The Sydney Morning Herald reported on Saturday that a fight is being waged against the introduction of ethics classes in primary schools.
The context: scripture classes. New South Wales allows for one hour per week of religious instruction. Those who opt out of such instruction - as many as 80% in some schools - are not allowed to be placed at an advantage by learning or revising other subjects.
In fact, the quality of the 'scripture' classes, and the availability of different religious options, is fully dictated by the availability of suitable volunteers in each school.
For example, this has meant that at my kids' school, the offerings have for some time included Anglican, Catholic - and Baha'i. And now some parents have felt sufficiently moved to organise a Buddhist class for next year.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW has commissioned the St James Ethical Centre to develop a pilot program to offer ethics classes for those who opt out of scripture.
But the State Government's religious education advisory panel has spoken out against the program (see the report mentioned above).
They don't want those opting out of religous classes to gain unfair advantage? That's akin to saying that a properly focused ethics class provides kids with a sounder ethics education than religious instruction. A rather dangerous admission?
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
James Hardie's lack of corporate ethics
I doubt company directors and CEOs ever consider themselves thugs. Generally, they would claim their only aim is to protect shareholders' funds; often they claim that as their overriding legal obligation.
Yet James Hardie's managers indulged in thuggery - and they've been caught out.
With a significant liability on their books due to ongoing and emerging claims from their asbestos business, they sought a way to limit that liability. What better way than to sequester set funds in a trust, then high-tail it off to a foreign jurisdiction?
Which they did, reincorporating from Australia to the Netherlands. Yet thuggery it is, since they left behind insufficient cover for current and future victims.
The specific crime was a mere technicality. The ten directors were punished because they approved a media release (claiming the trust was "fully funded") which was inaccurate, but deemed to be intended to affect the market.
Penalties were fines of $30,000 to $350,000, and being banned from CEO and board positions for five to fifteen years. The latter tends to have the greatest effect - on their careers. All have left James Hardie; some have resigned other management positions. However, a couple of them are working in the US, where the bans don't apply.
Their defence: each one of them claims they didn't read or don't remember reading the draft press release. Those claims were judged not to have been genuine.
And the James Hardie business (building supplies) has started to rebound from the recession already.
Yet James Hardie's managers indulged in thuggery - and they've been caught out.
With a significant liability on their books due to ongoing and emerging claims from their asbestos business, they sought a way to limit that liability. What better way than to sequester set funds in a trust, then high-tail it off to a foreign jurisdiction?
Which they did, reincorporating from Australia to the Netherlands. Yet thuggery it is, since they left behind insufficient cover for current and future victims.
"As a sufferer of asbestosis since 1992, I have no sympathy for their public humiliation. They brought it on themselves by their contemptible behaviour."
..."Big deal. You can guarantee they will not be driving cabs for a living."- letters to the editor, SMH, 22-Aug-09
The specific crime was a mere technicality. The ten directors were punished because they approved a media release (claiming the trust was "fully funded") which was inaccurate, but deemed to be intended to affect the market.
Penalties were fines of $30,000 to $350,000, and being banned from CEO and board positions for five to fifteen years. The latter tends to have the greatest effect - on their careers. All have left James Hardie; some have resigned other management positions. However, a couple of them are working in the US, where the bans don't apply.
Their defence: each one of them claims they didn't read or don't remember reading the draft press release. Those claims were judged not to have been genuine.
And the James Hardie business (building supplies) has started to rebound from the recession already.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Obama's ethical reforms
"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that."
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Art obscenity charges
...screams the headline on the front page of today's Herald.
A photography exhibition in Sydney has been closed down, and police are investigating the possibility of charging the photographer and the art gallery.
The issue: photos of a naked 13-year-old girl which can be seen as sexual.
Artists, in turn, screamed censorship ("what about Carravagio?" yelled one).
The photographer, Bill Henson, apparently has a high reputation, and has apparently been doing such subject matter since at least 1995.
What about Carravagio? Of course, in recent years, the issue of pedophilia has rightly become significant, with a renewed fervour in prosecution for both offences of decades ago, and for current accessors of kiddie porn over the internet. So cultural context inevitably plays a big part. And in general the current culture of prosecution is quite understandable. But art?
One of the Herald's articles was a commentary by John McDonald, who says inter alia:
In the ebb and flow of debate about pornography, there is one point that is overlooked (in fact I can recall witnessing scarcely any discussion about this ever). That is that once images are released - in any context - they can become pornography in the hands of viewers. What becomes pornography is entirely in the hands of the audience, and out of control of those generating the images.
