 Political Corrections
with Margo Kingston
Does Anyone Believe
in Ethics Anymore?
The need for ethical conduct has suddenly burst back onto the finance and sports pages - we have given up expecting ethics from politicians - after a long absence. It seems that ethics might pay! But do we have a common ethical framework any more?
Why is it that ethical behaviour usually has no monetary value and, indeed, very often involves financial detriment? Yet if you pay people for being ethical, are you attempting to commodify something which, in essence, defies such analysis? If you financially reward 'ethical behaviour" aren't you just mutating it into the usual self interest motive we've all had to accept as core since neo-liberal ideology swept all before it?
The definition of ethical behaviour I like, which works for individuals and institutions, was suggested by a friend: 'Integrity in the moment of choice". It incorporates being true to yourself, and to your sense of duty to other people in your society.
This comes through in the meanings of the word. For the self, integrity means an unimpaired condition or the quality or state of being complete or undivided. For others, it means firm adherence to a code of values, or incorruptibility. The synonym for integrity is honesty.
After the early revelations at the children overboard inquiry, I tried to put myself in the position of a media officer in the defence department who knew that the photos put out by Peter Reith to prove the children were thrown overboard were fake and that the government had no intention to tell the Australian people the truth.
I am certain I would have put out a statement telling the truth. So am I ethical and the people in that position who didn't do that unethical? For a start, my personality is such that I wouldn't be able to accept saying nothing - it would do me more harm than good as a person to keep quiet. I have no dependents, so I wouldn't have to consider the consequences of speaking out. I would almost certainly lose my job, and be blackballed from the PR industry, so if I relied on my income to fulfil my duties to my family, I would be choosing to risk their welfare by speaking out. On the other hand, if I was wealthy, I could 'afford" to blow the whistle.
And is it really the duty of a minor cog in a big wheel to take a stand and risk the consequences. The PR officers did their duty in that the information passed up the line and was communicated to the minister's office. Surely this is a responsibility of the defence department's 'leaders"? And what about your loyalty to the organisation you work for, and to your colleagues?
Is the core ethic of our society to maximise personal wealth? Is nothing else left? And if so, what happens when that ethic threatens to destroy the system within which we pursue that ethic?
The whole idea of reducing ethics to black letter law - detailed, technical rules designed to avoid common forms of corporate dishonesty and unethical behaviour - is counterproductive, because it is reductive.
Much better to state the ideal in general terms, and ask individuals and organisations to comply. And how do you enforce ethical behaviour?
How about a body to hear and determine allegations of unethical behaviour by chief executives or others in a company, and to give advisory opinions to executives who seek their help? It could be a group of peers, but it would not be self-regulation, and it would be held in public. A person found to have behaved unethically would not be punished otherwise than by publicity, because the concept would be to explore the issues, not blackball the person concerned. Some of these matters are highly nuanced, and all of us have felt guilt about something we've done that we haven't been comfortable with or felt diminished by. This way, public discussions of what ethics are and what they mean would become commonplace, and ethical considerations would be in the forefront of people's minds. The same ground rules would apply to the legal, accounting and medical professions.
But the fact remains that the biggest factor cramping an emergence of ethical behaviour as a central concern in government, business and the professions is, as Webdiarist Daniel Boase-Jelinek puts it, 'not that people don't know what it (ethics) is, but that they don't know how to respond without losing their jobs.
'A couple of years ago I was invited to run a workshop for Environmental Engineering students at the University of WA. Environmental engineers face ethical dilemmas all the time because their employers generally are companies that wish to promote projects that inevitably cause environmental destruction, and the environmental engineers are being used to justify this destruction and put a public relations gloss on it.
'I (worked) through a whole lot of issues with these idealistic students, searching with them to find a balance between protecting their integrity while keeping their jobs. The outcome that they arrived at was that people working alone as whistle-blowers rarely survive and rarely succeed in getting their message out.
'The students realised that the only alternative to becoming cynical was to work very hard to develop a community of support within and outside the organisation and to search collaboratively for ways to protect their integrity."
In other words, before the forces of power and money shred your personal integrity and insist that you shaft the community you live in, get some support from others in and outside your work and get creative. Giving up means spiritual death. Don't let the bastards dehumanise you without a fight.
Email: mkingston@mail.fairfax.com.au
Margo's web diary - www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/webdiary/
|
