The Ethics Scoreboard was launched partly in response to the growing perception that much of the American public was unable to make ethical distinctions or apply the principles of ethics to national events and issues. When a letter appears in a major newspaper like Alice Sherman's January 16, 2007 letter to the editor of the Washington Post, it serves as a stark reminder of how bad the situation still is, and how it will take a lot more than the Scoreboard to change it.

It would help a great deal if political pundits and elected officials did not actively encourage public acceptance of false ethical concepts. When people make assertions they believe are true that later turn out to be false, that is not lying, contrary to what Howard Dean says. Despite what Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham claim, the bad conduct of other nations does not and should not lower the ethical standards for the United States. And when Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. Charles Rangel and other anti-war advocates on the Left claim that a decision-maker must have a family member in the armed forces to be a legitimate supporter of the conflict in Iraq, they are spreading ethics ignorance of the most appalling sort, creating instant ethics dunces like Ms. Sherman, whose letter began,

Here's a new rule: If you support escalating the Iraq war, you must name the family member you will be sending there.

Yup, that's a new rule all right---a rule that requires a conflict of interest, guarantees that leaders will lack independent judgement, and turns the principles of ethics upside down. Alice didn't come up with this ethics equivalent of hitting yourself in the head with a brick without help, I suspect. The "new rule" line is a trademark of HBO libertarian-hedonist scold Bill Maher, whose ethical instincts are about as confused as ethical instincts can be without their owner ending up in prison. More recently, Sherman's "new rule" was endorsed by Senator Boxer, who implied that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was unqualified to advocate the war because she had no children. The controversy sparked by Boxer's obnoxious remark focused on its anti-feminist aspects, but its anti-ethical aspects were worse.

The Sherman-Boxer-Rangel "rule" stands for the bizarre proposition that one makes better decisions in a job when one's personal interests are involved than when they are not. These revolutionary anti-ethicists don't want national leaders thinking only about what's in the best interest of the country. No, they want a rule that sets up an emotional hurdle: which do you care about more, your nation and your duty as a public servant, or your child and your duty as a parent? The fact that such a conflict is grounds for mandatory withdrawal for lawyers, recusal for judges and re-assignment of duties for almost every profession imaginable seems to carry no weight for these pseudo-moralists at all.

Boxer may have an excuse; after all, her workplace, the U.S. Senate, is crawling with members who seem to find excuses to send large amounts of taxpayer money to projects, non-profits, and special interests that employ their family members. The Democratic Senate leader, Harry Reid, has used earmarks to enrich numerous organizations that employ his offspring, lawyers and lobbyists all. In doing so, he is choosing his family's welfare over that of the country, and that's good, right Ms. Sherman? How strange that the Senate is trying to pass a "new rule" that outlaws what Reid and many of his colleagues, Democrat and Republican, do routinely.

The "new rule" has so many applications! For example, no legislator should be able to vote for a law against drug-pushing unless they have a family member who is a dealer or an addict. When the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the death penalty, only judges who have a son or daughter on Death Row should have a vote. If it's Roe v. Wade under review, only judges with daughters who have been recently impregnated by rapists should have a say. If it's gay marriage, only Justices with gay family members in committed relationships should hear the case. The rule is great for lawyers too: surely it would be a good thing if only lawyers who have had a family member murdered were appointed to defend serial killers. Make sure those lawyers representing accused terrorists lost a loved one in the Twin Towers. And don't forget about doctors: the new rule would force any surgeon trying out a new procedure or treatment to try it on his family members first. That's only fair, right, Alice?

The rule fits less lofty jobs just as well. Surely every teacher should have their own son or daughter in their class; they'll be less likely to hand out too much homework that way. We've been thinking about these so-called "conflicts" all wrong, it seems. Take coaching athletic teams. The conventional wisdom has been that having your son or daughter on a team you coach makes it hard both for the coach to be fair and to seem fair. But listen to Alice Sherman: bias is good! No extra laps or push-ups when Junior or Kitten have to take their medicine too.

All right, enough sarcasm (yes, Alice, I was joshing). If Boxer, Rangel and others in positions of responsibility really believe their ridiculous argument, they shouldn't be trusted to play Parcheesi, much less with national policy. It is a rejection of the principle of conflict of interest, and an argument for bias as a basis for decision-making. Their argument probably arises from something worse than ignorance, however. It is fueled by disrespect and distrust. They believe, or more likely, want the public to believe, that our leaders who support the war don't think seriously about the casualties and death that will be experienced by military families, that it is all some kind of game to them, that they are so shallow and soulless that decisions of life and death are made with little thought or care until someone they love is put at risk. Theirs is an arrogant and self-righteous attitude for any elected leader, and promoting such an insulting and dehumanizing untruth to the public is irresponsible at best.

At its core, the "new rule" is also disingenuous. While it claims to be aimed at promoting better decisions, it is really designed to eliminate the chances of a decision that will result in any warfare, regardless of the needs of the country, the rightness of the cause, or the provocation. It is, in short, a disguised method of opposing war under any circumstances. Being an anti-war absolutist can an honorable position but only if it is stated openly and clearly. Boxer, Rangel and others don't have the courage to take such a position openly, so they depend on deceptive rhetoric that makes conflicts of interest sound desirable to people like Alice Sherman.

The Ethics Scoreboard has a new rule to suggest too. Let members of Congress demonstrate by real ethics reform and genuine, non-political ethics oversight that they actually comprehend what ethical conduct is before they say any more to muddle the ethics comprehension of the public. Once they learn a bit about ethics, they will understand that conflict of interest and bias leads to bad decision-making, not good. Then they can pass along what they have learned to Alice Sherman.