I remember some years back, a lesbian filmmaker made a film that she aimed at women, stating she was reclaiming pornography and giving control back to women. Yet she had no control of the work once it is released, bar what a very disparate audience will make of it. And there will always be a part of the audience that will take a work pornographically.
So the producer of the work can say what they like, and have whatever intention they claim, but they have no ultimate control over how the audience responds to the work.
This is why, I believe, debate will continue to rage about the issue. The reception of a work is in the hands of the audience, not the producer.
A photography exhibition in Sydney has been closed down, and police are investigating the possibility of charging the photographer and the art gallery.
The issue: photos of a naked 13-year-old girl which can be seen as sexual.
Artists, in turn, screamed censorship ("what about Carravagio?" yelled one).
The photographer, Bill Henson, apparently has a high reputation, and has apparently been doing such subject matter since at least 1995.
What about Carravagio? Of course, in recent years, the issue of pedophilia has rightly become significant, with a renewed fervour in prosecution for both offences of decades ago, and for current accessors of kiddie porn over the internet. So cultural context inevitably plays a big part. And in general the current culture of prosecution is quite understandable. But art?
One of the Herald's articles was a commentary by John McDonald, who says inter alia:
"His pictures are dark and edgy, but it would be foolish to write them off as 'pornography'.
"Pornography, as I understand it, is a form that revels in its own sordidness. It is a commercial product made for the sole purpose of titillation."
In the ebb and flow of debate about pornography, there is one point that is overlooked (in fact I can recall witnessing scarcely any discussion about this ever). That is that once images are released - in any context - they can become pornography in the hands of viewers. What becomes pornography is entirely in the hands of the audience, and out of control of those generating the images.
I remember some years back, a lesbian filmmaker made a film that she aimed at women, stating she was reclaiming pornography and giving control back to women. Yet she had no control of the work once it is released, bar what a very disparate audience will make of it. And there will always be a part of the audience that will take a work pornographically.
So the producer of the work can say what they like, and have whatever intention they claim, but they have no ultimate control over how the audience responds to the work.
This is why, I believe, debate will continue to rage about the issue. The reception of a work is in the hands of the audience, not the producer.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama: ethics, intelligence, inspiration
Hunter S Thompson once wrote about a speech Jimmy Carter gave on the stumps running up to the 1976 presidential election. It was delivered, I believe, at a minor venue and was not widely reported.
Thompson was sparse on details, but his pivotal point was that the speech enormously impressed him and greatly increased Carter's stature in his mind. Soon after, he asked Carter for a text of the speech. Carter responded that it had been given off the cuff, and that nobody had kept a record of it.
Whatever you think of Carter or Thompson, the sentiment has to be admired. When in the course of a cliche-strewn, jading, saturation-reported, safe-rhetoric-laden election season, there is anything at all that raises the spirits, it must stand out like an oasis in the desert.
Barack Obama has given such a shining beacon of a speech.
I read it yesterday, and gave it a strong recommendation to the first two people I met (for the first time), minutes later.
The sentiment, ethics, and intelligence of the speech reflect enormously on the man. Until I read it, I suspected Obama of potentially empty rhetoric. But he dealt with a controversial situation (his association with a divisive firebrand preacher) not by distancing himself as any other candidate would, but by speaking to the wider issues with a ringing clarity.
My personal feeling is there has not been a candidate of such intelligence and ethics since at least Jimmy Carter (and I would be very surprised if Carter does not endorse him) - and probably much further back.
I can only hope that Obama lasts the distance to election day, because the world needs him.
BBC mentioned the speech is available on YouTube and Obama's web site. I reproduce below the text as I read it yesterday. The full text is here; the video is on Obama's web site (YouTube's copy is not in sync).
I recommend you read below for a taste, then watch the full 30 minute speech. I cannot recall ever being held by a political speech for more than five minutes; this lasts the distance and is most rewarding.
"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favour the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognising they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide.
This is where we are now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy.
But I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, that we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the O. J. trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow sympathise with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the election regardless of his policies.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time".
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of all our children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every colour and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorised and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned."
Thompson was sparse on details, but his pivotal point was that the speech enormously impressed him and greatly increased Carter's stature in his mind. Soon after, he asked Carter for a text of the speech. Carter responded that it had been given off the cuff, and that nobody had kept a record of it.
Whatever you think of Carter or Thompson, the sentiment has to be admired. When in the course of a cliche-strewn, jading, saturation-reported, safe-rhetoric-laden election season, there is anything at all that raises the spirits, it must stand out like an oasis in the desert.
