One day an editor has an idea. He sends off a few letters. Recipients respond. Before long, the editor no longer controls the journal. The idea does.

That is not true here. But it's not so far from the truth. When I conceived of an issue on ethics around the world, I had no idea that there would be two sequels, or that I might consider a third. Yet, here I am.

For some, I know, that's good. Many of those interested in practical ethics have found these reports on ethics in other countries rewarding, both when the other country resembles their own and when it differs. Similarities across continents and cultures help to confirm us in our sense that, basically, "ethics" is not a local fad. The variety of the world helps to keep us from becoming too smug about what we happen to be doing.

Yet, even for those interested in ethics, there is such a thing as enough. (Even I have begun to feel Perspectives has done enough ethics around the world-for a while.) And, for anyone more interested in professions than in ethics, the moment when enough became too much probably passed some time ago.

Yet, I have done it again: Part 3. Why? One reason is purely practical. Letters written long ago yielded late fruit. How could I refuse, citing "time;' that least respected technicality in the academic lexicon?

The other reason I have done one more issue is that these later excursions are not mere visits to the same place under a different name. Consider:

Carl Mitcham's comparison of professional standards for engineers in China. India, and Japan is as much about engineering in those three countries as about ethics. You need not be interested in ethics to see a whole research program in his brief sketch.

Nakagawa's description of business ethics in Japan contrasts strikingly with Mitcham's description of the ethics of engineers (and scientists) there. Comparing the two pieces suggests another research program: determining how much conflict there is between "business Japan" and "professional Japan.”

The distance between Japan and Albania is enormous, in circumstances even more than in miles. Until two years ago, Albania was a blank on the map of Europe. Barjaba fills in some details, discussing as "ethics" what most Americans and Japanese would call "political culture." While Japanese politicians like to stress how much Japan differs from the US, Barjaba's piece reminds us of the vast similarities against which a few differences stand out.

Kaczmarcyzk's Poland is instructive as well. Kaczmarcyzk is a professor of electrical engineering, with many of the same problems of teaching ethics that professors of electrical engineering have in the West. But he also shares certain problems with Barjaba, problems created by a sudden void in the intellectual landscape. The importance Kaczmarcyzk assigns his profession's code of ethics reminds us of the importance such codes have for us too.

Olaso, an Argentine, is, like Kaczmarcyzk, concerned with problems of teaching ethics. But his concern is teaching business, rather than professional, ethics. Can one teach business ethics in a corrupt business environment? Dare one not teach business ethics in such an environment? How does one teach business ethics in such an environment?

If Olaso's Argentina is a purgatory for teachers of business ethics, then Hermoza's Peru is the first circle of hell for the professions. Here even the minimums of normal professional ethics become heroism.

The interest of these pieces thus seems to transcend their ethical interest. That is my defense for this third issue of Ethics Around the World. Nonetheless, I here promise to do no more-for a while. To Cesar Cuello, I apologize and promise to find a place for his piece on the Dominican Republic in a later issue.

I hope this arrangement will satisfy everyone.