Dear Ethics Guy: I run a bed-and-breakfast and am fairly new to the hospitality industry. Recently a guest checked in for three days and left early on the last morning. He wrote to me when he got home and said that he was quite upset that we did not have breakfast available for him on his departure day. Apparently one of my employees told him that he could dine anytime between 6 a.m. and 12 noon, so he assumed that he could grab a meal before his early flight out. However, we do not begin serving until 7 a.m., so it was not possible to meet my guest’s needs on his last day with us. I decided to make an unfortunate situation better by refunding him a full night’s fee. My husband thinks that I should have simply given him back the cost of the breakfast. He says that being too generous is just as bad as not being generous enough. What do you think?

A: Your husband is correct that it is possible to give too much of oneself, but I don’t think your response fits this category. Although the ethical principle of fairness did require you to right the wrong, your going above and beyond the call of duty is praiseworthy. It also happens to be a wise business decision, because your largess will prompt your disgruntled customer not only to have a change of heart but to give your establishment positive word of mouth. There are many creative ways to get clients to speak well of your goods and services, but the surest way is to provide excellent customer service, which means, first and foremost, treating customers fairly. Although the reason to do the right thing in business is simply because it is the right thing to do, taking the high road also happens to be the profitable thing in the long run. This is yet another example of why taking ethics seriously benefits everyone, including us.

QUIZ
A television pundit takes a position with which you disagree in the strongest possible terms. Would you:
A) Write him an angry e-mail and call his expertise into question.
B) Write to him and focus on his argument and why you find it mistaken
C) Ignore the matter altogether.
D) Write to the president of the network and threaten to boycott the channel unless they fire the pundit.

“A” is not only disrespectful, but it is an ineffective way to give criticism that will be taken to heart. It also won’t make you feel any better. “C” doesn’t do either of you a service, and “D” violates Life Principle #4, Be Fair. After all, the punishment should fit the crime, and banishing someone from the airwaves simply because you disagree with that person is an extreme and unjust response to the situation. Only “B” will both meet your need to express your concern and be likely to persuade the columnist to rethink his position, or at least to consider seriously what you have to say. Also, our democracy is based on the idea that the way to fight troubling speech is with more speech, not with stifling those with whom one disagrees.

Bottom line: Life Principle #3, Respect Others, applies to how we treat not only our friends, family members, and co-workers, but the columnists we read in the paper. Temper that impulse to get the nasties out through an e-mail rant, and everyone-including you-will be the better for it.

By the way, there are countries in the world where you don’t have to worry about being confronted with noxious, objectionable, or unpopular speech—because the government prohibits it. Would you really prefer to live in such a culture over one in which the marketplace of ideas is unfettered?