Lying.

Lets start with the simple question: why do people lie? 

The thing is we all lie. I know that. We tell “white” lies to please someone; we lie to get out of trouble – “it wasn’t me, Sir!” And we may lie to serve whatever cause we are promoting.

Sometimes what was written 3000 years ago still has great relevance today. For instance it is reported that Odysseus (he who devised the Trojan Horse that was instrumental in defeating ancient Troy) when asked the question, “Do you not really think it is disgraceful to tell lies?” answered, “No – if safety is what the lie brings”.

What are we to make of that? And whose safety? Safety for the one who lied? 

No one ever likes being lied to – least of all the liar! And I really don’t believe that a person who consistently lies can ever be at ease – they must know that one day they will be caught out. They, metaphorically, must be constantly looking over their shoulder to see how close behind them is “truth”. Likewise no one wants to be known as a liar. Liars will fight tooth and nail to defend their “integrity” and blame others for any falsehoods that may be exposed. This is why liars hate whistleblowers. Whistleblowers generally expose the truth and shine a light on the liar.

But can one ever trust a liar?  

Surely a Democratic Society can only exist if trust (and honesty) is evident? Without trust in government, in financial institutions, in health care, in the judicial system (and institutional religion), I truly believe that society would collapse and chaos would ensue.  As seems to be evident today, however, many people, who should know better, will lie to gain power, pervert justice and pursue the accumulation of wealth (money) that seems to consume their waking moments. In so doing, I believe that, under their feet, such people prepare for themselves a steep inclined plane which propels them down an ever increasing slippery slope, lower and lower into ever more deplorable activities. And more lies. Lies to counteract the original lies.

No matter what legislation is promulgated, laws will never cure cupidity or ethical and moral shortcomings.

Recall that Confucius had this to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago: 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

Hubris

In this day and age, when pride and excess seem to be common themes, and when extraordinary claims are made by individuals about their abilities and mental prowess, particularly by leaders – both public and business – it is well worth recalling that the ancient Greeks had a name for this – “Hubris” (defined as placing oneself on the same level as gods). And this hubris will be called to account. It always is.

Never forget that the “law” of cause and effect will always apply. Humans reap what they sow. It has always been thus. This “law” is unwritten and not codified but applies in every situation – it cannot be avoided and is forgotten or ignored only at great personal cost. This law incorporates the profoundly realistic doctrines of “Hubris” and “Nemesis”. Whenever there is any kind of over-weening and excess; whenever people or societies go too far either in dominating others or exploiting them, or exploiting nature, for their own advantage this unseemly exhibition of pride, this hubris, has to be paid for. 

Hubris seems to invite Nemesis and the “Goddess” Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of her cause – justice; to track every wrong back to its doer. To the ancient Greeks Nemesis was conceived as shaping the demeanour of mankind; of keeping society in equipoise. She was often portrayed holding scales, a sword and a scourge. Nemesis deals retribution in due proportion to what is deserved – in a just balance.

Where governments, and the laws they promulgate are not founded on the ultimate reality behind all phenomena, described in that fascinating compilation of ancient wisdom “Tao Te Ching”, as the Tao (Dao) - the Way (the Flow of the Universe) – society will falter. 

For clearer understanding of this statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago: 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding lack of moral leadership (and the subsequent loss of trust) shown by many of today’s leaders (both government and business) which reflects back on society and world events, I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense.

The old saying applies to all – “pride comes before a fall” and no one can foretell what the effects of this “fall” will be or when it will take place.

Nemesis in her deliberations misses not one of all. 

Another way of putting this is in the old saying, “the mills of God grind slow but exceeding fine”.

Voting for a lie and Compulsory Voting.

In relation to the examples of the current crowd of self-serving, venial, crassly stupid politicians in Canberra (in my view) I offer the following for those who may be interested. 

My question: Why am I forced to vote for a lie and liars (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting)? I personally have yet to be convinced that compulsion is comfortably associated with democratic principles. 

As a concerned citizen I regard the impact of certain measures and policies the current Federal Government (the LNP) has outlined since the election that we were not asked to vote for – and I might add this applies also to previous administrations – as unacceptable.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was promised were not “core promises” (Re: Tony Abbott in 2014 - what is a “core promise” pray tell?). Why do politicians bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a tax is a tax and promise is a promise in any language?

