VITAL SIGNSrnETHICSrnPeddlers of Virtuernby Theodore PappasrnThe recent controversy involvingrnOlympic diving star Greg Louganisrnhighlights more than the moral degeneracyrnof the latest poster boy for AIDS.rnWhen Louganis hit his head on the divingrnboard and bled into the pool at thern1988 Olympics, the only honorable andrnmorally just thing for him to do was tornnotify all concerned that he was HIVpositive.rnInstead, he chose to think onlyrnof himself, to save himself the embarrassmentrnof revealing his dark secret, andrnto hide the truth about his medical staternfrom both his fellow competitors andrnthe doctor who treated his bloodyrnwound without the protection of gloves.rnThe party line on this story, from thernEstablishment press, the medical community,rnand the Olympic hierarchy, wasrnas predictable as the Speedo queen’srnsexual orientation. High and low didrnOlympic minions search for a rule thatrnwould have required Louganis to disclosernhis affliction, and having foundrnnone all sighed in collective relief andrndeclared triumphantly: “He did nothingrnwrong.” In fact, not only did “he dornnothing wrong,” but for jeopardizing thernlives of dozens of people he became arnman of “courage” and “conviction,” thernsuccessor to Magic Johnson as the latestrnathlete to become a national hero as arnresult of acquiring a sexually transmittedrndisease.rnOf course, what Louganis’s many defendersrnactually mean by “he did nothingrnwrong” is that “he broke no law,”rnand in the difference between the two—rnnay, in the deliberate distortion of therntwo, in the ascendancy of illicity as thernbarometer of iniquity—lies a story aboutrnthe state of contemporary ethics.rnOnce upon a time man was not thernmeasure of all things, and morality,rnvirtue, and acceptable behavior werernjudged by standards that transcendedrnthe ephemera of time and circumstance.rnRecent history, however, teaches a differentrnlesson, and if we have learnedrnnothing else from the general knavery ofrnour leadership class, from the rogues andrnscoundrels of United Way and thernNAACP, from the “public servants” whornbrought us ABSCAM, Contragate,rnWhitewater, and the endless Bimbogatesrnof the current administration, it isrnthat contemporary ethics are groundedrnin the here and now, in secular law. Inrnassessing both public and private conductrntoday, the foremost concern is nornlonger whether the deed or intent wasrnright or wrong, ignoble or just, butrnwhether the behavior in question wasrnstrictly illegal or in violation of a bureaucraticrncode or organizational statute. Asrninfluence-peddler Michael Deaver explainedrnin exculpation of his actions,rnwhat he did may have been unethical,rnbut at least it wasn’t illegal.rnIn healthier days, we turned to parentsrnand clergy, literature and liturgy,rnfor help in maneuvering with dignityrnthrough that labyrinth of temptationrncalled everyday life. Whether Christianrnor pagan, we realized that a person’s behaviorrnhad more to do with his characterrnthan with his collection of sheep skins,rnand that we could not buy better moralsrnfrom a peddler of virtue—whetherrnSophist, college professor, or “ethics facilitator”rn—as we do fruit and vegetablesrnat a country market. But the notion thatrnmoral turpitude might be tied morernto character development than thernforces of environment, education, orrneconomics is not only irrelevant in ourrnpost-Christian age, but irreverent:rnit delegitimizes the entire multimilliondollarrnindustry that our crisis inrnconscience has spawned. Law schools,rnmedical schools, and business schoolsrnare today replete with required classes inrnethics, and municipal governments, localrnschool boards, federal agencies, andrncorporations now routinely have paidrnethicists on staff or hold periodic seminarsrnconducted by “ethics specialists.”rnAs the gurus of fad diets and gut-bustersrnwell know, only reform and redemptionrnsell better than sin.rnAmong the most nationally famous ofrnthese professional Elmer Gantrys arernCharles “Chuck” Colson and Jeb StuartrnMagruder, now both ordained ministers.rnThough few people question the sincerityrnof these gentlemen’s ministries, it isrnnevertheless a telling sign of the timesrnwhen for moral guidance we now turn tornthe bunglers of Watergate. But it mayrnwell be the checkered pasts of suchrn”experts” that prove most instructive.rnFor they remind us of the questionrnposed by Juvenal—Quis custodiet ipsosrncustodes?—about who will watch thernMAY 1995/43rnrnrn