Barack Obama has given such a shining beacon of a speech.
I read it yesterday, and gave it a strong recommendation to the first two people I met (for the first time), minutes later.
The sentiment, ethics, and intelligence of the speech reflect enormously on the man. Until I read it, I suspected Obama of potentially empty rhetoric. But he dealt with a controversial situation (his association with a divisive firebrand preacher) not by distancing himself as any other candidate would, but by speaking to the wider issues with a ringing clarity.
My personal feeling is there has not been a candidate of such intelligence and ethics since at least Jimmy Carter (and I would be very surprised if Carter does not endorse him) - and probably much further back.
I can only hope that Obama lasts the distance to election day, because the world needs him.
BBC mentioned the speech is available on YouTube and Obama's web site. I reproduce below the text as I read it yesterday. The full text is here; the video is on Obama's web site (YouTube's copy is not in sync).
I recommend you read below for a taste, then watch the full 30 minute speech. I cannot recall ever being held by a political speech for more than five minutes; this lasts the distance and is most rewarding.
"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favour the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognising they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide.
This is where we are now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy.
But I have asserted a firm conviction that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, that we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the O. J. trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow sympathise with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the election regardless of his policies.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time".
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of all our children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every colour and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorised and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned."
Saturday, March 01, 2008
New ethics in Australian government?
It's easy to postulate that there's a clear pattern to the practical ethics of a government: when newly incumbent, it's easy to create distance with the previous administration by instituting a raft of new measures that speak to the ethics of rule. Later, as the government finds itself somewhat hamstrung by its own rules, it relaxes those standards. By the time the government is ready to be turfed out, it can be seen as positively venal, and an easy target for the next administration.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
In 1996, although I don't recall any strong lapse in ethics of the Keating government, incomer John Howard promulgated a Ministerial Code of Conduct, only to relax it after seven (!) Ministers (Jull, Sharp, etc) were obliged to resign due to undeclared conflicts of interest and misuse of allowances. Peter McGuaran, for one, made it back to the cabinet.
Kevin Rudd sounds like a very principled man. He is sticking to a number of electoral promises that he'd probably rather not keep (eg tax cuts), and that others would prefer he didn't keep (eg retaining superlatively generous funding for a number of private schools as instigated by Howard).
His appointment of Harry Jenkins as Speaker of the House of Representatives made a stark departure from the previous office-holder, the partisan David Hawker. It could even be said that Rudd didn't know what he was in for: Jenkins has been particularly rigorous in keeping his own government in line (for example, requiring Ministers to answer the actual question that was asked of them!). Against that argument is the fact that Jenkins was Deputy Speaker in the last Keating government.
It remains that Rudd is highly principled. An article in today's Herald gives some insight into the man, which speaks of a significant break from the previous Prime Minister, and not just due to this "early days" syndrome.
And his government is also set to sign the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture, which Howard balked at, probably because the consequent laws may apply to "Australian officials overseas who co-operate with foreign intelligence agencies known to engage in torture".
I still have strong reservations about Rudd's ability to handle the reins of government. Of overriding importance is the setting of carbon emission caps as soon as possible - providing industry with clarity and leadership. And the commitments to tax cuts and those special private schools were wrong to make in the first place, campaign or no*.
Yet... it's early days.
Postscript 3-March: I've heard rumours from high-level public servants (across departments)that Rudd has been very difficult to get to commit to decisions. This would jibe with his apparent propensity to set up committees on a welter of issues. But it doesn't make sense in the context that it's his ministers that should be making the specific departmental decisions. One example given was in relation to the budget - yet I wouldn't be surprised if these ones take time to sort out. Still, something to watch out for.
*In mitigation is some analysis on the decreased commitment over time of the Australian public to a particular side of politics (mentioned last year). I would expect this to lead to an increased "what's in it for me" vote, which would make it hard to opt out of a tax cut auction at election time.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Ethical question in Harry Potter
An ethical dilemma in the latest Harry Potter book.
In the first instance, the question would be: do you save yourself first? Is your life more worth fighting for than others'? In fact, if you look at aircraft drills, they encourage you to tend to your own breathing apparatus, before attending to your child. If anyone, save yourself, because you certainly can't help anyone further if you don't.
Traditionally, there are concentric rings. In the centre is yourself. The next largest circle is your immediate loved ones. And so it goes on outwards, from the people who are closest to you all the way out to the people that you don't care whether they live or die. Or worse.
