In the course of our lives we are constantly confronted by ethical choices. Most are of relatively minor consequence, such as should I call in sick to work even though I’m not physically sick? Most of us have taken “mental health days” on occasion; though, hopefully, we did not do it when our work responsibilities would suffer that day if we stayed home.

We seem to be more concerned about ethical choices made by young children, perhaps because we know that even a minor ethical compromise could cause a child to think that such compromises are not all that important, which could lead to very serious ethical lapses when the child grows older. I remember when I was a kid I found a very fancy toy gun in the grassy common area of the garden apartments where we lived. My father noticed me playing with it and insisted I return it. First I tried the line “finder’s keepers, loser’s weepers” but my father wasn’t impressed. I then argued that there was no way I could return the toy because I didn’t know who owned it. This didn’t work either, as my father told me to place it back where I had found it, as the child who owned the toy would no doubt be looking for it at that spot. This explanation affected me, as I could picture the toy’s owner looking desperately for it and feeling sad when he couldn’t find it – because I had it. This incident taught me a valuable lesson about the consequences of taking something that didn’t belong to me that stays with me to this day.

I think the best ethical choices are made when the person making them considers how they will affect other people. Conversely, some of the most horrible choices are made when people either don’t consider how their choices will affect others or try to depersonalize the effects of their choices. For instance, Bernard Madoff must have known that his Ponzi scheme would destroy the lives of thousands of people, but I’m sure he had excuses to justify it. He was providing a service that people wanted. Perhaps he’d make enough money to pay everyone back. He was just providing for the welfare of his family. Did he actually picture in his mind the misery that his actions would inflict on those who trusted him with their money and who lost their life savings as a result? Did he ever consider how he and his family would feel if they were the victims of such a scheme?

The recent public release of the so-called “torture memos” raises similar issues. An August 1, 2002, Justice Department memorandum to then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez dealt with the issue of what constitutes illegal torture prohibited by the United States Code. The Justice Department lawyers who wrote the legal memorandum were very learned attorneys. One, John Yoo, was, and still is, a highly regarded law professor. His supervisor, Jay Bybee, was also a law professor and is now a federal judge. I’ve read their memorandum and it is an impressive piece of legal writing. Their memorandum makes an arguable case that, based on legal precedent, the only actions prohibited by the U.S. Code are those which cause “severe pain” which is physical pain “of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure” or mental pain “that requires lasting psychological harm.” What is absent in this memorandum is any acknowledgement that the government was going to use it to justify the infliction of waterboarding, beating, sleep deprivation and other actions that the world has historically considered to be torture. Did Yoo and Bybee ever consider the use that would be made of their memorandum or was it just an intellectual exercise for them? Did they think of how they would feel if “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used on them, their friends or their family members? I was a government attorney for 33 years and I hope I would have refused to participate in the creation of such a memorandum.

I fully agree with Ethical Culture founder Felix Adler that all people have inherent worth. Accordingly, it’s important to personalize ethical choices, not depersonalize them. If more people, especially those with wealth and power, abided by this principle, the world would be a better place.