOU'RE MISTAKEN" TO BREAKING DOWN AND CRYING AND "PLEASE DON'T TELL MY PARENTS. I'LL GET KICKED OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY AND IT'S THE END OF MY LIFE."

ROBERT NAPLES>> FOR A PLAGIARISM CASE, STUDENTS FOUND GUILTY ARE USUALLY FACING A SUSPENSION FROM THE UNIVERSITY.

PHILIP BRUCE>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS UCLA STUDENT WHO WANTS TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS. LISTEN TO WHAT HE FOUND ON THE INTERNET.

INTERNET PLAGIARIST>> STUFF THAT I COULD TAKE, BORROW -- WELL, STEAL, I GUESS IT TURNED OUT TO BE -- AND USING MY OWN PAPER, WHICH I DID.

PHILIP BRUCE>> IT WAS ACADEMIC THEFT, A BLACK MARK ON HIS RECORD AND A SEVERE SUSPENSION.

INTERNET PLAGIARIST>> I KNOW IT WAS JUST A REALLY STUPID THING TO DO AND I REALIZE THAT AND I'M KIND OF GLAD THAT I WAS CAUGHT BECAUSE IT WAS A GOOD LESSON.

VAL>> SO HE SAYS IT WAS A REALLY STUPID THING TO DO. IS IT POSSIBLE TO CHEAT OR TO PLAGIARIZE AND SIMPLY NOT REALIZE THAT YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG? YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF WHAT YOU'VE DONE?

REVEREND KUSALA>> I WOULD SAY NO. I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING, AGAIN, FROM BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVE, IS THE BREAKING OF TWO PRECEPTS. THE PRECEPT AGAINST STEALING AND THE PRECEPT AGAINST LYING. WHEN A PERSON LIES, HE INVALIDATES REALITY, WHICH CREATES MORE DELUSION, AND IN TIME GREATER SUFFERING.

WE ALL HAVE STUFF, AND WE'RE ATTACHED TO OUR STUFF. WHEN YOU BORROW OR TAKE SOMEBODY'S STUFF, WITHOUT PERMISSION, YOU'RE CREATING SUFFERING FOR THEM, AS WELL AS YOURSELF. AS IT TURNS OUT, THE STUDENT WAS EXPELLED.

JESS>> BUT AS YOU'RE STUDYING, YOU'RE ABSORBING IDEAS AND SOME OF THOSE YOU'RE GOING TO REPEAT IN YOUR WRITINGS, BUT --

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> -- BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO REGURGITATE THEM WORD FOR WORD --

JESS>> -- WORD FOR WORD AND PARAGRAPH FOR PARAGRAPH.
BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, YES.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> YOU KNOW, IN THE OLD DAYS BEFORE INTERNET, WE USED TO COPY FROM THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE IN THE FIFTH GRADE AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN IMAGINE HOW TO WORD IT DIFFERENTLY. BUT TODAY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL -- YOU HAVE AN INTERESTING CASE WITH DORIS KERNS GOODWIN BECAUSE SHE SAYS HER NOTES WERE TAKEN SO MANY YEARS AGO AND IT WAS BEFORE SHE HAD EVERYTHING ON COMPUTER THAT SHE ACTUALLY WROTE DOWN A PASSAGE THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD WRITTEN. LET'S GIVE CREDIT TO THAT.

I MEAN, INTENT IS CRITICAL, AS HE SAYS. IF THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE, IT ISN'T STEALING IN THE SAME WAY, BUT IT WAS INADVERTENTLY USING SOMEBODY ELSE'S. BUT THESE KIDS, THEY'RE USING IT AS EXCUSES. THEY'RE TIRED, THEY'RE UNDER PRESSURE. IF THEY THINK SCHOOL IS PRESSURE, TRY LIFE.