And that's the picture of your world. As you go outwards, the population within each circle gets larger, but your connection to them gets weaker.
At what point does it become meaningful to sacrifice some in an inner circle for a greater number in the outer circle? In some ethical frameworks (including some religions), the distinction may become meaningless, and those on the outer should be just as important [to save/help] than those in the inner circles.
But most people place high significance on the proximity of people to self. But where do you draw the line? At what point do you say that the number of people in an outer circle outweigh the much smaller numbers in an inner circle?
Harry's dilemma doesn't involve pitting self against others. It's more like the possibility of saving large numbers in an outer circle against much smaller numbers in the inner.
Most people would not find themselves in that grapple. Most people are human, after all, and will uniformly consider any smaller circle more important than any number of people in a circle further out.
It's hard to be evolved enough to sacrifice, especially to sacrifice others for a still greater good.
In the first instance, the question would be: do you save yourself first? Is your life more worth fighting for than others'? In fact, if you look at aircraft drills, they encourage you to tend to your own breathing apparatus, before attending to your child. If anyone, save yourself, because you certainly can't help anyone further if you don't.
Traditionally, there are concentric rings. In the centre is yourself. The next largest circle is your immediate loved ones. And so it goes on outwards, from the people who are closest to you all the way out to the people that you don't care whether they live or die. Or worse.
And that's the picture of your world. As you go outwards, the population within each circle gets larger, but your connection to them gets weaker.
At what point does it become meaningful to sacrifice some in an inner circle for a greater number in the outer circle? In some ethical frameworks (including some religions), the distinction may become meaningless, and those on the outer should be just as important [to save/help] than those in the inner circles.
But most people place high significance on the proximity of people to self. But where do you draw the line? At what point do you say that the number of people in an outer circle outweigh the much smaller numbers in an inner circle?
Harry's dilemma doesn't involve pitting self against others. It's more like the possibility of saving large numbers in an outer circle against much smaller numbers in the inner.
Most people would not find themselves in that grapple. Most people are human, after all, and will uniformly consider any smaller circle more important than any number of people in a circle further out.
It's hard to be evolved enough to sacrifice, especially to sacrifice others for a still greater good.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Ethics: Why shouldn't they do the fighting for us?
This ethical issue popped up not so long ago in the US, distilled into the above Doonesbury cartoon by Garry Trudeau.
I'm not sure that the point is obvious enough, given the furore that generated this cartoon. Privilege will always try to get someone else to fight the battles.
Monday, July 10, 2006
World: Appalling lack of ethics on the playing field and the battlefield
Even in the (Soccer) World Cup Final, a goal was taken from a fake dive.
For those who don't know Soccer, this means a player pretended he was illegally tackled/assaulted, to get a penalty kick for his side.
Unfortunately, taking a dive has become pervasive at the international level. This practice has effectively been condoned by the national teams and the peak body, FIFA, all the way up to the peak game of the four-year cycle. Serious failings all around. Winning is more important than ethics, and the ethical high ground doesn't count for anything.
Ah, but it's only a game. Isn't it?
In a similar vein, the US is apparently investigating five allegations of atrocities by U.S. military forces in Iraq. The only one yet to reach the headlines involves a group who invaded an Iraqi house specifically to rape a woman, then murder her and her family. And more is yet to come out.
You would thing the Americans would have learnt by now. Wouldn't you?
Abu Ghraib was a severe setback in America's efforts to "win hearts and minds" in Iraq. If they were ever sincere about this goal, they would have instigated major changes in their own army already. "Hearts and minds" was the only way the U.S. could have brought peace to Iraq. Why didn't the U.S. act when the signs were already clear? Culpability goes all the way to the top. (Some might say it goes back down to the people who voted for them. I say that at the very least, this speaks to the moral bankruptcy of the American religious right, the direct source of ethics for the Bush administration.)
Most recent violence in Iraq has been perpetrated by both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists, and that country is definitely on the downward spiral. The U.S. knows how to create a war, but it doesn't seem to be capable of peace.
Australia's Howard government shares in this culpability, through its complicity with the US, and its abnegation in turn of any ethical/moral leadership.
A game. Is it?
Sadly, the ethical position of the players on the ground takes its cue from the leaders. But as individuals, we can take a stand.
For those who don't know Soccer, this means a player pretended he was illegally tackled/assaulted, to get a penalty kick for his side.
Unfortunately, taking a dive has become pervasive at the international level. This practice has effectively been condoned by the national teams and the peak body, FIFA, all the way up to the peak game of the four-year cycle. Serious failings all around. Winning is more important than ethics, and the ethical high ground doesn't count for anything.
