schroeds wrote:There is miles of op-ed being written right now about Armstrong, and I'm not going to add to it, well not yet What I'm thinking about is if and how these events affect our cultural standards of ethics and our view of the value of truth. If you can absolve yourself of past crimes by putting on some showbiz sparkle, 'fessing up while lookin' good, and then get on with your life with a smirk, dusting your hands with a 'job done' attitude as Lance seems intent on doing (and we've seen plenty of similarly high flying corporate mea culpas in recent years), does that not somehow reduce the implied seriousness of the fact that you treated the truth with such disregard?
Clayton M Christensen, one of the world's leading thinkers on innovation said: 'It's easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time. The boundary - your own personal moral line - is powerful if you don't cross it; if you have justified doing so once, there's nothing to stop you doing it again. Decide what you stand for and then stand for it all the time.'
It's a bit like the kids story, every time you cuss a fairy dies. Well, every time a high profile person gets away with stuff the rest of us would go to jail for, does the value of truth not die a little?
And if we end up in a society where truth is no longer important, our moral corruption leads us ... where....
Schroeder - I think the general world wide reaction to Oprah Part 1 shows that we are not at that stage yet.
From what I have seen only Pat Mcquaid has praised Lance's performance.... The rest of the world has seen through it.
But great post, though!