Ethics or Competence

[Mztk1]

There are ethical tests and they are supposed to be fairly accurate. They ask the same question 10 times, rephrase a question, and look for consistency in answers that show honesty and integrity.

An ethical test will not tell us whether a person is ethical or not, but only tell us if they know what is expected of them from a socially moral point of view.

The part that a test must tread lightly over though is to refrain from questions that can isolate different life choices. So the ethical questions have to stay germain to the topic. This question, for instance, does not make a good test for determining the potential a person has for ethical questions, but it makes an interesting test question to find out what type of a "thinker" you are:

PROPER ORIGIN OF MORALITY Where does the proper distinction between "good" and "bad" come from?
a) A moral realm that is completely unique, transcendent.
b) Every individual, through their choice to pursue that which they desire.
c) God's will
d) From holistic forces of the universe (may involve divine power or not).
e) Human nature, with the natural interests of people (perhaps through evolution)
f) Human intellect, with the natural capabilities of human thought
g) Doesn't matter/Dislike all answer choices

 

[Mztk1]

I need to challenge criminal appraisers to duels. Arizona needs to legalize dueling. I need to campaign for that, instead of trying to encourage the Arizona Board of Appraisal to effectively enforce USPAP.

Be careful, they're liable to shoot all the good guys in the back. :new_2gunsfiring_v1:

 

[Joyce Potts]

Is that like ignorance is no excuse for ethics?

 

[aussie ken]

An unethical & incompetent appraiser...........oooohhhhh Mumma these bright eyed gems are the worst.............. a dangerous unguided missile..........they have wrought absolute death and destruction to our industry...........but the brokers and bankers just loved them..........at least for a while.

 

[jay trotta]

Ethics;
is a major branch of philosophy, encompassing right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct

Those who preach the strongest "language & rules" - Lenders, appear to enjoy the above definition most of all. It is one thing to follow the rules and quite another to die of starvation - after all who put a stranglehold on appraising ? It was most certainly Not appraiser's.

 

[Vivian Bachner]

Ricardo:
Thank you and yes there are tests, specifically designed for adults, the MMPI for example, which Jim is describing. I think we would have a better chance of having more ethical appraisers if we were tested rather than "taught" ethics. Aren't other professions, like certain law enforcement personel tested? Ideally, more enforcement of existing laws would possibly be a deterrent but maybe those with "sociopathic" tendencies should be weeded out before they ever have the chance to commit fraud!

 

[Vivian Bachner]

Jim: I believe those tests are more about predicting what a person would do vis a vis "right and wrong", not about "what is expected from a socially moral point of view".
All I'm saying is that "learning" USPAP or a mentor "teaching" USPAP does not make one ethical.

 

[xmmcsmielr]

The consequences of an unethical profession

Unethical appraising ... unethical business practices in general, particularly in politics ... destroys trust among people.

Trust is the thread of the fabric of society. When trust is destroyed society unravels.

It may be that American society is in a life cycle phase of deterioration / destruction, which many great nations have passed through ... throughout time and throughout geography. Therefore, we now experience wide spread unethical conduct in the States, from the White House down to the local board of appraisal.

The consequence in our profession, particularly in residential appraising, is that appraising for mortgage lending is in a diminished phase, given the advent of automated valuation models. In many cases AVMs are just as reliable, if not more so, than individual fee appraisals ... from a risk management standpoint, that is.

The pervasive "we need at least" type of SFR appraisal orders that persist today steer risk management centers to AVMs. As algorithms are fine tuned with on-line aerial and on-the-ground photos, with predictive regression verifications of data and other improvements, most SFR valuations will be done within minutes of entering data into a computer.

Another consequence, which is nothing recent, is the forensic appraisal realm usually involves each side hiring their own appraiser. Each of those appraisers tends to advocate for either a high or low value to benefit their employer. Then a judge or jury decides, based on those disparate opinions of values. Why don't more courts hire one appraiser, who tells the truth?

Many of the divorce cases, for which I've been hired to appraise real estate, involve an agreement from both sides to cut costs by hiring only one appraiser. I prefer this type of employment over all others, because all involved expect neutrality, objectivity and accuracy. That's what I think my job as an appraiser is: tell the verified truth that both sides can rely on.

 

[Mztk1]

Jim: I believe those tests are more about predicting what a person would do vis a vis "right and wrong", not about "what is expected from a socially moral point of view".
All I'm saying is that "learning" USPAP or a mentor "teaching" USPAP does not make one ethical.

No disagreement. But when writing the post I remembered taking the test and on a question or two, instead of just being myself, I found myself thinking, "Hmmm, what are they looking for here?" I'd have to think everyone taking the test has a thought or tw like that, and some complete the test thinking that way the whole time. The very clever ones are merely proving they know what is expected from a socially moral point of view, they are not giving us a reliable tool for prediction. Though for most it does, I was writing about worst case scenarios.

Now mind you, I look at ethics in the common sense and not in the lofty, philosophical sense decribed above. To me, where appraising is concerned, ethics is simply the rules of moral conduct that govern us.

BTW, how's Middlesex County? It was once my primary county and I just loved it.

 

[Lawrence R.]

Just to sum it up.

I am not getting any further drawn into this debate, other than to say my piece and call it quits on this thread. Any rebuttals will go completely unchallenged by me, I am not out to change any body's mind.

Those sociologists among us that think people only do good things when it is in their best interest are probably empirically right.

If you want to say that the best interests are to live up to someone, something, or some society's expectation of you, then, yeah, that is a broad enough brush to paint everybody with.

Now, the deity that I serve says man is fallen and inherently evil, none are righteous, no not one. but to say that is the state that all men STAY in, is naive and nihilistic, as I said before.

That deity, for me is Jesus Christ. I don't wear him on my sleeve, but he does guide my conscience. I am not Him, so I don't always get it right. And usually when I get it wrong, you got it, I am acting in my own "self interests".

The problem is, there is a duality there.

1. My real self interest would be to please God, be acceptable to Him and receive my rewards in Heaven.

2. My depraved little bitty brain says that displeasing God is in my own self interests.

They can't both be right, they are mutually exclusive. So, either I don't really believe what I think I believe, or I often act against my own self interests.

So, no--people do not always act in their own best interests, in either direction, be it to do good or to do what feels good.

The problem is, these social Darwinists are so cynical, they think that no matter what, people only do the "right" thing because something is in it for them, or because society has pressured them to do so.

What was in it for Martin Luther? Or Martin Luther King for that matter?
There is a greater good, and people do serve it.

So, back to my original opinion. You have to learn your morals(ethics) early, before you get your head filled with that cynical crap and buy in to it. It is the same line of thinking that people only do what is best for them that leads people to only do what is best for them. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

We are not animals, but we do not have a soul. WE ARE A SOUL . We have a body.