Ah, but it's only a game. Isn't it?
In a similar vein, the US is apparently investigating five allegations of atrocities by U.S. military forces in Iraq. The only one yet to reach the headlines involves a group who invaded an Iraqi house specifically to rape a woman, then murder her and her family. And more is yet to come out.
You would thing the Americans would have learnt by now. Wouldn't you?
Abu Ghraib was a severe setback in America's efforts to "win hearts and minds" in Iraq. If they were ever sincere about this goal, they would have instigated major changes in their own army already. "Hearts and minds" was the only way the U.S. could have brought peace to Iraq. Why didn't the U.S. act when the signs were already clear? Culpability goes all the way to the top. (Some might say it goes back down to the people who voted for them. I say that at the very least, this speaks to the moral bankruptcy of the American religious right, the direct source of ethics for the Bush administration.)
Most recent violence in Iraq has been perpetrated by both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists, and that country is definitely on the downward spiral. The U.S. knows how to create a war, but it doesn't seem to be capable of peace.
Australia's Howard government shares in this culpability, through its complicity with the US, and its abnegation in turn of any ethical/moral leadership.
A game. Is it?
Sadly, the ethical position of the players on the ground takes its cue from the leaders. But as individuals, we can take a stand.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Climate Change: making your money talk - painlessly
Something further to add to the "things to do" list for global warming: put your superannuation in an ethical investment fund.
Sometimes called "socially responsible investment", this refers to funds and/or fund management that use specific social criteria for funds/superannuation investment.
Choosing how your own money is invested can make a significant difference. And various surveys I've read have shown that ethical investment funds frequently do better, and mostly do as well as, non-ethical funds.
Myself, I've been with Australian Ethical Investments for about ten years now, and have no complaints at all. But there are plenty of others to choose from. They have various investment criteria, and fund structures (eg large vs small company investment, and Australian vs Global) tend to mirror non-ethical funds. I would be surprised if any ethical fund doesn't include global warming on its criteria, but it's not hard to check.
The link to the Wikipedia article at the top lists a number of such funds around the world. In Australia, there is also an Ethical Investment Association, and a web site called Ethical Investor. Any more useful hints on this burgeoning market, I'll post here.
Sometimes called "socially responsible investment", this refers to funds and/or fund management that use specific social criteria for funds/superannuation investment.
Choosing how your own money is invested can make a significant difference. And various surveys I've read have shown that ethical investment funds frequently do better, and mostly do as well as, non-ethical funds.
Myself, I've been with Australian Ethical Investments for about ten years now, and have no complaints at all. But there are plenty of others to choose from. They have various investment criteria, and fund structures (eg large vs small company investment, and Australian vs Global) tend to mirror non-ethical funds. I would be surprised if any ethical fund doesn't include global warming on its criteria, but it's not hard to check.
The link to the Wikipedia article at the top lists a number of such funds around the world. In Australia, there is also an Ethical Investment Association, and a web site called Ethical Investor. Any more useful hints on this burgeoning market, I'll post here.
Friday, May 19, 2006
World: Two questions on ethics – one on life, one on death
A couple of adjacent news articles from May 6th made me uneasy at first. But looking back on them later, I find the ethical issues somewhat more murky.
Woman defends giving birth at the age of 63
A 63 year old psychiatrist is due to become Britain’s oldest mother. She underwent fertility treatment somewhere is the former Soviet Union, with a “maverick” Italian doctor, who I believe caused controversy in the past, with similar treatment for an over-sixty Rumanian woman.
After the death of her husband, this British woman married again in 2003, to a man who is now 60. She already has two adult children. Although they approved, she was criticised by sociologists, an IVF group, and her cousin, who said she was the same age “and when I look after my grandchildren I’m tired after 10 minutes”. On similar lines, another comment is that “he or she is going to be without a mother or father at the most crucial moment of adolescence or when that child is growing to maturity”.
So the factors include:
- ability to look after children late in life (including whether the mother is still alive!);
- There are definitely increased physical risks that can jeopardise the baby, including abnormal pregnancy situations, and arthritis, heart disease and cancer.
- On the other hand, there are plenty of instances of fathers – rich and poor – who have children naturally when they’re past sixty, including Clint Eastwood, Rupert Murdoch and, I seem to recall from a few years ago, a claim about someone who was around ninety. Of course, it is rare but possible for men to be fertile in this age group;
On the whole, I would accede to the uniform judgment of Western medical systems, who have refused treatment for people this old, presumably on ethical grounds.
