67. Integrity benefits from the “not-unless” principle
In order to avoid going too far, SPs can employ the “not-unless” principle.This principle states that you will not act unless there is a good reason to do so. This (1) avoids many dilemmas, (2) makes communication clear and simple, and (3) avoids a slippery slope. In order to employ the “not-unless” principle, it is important for SPs to view saying no as an important principle and only to be willing to deviate from it if it is better to do so.
In the previous chapter we saw that integrity is the midway between two evils. One way to avoid going too far is the “not-unless” principle.395 “Not unless” means saying no in principle, and only making an exception where there is good reason for doing so. This prevents people from taking a good thing too far.
The “not-unless” principle starts out at the baseline. For example in order to avoid any appearance of influence and conflict of interest, paid side-jobs that may relate to SPs’ political decisions are not permitted. SPs can deviate from this rule if, for example, the additional job is relevant to the official position and the income is passed on to the organization in which the office is held. Similarly, accepting gifts and invitations is not permitted in principle. An exception can be made for gifts made out of politeness. For example mayors are permitted to accept small tokens from citizens who have been personally helped by their efforts. In this case doing otherwise would mean taking strictness to the point of rigidity and conservative behavior to small-mindedness.
The advantage of this approach is that it avoids a great number of areas of doubt. It prevents people from always finding arguments for deviating from the rules when, on balance, it is not to the benefit of integrity. On the one hand the “not-unless” principle sets the moral bar high: we should refrain from doing many things, even when they seem attractive. On the other hand it also simplifies matters, avoiding many dilemmas and discussions by simply not embarking on them. Another advantage of this approach is that it can be easily and cleanly communicated, as “no” is a simple response, leaving little room for gray areas and misunderstandings. This clarity avoids embarking on a slippery slope, because the point of departure for each consideration is the same baseline, the answer “no” (instead of taking the previous action or choice as a starting point), even if you have to take care that “unless” is not interpreted increasingly freely, making it too much “unless” and not enough “no”. In this respect it is important that the exception always confirms rather than becomes the rule.
It is also important that “not-unless” thinking is not driven by fear or to avoid evil. We should choose “no” because we consider it an important principle or value in itself, that you want to maintain because it is good, and from which you will only deviate when doing so is better. This positive foundation is essential to both the “no” and the “unless”. You choose to deviate because this is better, not because of a focus on looking for boundaries, opportunities to deviate or stretch “unless” as far as possible. The power of “not unless” is that it is not always an absolute “no”, but not always “unless” either (as this would make the exceptions the rule, eliminating the “no”).