VAL>> I KNOW, BUT YOU GO TO THE INTERNET TODAY AND YOU CAN BUY READY-MADE ESSAYS ON HUNDREDS OF TOPICS. WE HAVE A WHOLE WORLD OUT THERE, A WHOLE SYSTEM, THAT'S SAYING, "HERE, IT'S EASY TO DO, IT'S OKAY." FOR TEN BUCKS, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT YOUR TERM PAPER DONE.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> YOU CAN COPY VIDEOS. YOU CAN STEAL SOFTWARE. THE EASE OF IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MORALITY OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE USED TO CALL THINGS TEMPTATIONS. NOW WE CALL THEM PRESSURES.

VAL>> NO, BUT IT MIGHT CONFUSE --

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> -- THEY'RE NOT CONFUSED. DON'T BE NAÏVE.

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> HE WASN'T CONFUSED. HE WAS GRATEFUL THAT HE WAS CAUGHT AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY TELLING, THAT HE SAID IT WAS A GOOD LESSON FOR HIM, THAT HE REALIZED HE HAD DONE WRONG. I THINK MOST KIDS ARE NOT CONFUSED AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE PENALTIES.

JESS>> MAKES IT TOUGH FOR THE PROFESSOR, FOR THE TEACHER.

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> WELL, NOW THEY HAVE THE SOFTWARE --

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> -- I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TOUGH. I MEAN, I THINK IN TERMS OF WHETHER TO PUT SOMEONE OUT OR NOT --

JESS>> -- NO, WHETHER THEY COULD FIND OUT WHETHER IT'S PLAGIARISM OR NOT. (LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> IN KANSAS CITY, A TEACHER CAUGHT ALMOST FIFTY STUDENTS IN PLAGIARISM LIKE THIS. SHE PENALIZED THEM AND THEN THE BOARD OF EDUCATION REVERSED HER DECISION. THAT'S THE WORLD WE'RE LIVING IN.--

BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL>> -- WITH THE PRESSURE OF THE PARENTS.
MICHAEL JOSEPHSON>> IT'S NOT ONLY AN ISSUE OF -- YOU TALK ABOUT PRESSURE. THE PRESSURE IS AGAINST INTEGRITY, NOT FOR INTEGRITY. AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE PARENTS WHO, INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING THE TEACHERS, ARE OUT THERE THREATENING TO SUE THEM.

JESS>> WE'LL DO ONE SOMEDAY ON EXECUTIVE ETHICS. (LAUGHTER)

VAL>> MUCH NEEDED ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO MICHAEL JOSEPHSON, TO BEBE MOORE CAMPBELL AND TO REVEREND KUSALA. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.

JESS>> YOU CAN KEEP TRACK OF "THE ETHICS PROJECT" ON OUR WEBSITE. JUST LOG ONTO KCET.ORG AND CLICK ON "THE ETHICS PROJECT" ICON. DON'T COPY IT. (LAUGHTER) YOU'LL ALSO FIND OUR CYBER POLL THERE DEALING WITH TONIGHT'S BROADCAST. GIVE YOUR ANSWER AND WE'LL REPORT THE RESULTS ON AN UPCOMING EDITION OF LIFE AND TIMES.

VAL>> AND IN FACT LAST WEEK'S CYBER POLL ON THE ETHICS OF NEWS PRODUCED AN INTERESTING RESULT. THE QUESTION, "SHOULD HIGH-SPEED POLICE PURSUITS BE TELEVISED LIVE?" 37.5 PERCENT, ALMOST 38 PERCENT OF YOU, SAID YES, YOU DON'T MIND THOSE HIGH-SPEED CHASES. BUT 62.5 PERCENT SAID NO, KEEP THEM OFF LIVE TELEVISION.

THAT'S A LOOK AT THE ETHICS OF EVERYDAY LIFE. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE WITH US FOR OUR NEXT SPECIAL WHEN WE'LL FOCUS ON THE ETHICS OF HOLLYWOOD.

JESS>> NOW FOR ALL OF US HERE AT LIFE AND TIMES, HAVE A GREAT EVENING.