After the death of her husband, this British woman married again in 2003, to a man who is now 60. She already has two adult children. Although they approved, she was criticised by sociologists, an IVF group, and her cousin, who said she was the same age “and when I look after my grandchildren I’m tired after 10 minutes”. On similar lines, another comment is that “he or she is going to be without a mother or father at the most crucial moment of adolescence or when that child is growing to maturity”.
So the factors include:
- ability to look after children late in life (including whether the mother is still alive!);
- There are definitely increased physical risks that can jeopardise the baby, including abnormal pregnancy situations, and arthritis, heart disease and cancer.
- On the other hand, there are plenty of instances of fathers – rich and poor – who have children naturally when they’re past sixty, including Clint Eastwood, Rupert Murdoch and, I seem to recall from a few years ago, a claim about someone who was around ninety. Of course, it is rare but possible for men to be fertile in this age group;
On the whole, I would accede to the uniform judgment of Western medical systems, who have refused treatment for people this old, presumably on ethical grounds.
Director leaps to defense of bridge suicide film
People seem to make films about anything these days. Plenty have caused moral outrage, and a subset of those encapsulate ethical issues.
This furore is over a film about suicide at a popular venue, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. Camera crews were set up to monitor activity during all daylight hours of 2004, and recorded 23 suicides, six of which were shown in the film. They zoomed in on people showing erratic behaviour. The director said the crews notified officials whenever someone climbed over the railing, and said this saved lives. I’d note here that suicide is typically planned with little certainty, and a failed attempt doesn’t necessarily result in a later successful attempt.
Questions:
- is this a snuff movie?
- Would it encourage more copycat suicides?
- Would it encourage officials to post cameras themselves?
I guess the two main issues around this exercise is whether it would lead to more or less suicides, and whether the suicides should be shown on a film. The director’s stated intent was to “save lives by raising awareness”, but intentions and outcomes are often at odds.
On the whole, I’d be inclined to think the first situation is not ethically sound, while the second one is not ethically unsound. But I’m not yet thoroughly convinced either way. Thoughts, comments?
This furore is over a film about suicide at a popular venue, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge. Camera crews were set up to monitor activity during all daylight hours of 2004, and recorded 23 suicides, six of which were shown in the film. They zoomed in on people showing erratic behaviour. The director said the crews notified officials whenever someone climbed over the railing, and said this saved lives. I’d note here that suicide is typically planned with little certainty, and a failed attempt doesn’t necessarily result in a later successful attempt.
Questions:
- is this a snuff movie?
- Would it encourage more copycat suicides?
- Would it encourage officials to post cameras themselves?
I guess the two main issues around this exercise is whether it would lead to more or less suicides, and whether the suicides should be shown on a film. The director’s stated intent was to “save lives by raising awareness”, but intentions and outcomes are often at odds.
On the whole, I’d be inclined to think the first situation is not ethically sound, while the second one is not ethically unsound. But I’m not yet thoroughly convinced either way. Thoughts, comments?
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Pers: Ethics of being incognito at the coalface
Coalface ethics:
The story goes that a bloke who was appointed State Director spent his first week on the job incognito at a local office as a junior. The intention was apparently to get a feel for things at the coalface. That’s laudable, but is it ethical?
I don’t think it is, despite disagreement from two people whose opinions I respect.
My problem is with the undercover aspect of the exercise. It is true that if people knew who he was, they would treat him differently, and he would not get as true an idea how it was on the ground. The value of the operation would certainly be diminished.
But I believe ethics is not just about intentions, and it’s not just about doing the right thing. It’s important to be seen to be doing the right thing. Motivation, and what is done with the information gained, is an individual matter. Some people will be beyond reproach in the matter, but certainly not all. Yet ethics is about fair dealing with other people, and private intentions are not open to all. That has only an incidental relationship to how the dealing is received by other people. You can have good intentions, but how can you prove it except by being seen to be above board?
Further, there is no guarantee that information gleaned during that week will not and can not be used in some way against some of the individuals at the local office. In the situation in question, the regional office was located with the local office, and the State Director would conceivably have future dealings with the senior management there. In mitigation, the reporting lines were not direct (local offices’ reported through to the national office, but not via the State Office). The dilemma is murkier here, but for my money, that’s not really arm’s length enough to ensure that a) nobody would be personally impacted by the internship, and b) this is seen to be so. There’s still scope, for example, for the State Director to subsequently bring pressure to affect someone’s career – due in some way to confidences received, slights perceived, etc.
