Doing What's Right

I'm hearing the same things out of the Penn State sexual abuse situation that you are. You probably have heard more than I have. But what I hear is not good. Just saw a tweet that Penn State may be preparing for Paterno's exit.

So many issues come out of this mess. One is that we must always do what is right even if it is embarrassing or painful.

So what is right? If you meet the requirements of the law are you right? In some cases you are. If the law says the speed limit is 45 mph and you are driving 45 mph you are right. But if the rules say you must report wrong-doing and you do but you don't do anything else that might prevent or protect, are you still right?

I say, no. "Legal" is one step along the way to "right." Ethical action is often a greater action that simply taking the legally required steps. A legalist would say that a coach must report suspected wrong-doing. An ethicist would say that the coach should do more to prevent the wrong-doing from continuing or repeating and to protect those who may have been injured or harmed in some other way by the act.

A pastor is legally required to report cases of abuse that he might learn about through his ministerial position. If I learn about a case of sexual child abuse I have to report it - I've legally met the requirements when I do. Do I have a moral obligation to help the child? I think so.

It seems from what I know about the Penn State situation is that the legal steps were met but no further steps were taken.

Are we such a legalistic culture that we will accept this? You might not think that such a permissive culture as ours could also be legalistic, but that's a fitting description if we are satisfied with simply meeting the legal requirements.

We'll see if there are any moral absolutes left. Or if we care about them.