My concerns are about what are we compelled to vote for – a lie? Is this morally and ethically acceptable? Is this legal? Is this democratic?   

Most people are well aware that trust takes a long time to develop but may be lost in an instant - recall the (Howard era) “Tampa” affair and the “children overboard” allegations; recall the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government “flip flop” on a “mining tax”; recall the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the want of compassion and kindness enveloping the LNP’s activities relating to “illegal” refugees and the events on Manus Island and Nauru, (all done in the name of Australia – i.e. in MY name); note the blatant unfairness of many current budget measures - and so it goes on!! 

To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about morals and justice some twenty-five centuries ago (The Analects – trans. Simon Leys):- 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding levels of abuse of position, the lying and lack of moral leadership shown by many of this country’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for every politician to stop, take a step back and really examine their actions to see whether they make any sense. 

As an example, I was told in a letter, (in my possession and dated 9^thJanuary 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull (in reply to my concerns) that (and I quote):- 

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

In the 2014 Budget (only some four months after this letter) the LNP reduced the ABC’s budget allocation by hundreds of millions of dollars – described as an “efficiency dividend”! They are still doing this – still cutting the ABC’s funding in both the 2017 and 2018 budgets.

And we HAVE to vote? Please!!  

Another curiosity - I notice that in the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) website in the FAQ section the last point in the ‘Arguments in Favour of Compulsory Voting’ states: “The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.”

I find this an astonishing statement – it is of course true, but somewhat defeats the purpose of compulsory voting!

Furthermore I notice that (Federally) informal votes average round about 5 per cent. This, in actual numbers for the 2016 election, equates to about 720 000 people who for various reason “spoiled” their vote. 

There were approximately 630 000 people “missing” from the electoral rolls. That’s a lot.

Now if you add “spoiled” papers to those “missing” this equates to about 1.35 million people who didn’t actually vote out of the about 16.8 million Australians who were eligible to vote or about 8 per cent. That’s also a lot of people.

Also there was a record low level of voter interest in the 2016 federal election, and record low levels of satisfaction with democracy and trust in government. Only 60 per cent of voters were satisfied with democracy in Australia, the lowest level since the 1970s. Apparently.

It appears that about one in five people (20 per cent) believe that politicians who they voted for won’t make any difference, up from 13 per cent in 2007. University research also finds some weakening in the perception that people in government can be trusted to “do the right thing”. Strange that!

There has to be a reason for this and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause. If politicians did not have the comfort of knowing that their margin was X% (because of polling data and compulsory voting) they might actually get out on the road and “stump” their electorate and find out what their electorates real concerns are. As an example, I emigrated to Australia in January 1982 – in the intervening years I have lived at five locations in and around Perth (Western Australia) yet no Federal candidate has bothered to call at my house; only in the last few years, since moving to a retirement village, has a candidate’s “flyer” even landed in my mail box! 

If they show that much interest in me, what level of interest should I show in them?

I suggest that the AEC consider recommending that “compulsory” should be removed from the Electoral Act particularly as we are “not compelled to vote for anyone”? The candidates would then “be compelled” to do the rest! 

A possible reversion to the 1911 compulsory enrolment concept (all eligible people were required to enrol as voters) may be a good alternative. Many people may not be aware that France has a highly efficient registration process. At the age of eighteen, all French youth are automatically registered. Similarly, in Nordic countries all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system) – with an 86% average voter turnout. [I referred to Wikipedia for some of this information].

Compulsory voting in Australia is an unnecessary “impost” on the population.

Such a change, as recommended above, would I believe, still fulfil the AEC’s primary role in ensuring that it delivers a free and fair election.

Such a change would also free up resources wasted on prosecuting those who did not bother (or refused) to cast their vote – for a lie!

Arouse the electorate’s interest and people will vote – the blatant lies, the unfairness, lack of trust, disinterest and boredom, and the crass stupidity of some parliamentarians, are the problem - it is a case of “the same old, same old”. 

And we HAVE to vote??