Am I splitting hairs? Comments welcome.
PS Australia’s public broadcaster ABC has a news radio station - Newsradio. Weeknights at 10pm, it gets a feed of All Things Considered, the current affairs programme from US public broadcaster NPR. They have a weekly feature in which an ethicist responds to listeners’ dilemmas. Although he sounds really easy-going, his advice is fairly strict - within a practical, day-to-day framework. Worth a listen; it helps tune up one’s sense of ethics, no matter how finely-honed already.
The story goes that a bloke who was appointed State Director spent his first week on the job incognito at a local office as a junior. The intention was apparently to get a feel for things at the coalface. That’s laudable, but is it ethical?
I don’t think it is, despite disagreement from two people whose opinions I respect.
My problem is with the undercover aspect of the exercise. It is true that if people knew who he was, they would treat him differently, and he would not get as true an idea how it was on the ground. The value of the operation would certainly be diminished.
But I believe ethics is not just about intentions, and it’s not just about doing the right thing. It’s important to be seen to be doing the right thing. Motivation, and what is done with the information gained, is an individual matter. Some people will be beyond reproach in the matter, but certainly not all. Yet ethics is about fair dealing with other people, and private intentions are not open to all. That has only an incidental relationship to how the dealing is received by other people. You can have good intentions, but how can you prove it except by being seen to be above board?
Further, there is no guarantee that information gleaned during that week will not and can not be used in some way against some of the individuals at the local office. In the situation in question, the regional office was located with the local office, and the State Director would conceivably have future dealings with the senior management there. In mitigation, the reporting lines were not direct (local offices’ reported through to the national office, but not via the State Office). The dilemma is murkier here, but for my money, that’s not really arm’s length enough to ensure that a) nobody would be personally impacted by the internship, and b) this is seen to be so. There’s still scope, for example, for the State Director to subsequently bring pressure to affect someone’s career – due in some way to confidences received, slights perceived, etc.
Am I splitting hairs? Comments welcome.
PS Australia’s public broadcaster ABC has a news radio station - Newsradio. Weeknights at 10pm, it gets a feed of All Things Considered, the current affairs programme from US public broadcaster NPR. They have a weekly feature in which an ethicist responds to listeners’ dilemmas. Although he sounds really easy-going, his advice is fairly strict - within a practical, day-to-day framework. Worth a listen; it helps tune up one’s sense of ethics, no matter how finely-honed already.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
World: Iraq and ethical minefields
Bush invaded Iraq without international approval. Motivation? Pick one:
- weapons of mass destruction: not found; evidence was always dodgy
- terrorism: only very minor links found; no links to the world trade centre attacks
- get rid of Saddam Hussein: problematic; see below. Unlikely to be a direct motivation
- vengeance: wanted to attack someone: tenuous
- secure oil supply: far and away most consistent with Bush’s past stated aims.
Invasion to secure energy supplies is clearly not ethical.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo Bay, and the practice of “rendition” are probably in large part a direct response to the World Trade Centre attacks. Understandable in the context of a small child’s reprisals, but certainly not the hallmarks of an ethical administration, or leader.
I suspect that there’s an inherent difficulty in maintaining ethics as a world power. I suspect it would be quite difficult applying personal ethical standards to world politics. However, I'd say some are better at it than others. Scandinavian countries, for example.
What do you think of the ethics of the European Union? In toto, are they significantly better than the US? Discuss.
I also suspect that using power unethically will only, in the long run, exacerbate problems.
Bush is not ethical. Are you? Did you want to get rid of Saddam? Well, of course. He was a butcher. But world politics doesn’t work that way – otherwise we’d all be invading each other on the slightest pretext. So, what would have been the most ethical thing to do in Iraq?
More difficult: what's the best thing to do, now that we're in the current situation? Leave? Then by default leave things to the Sunni 'insurgents'? They were, after all, funded by the billions looted in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, before the US decided to try to exert some control.
Murdering thousands of innocents, and brutalising a whole populace, is certainly about the lowest you can get. And I'm talking about these 'insurgents', never mind what the US is doing.
And what ethical yardsticks should we apply to nations as a whole? Should different standards apply to world powers? In my heart, I'd say we should all purvey the same standards, but I get the feeling this is not really possible. In practice, I think smaller players in world diplomacy - Scandinavia, EU, UN - tend to try for more achievable goals rather than absolutes.
