Wanderer...I don't think you are thinking far enough outside of the WTS box. There is a much bigger picture.
The WTS believes that they alone will decide how they will deal with ethical issues ….or put another way, they alone decide if they are acting in an ethical manner or not. If you are within the JW organization, that premise is repeated over and over again and the vast amount of literature seems to back it up.
I would like you to take off the JW hat for just a moment to ponder one of the current ethical issues that face the WTS.
Here is the scenario: the WTS has taken the position that under the clergy provision, it has the right to create its own internal rules in regards to what constitutes the sexual abuse of a minor and whether that information should be turned over to criminal investigators. Under the WTS criteria, sexual abuse of a minor is not relevant unless a minimum of two witnesses are involved. Legal maneuvering has allowed the WTS to use the “clergy priviledge” provision to explain their self-monitoring approach to dealing with the issue of pedophelia within its ranks. The elders are used as investigators and information gatherers. A logical ethical question that would be asked is…Does the WTS take this position because they feel they can provide criminal law enforcement investigators with more preliminary information for making their case against the perpetrators….in other words, a more complete picture? Do the elders have equal training in the areas of criminal investigation and child sexual abuse than their real life counterparts? Have all elders gone through extensive state certified criminal investigation training? Have all elders gone through extensive state certified sexual abuse training?
In society, the established criteria for sexual abuse of a minor is not dependant on a two witness rule. It is also important to consider that most sexual abuse cases occur between one perpetrator and one victim (at a time). Whereas under WTS rules, not turning over evidence to criminal investigators is decided arbitrarily, under societies rules, that same act in society would be considered obstruction of justice and those same individuals could face jail time. In society, trained professionals investigate all allegations and trained professionals make their determination based on evidence presented.
The ethical questions are this:
Is the innocent victim best served by the WTS model or societies model and why?
Is the criminal investigation process and subsequent adherence to the violation of criminal laws in dealing with the predators within society, best served through the WTS model or societies model and why?
Is society as a whole served better by the WTS model or societies model and why?
and the granddaddy ethics question of all.....
Is it ethical to exercise legal maneuvering to achieve your goals, just because you can....in other words if you can get away with it, does that in itself make it OK?