Getting it straight on the washpost story

after re-reading my original post and the large volume of comments (some not so nice), i have an updated take on the washpost piece.

first, i can see how mr o’hara’s read was right that i did get personal with murry. that was totally unnecessary and i’m sorry for it. i also want to point out that i wrote that on a blackberry on a plane with no intent of it growing into a jihad shitstorm for murry or myself.

second, i still stand behind my right to bring up the case as an example of the lack of ethical backbone at HBS. i also dont believe that anhyone has a right to privacy (legally or morally) once their case has been in public domain.

third, the question of redemption, the whole point of my original post was that it seems there is no corporate memory around ethics. the reason i mentioned fastow in a comment was that i was impressed with the way he handled himself after admitting guilt. my understanding is that he plea bargained to get his wife’s sentence commuted so she could raise their kids. i also read that he was contrite in court. i do believe people can seek redemption and in doing so can take back their story and turn it to a positive. never too late.

in general, this whole episode has been positive in raising these important questions of ethics and privacy. the internet and specifically google and wikipedia as semi permananent records will take on whole new meanings in our lives
(public and private) going forward.

2 thoughts on “Getting it straight on the washpost story

  1. Hey Mark,
    Thanks for giving this issue more thought.
    I object to one of your conclusions: “i also dont believe that anyone has a right to privacy (legally or morally) once their case has been in public domain.” I disagree that a person should lose his moral right to privacy because he has been in the public domain many years ago in a relatively obscure manner. I found a nice statement of my viewpoint on the web a minute ago:
    “Moral rights are justified by moral standards that most people acknowledge, but which are not codified in law, and therefore have been interpreted differently by different people.
    One of the most important and influential interpretations of moral rights is based on the work of Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher. Kant maintained that each of us has a worth or a dignity that must be respected. This dignity makes it wrong for others to abuse us or to use us against our will. Kant expressed this idea in a moral principle: humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. To treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance one’s own interest. But to treat a person as an end is to respect that person’s dignity by allowing each the freedom to choose for himself or herself.”
    I would be curious to understand your approach to determining the moral right to privacy and when one should lose it.

  2. Mark,
    Although my opinion differs (in increasing importance of obscurity as a form of privacy) from your belief that no one has “a right to privacy (legally or morally) once their case has been in public domain”, I appreciate this post very much indeed.
    Best Wishes.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s