- weapons of mass destruction: not found; evidence was always dodgy
- terrorism: only very minor links found; no links to the world trade centre attacks
- get rid of Saddam Hussein: problematic; see below. Unlikely to be a direct motivation
- vengeance: wanted to attack someone: tenuous
- secure oil supply: far and away most consistent with Bush’s past stated aims.
Invasion to secure energy supplies is clearly not ethical.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo Bay, and the practice of “rendition” are probably in large part a direct response to the World Trade Centre attacks. Understandable in the context of a small child’s reprisals, but certainly not the hallmarks of an ethical administration, or leader.
I suspect that there’s an inherent difficulty in maintaining ethics as a world power. I suspect it would be quite difficult applying personal ethical standards to world politics. However, I'd say some are better at it than others. Scandinavian countries, for example.
What do you think of the ethics of the European Union? In toto, are they significantly better than the US? Discuss.
I also suspect that using power unethically will only, in the long run, exacerbate problems.
Bush is not ethical. Are you? Did you want to get rid of Saddam? Well, of course. He was a butcher. But world politics doesn’t work that way – otherwise we’d all be invading each other on the slightest pretext. So, what would have been the most ethical thing to do in Iraq?
More difficult: what's the best thing to do, now that we're in the current situation? Leave? Then by default leave things to the Sunni 'insurgents'? They were, after all, funded by the billions looted in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, before the US decided to try to exert some control.
Murdering thousands of innocents, and brutalising a whole populace, is certainly about the lowest you can get. And I'm talking about these 'insurgents', never mind what the US is doing.
And what ethical yardsticks should we apply to nations as a whole? Should different standards apply to world powers? In my heart, I'd say we should all purvey the same standards, but I get the feeling this is not really possible. In practice, I think smaller players in world diplomacy - Scandinavia, EU, UN - tend to try for more achievable goals rather than absolutes.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
World: Why capital punishment is a crime
As I understand it, the main arguments in favour of capital punishment are:
1) Preventing recidivism (re-offending);
2) Deterrence;
3) Vengeance.
Five arguments against capital punishment:
1) It further brutalises society - and those directly involved;
2) The occasional possibility of killing someone innocent;
3) It offers no opportunity for repentance;
4) It offers no opportunity for forgiveness;
5) Studies tend to show there is no deterrent effect (see adjunct discussion* at bottom).
1) Preventing recidivism (re-offending);
2) Deterrence;
3) Vengeance.
Five arguments against capital punishment:
1) It further brutalises society - and those directly involved;
2) The occasional possibility of killing someone innocent;
3) It offers no opportunity for repentance;
4) It offers no opportunity for forgiveness;
5) Studies tend to show there is no deterrent effect (see adjunct discussion* at bottom).
If you consider the option of life imprisonment, the only pro-death point left is vengeance. I would argue here that this solution is not the hallmark of a mature civilisation.
This has been in the news in recent times in particular due to the sentencing of several Australian citizens in Asian countries for smuggling drugs (specifically, in Singapore and Indonesia). Those people were young, stupid and desparate rather than hardened criminals. Don't get me wrong: I'm not favouring Australians above anyone else, nor denying the ravaging effect of hard drugs. In fact, a heroin drought in Sydney in the last ten years was credited for a drop in crimes such as burglaries and robberies. [per the NSW Bureau of Crime Stats. Its inestimable director Don Weatherburn frequently adds a rational perspective to the tabloid debates to which Sydney is prone.] So the less trafficking the better.
At this point I find it hard to disentangle broader aspects of ethics from the Christian ethos that imbues modern western civilisation. Specifically, are notions of forgiveness and repentance very particularly Christian, or can it be argued that they form part of a higher ethical philosophy? I believe that the practice of repentance and forgiveness more demonstrate an abstract philosophical maturity than simply reflecting christian morality, but I can offer no immediate arguments in favour. Comments are welcome.
-----------------------------------------------
*Blumstein, and Block (below) are examples that show no deterrent effect. All studies that I have seen with opposing conclusions (such as Dezhbakhsh) simply use statistics on changes in murder rates. This doesn't take sufficient account of other factors (eg increased lockups due to the "zero tolerance" regimes). In effect, "all other things not being equal..."
- Block, Eugene B.. When Men Play God: The Fallacy of Capital Punishment. San Francisco: Cragmont Publications, 1983
- Blumstein, Alfred and Jacqueline Cohen. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. National Academy of Sciences: Washington, D.C., 1978
- H Dezhbakhsh, PH Rubin, JM Shepherd: Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? - American Law and Economics Association, 2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)