A paradox is discussed to explain the nature of the problem: can a society that is composed entirely of ethical members be unethical itself? Two measures of the extent to which an individual or society can be considered to be ethical are of concern: the breadth of expressed ethical concern, both in space and time; and the extent to which a society or individual responds to those areas for which ethical concern is expressed. Four generic responses that individuals might make to perceived mismatches are posed. The response of changing priorities to respond to the need obviously resolves the paradox. The second form of response, i.e., reducing one's ethical concern to the here and now of one's own group, is incompatible with common interpretations of "ethical." Denying the need, the third response, is a deceptive way out of the paradox. Finally, the alternative of denying the possibility of responding to a perceived need may take either of two forms: the claim of impossibility based upon technical, physical, or economic limitations; or the case where there is "no need" to respond because "others" will not allow it. Available evidence is examined to address the pertinent question of whether the paradox contributes to an understanding of the current state of society's affairs. 1 footnote