What Gandhi said.

In light of the present day – and world wide - investigations into corruption, fraud and, shall I say, a disinclination to tell the truth, in government, business, sport and finance, what Gandhi said may be of relevance. Gandhi (Mohandas  Gandhi, 1869 to 1948) said that one of the seven deadly “sins” (as he described them) of the modern world was “Commerce without Morality”. 

What did he mean by this and is it true? 

We need first to ask ourselves two questions; what is morality? Is it important?

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines Morals inter alia, as “… of or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil in relation to the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical; …” ; and Ethics, inter alia, as “… the moral principles by which any particular person is guided; the rules of conduct recognized in a particular profession or area of human life”.

Ethics and morality then are the flip sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other.  Someone who is moral must, by definition, be also ethical and be what we would call a ‘good’ person. Such a person we would consider trustworthy, someone we would like to deal with, to call upon for help, advice and guidance. Someone who’s word is their bond.

In the Analects of Confucius (551 BC to 479 BC) translated by Simon Leys, there is a quote about the importance, in ancient China, of the notion of the word ‘gentleman’.

“Originally it meant an aristocrat, a member of the social elite: one did not become a gentleman, one could only be born a gentleman. For Confucius, on the contrary, a ‘gentleman’ is a member of the moral elite. It is an ethical quality, achieved by the practice of virtue, and secured through education. Every man should strive for it, even though few may reach it.” 

It is my contention that Morality is common to all peoples in all places and at all times. As human beings, we naturally, seldom continuously think about things we do not like, or try to do something we would not normally like doing. We generally try to do things that make us happy. We, through our actions, try to express ourselves, what we choose to be, in the eyes of our fellow beings, and at a deeper level, in our own eyes. We naturally try to do ‘good’ and to be true to ourselves. To do or be anything else is always stressful and will certainly reduce our chances of leading a fulfilling life with a good work-life balance. 

In many respects what has been forgotten in today’s frenetic world is that there has been an impoverishment of the concept of MAN (homo sapiens) as a human being. For instance people who look for measurable success live only a one dimensional existence (e.g. a CEO always expected to maintain or increase earnings per share year on year). There is a need to distinguish between succeeding for the sake of winning, and a desire for success that will enrich our lives and lead to fulfilment and a feeling of well being. We need a balance between success, as a human being and success in activities (not always the same thing).

Expectations of measurable success and the activities required to meet them, possibly even exploitative actions, diminish the perpetrators.  Such people are reduced to a one-eyed perception of Life. This is what I believe Gandhi was thinking about when he made the statement that leads this article. The aim of life is the unfolding of man’s creative powers; the potential of Life’s process is a transformation of Society into one governed by compassion, justice and truth.

Those with long memories may recall a businessman (the late Albert Dunlap) nicknamed “Chainsaw”, who, quite a few years ago now, was engaged to reinvigorate a large appliance manufacturing company in the USA. They may also recall his business fate. 

The need for moral and ethical conduct was well known in earlier times. People received instruction about the Natural Laws, by way of fables and myths. These highlighted, in often graphic detail, the consequences of irresponsible actions and the operation of the unwritten “Law” of cause and effect. 

This may be more directly stated as in the old saying, “You reap what you sow”.

For those interested, the 'Seven Sins' according to Gandhi were:- 1: Knowledge without character. 2: Science without humanity. 3: Wealth without work. 4: Commerce without morality. 5: Politics without principles. 6: Pleasure without conscience. 7: Worship without self-sacrifice.

The Australian version of Democracy

It is difficult to gauge how democracy is travelling in “democratic” countries. I speak particularly about Australia (where I live) which is touted as one of the strongest democracies in the world.

That I (and my wife) are pensioners (I am 73 and retired only one working day before my 72^nd birthday) and have no income other than the Government provided Age Pension, is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what it is we are forced to vote for (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting).

For those who may be unaware of this curious fact, Australia has compulsory voting –whether you like any of the candidates or not, whether you like their policies or not, whether you like it or not, you have to vote – or face a fine for NOT voting.

I personally am not sure that compulsory voting is actually democratic, but this again is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was said is not going happen; that these promises were not “core promises”. What is a “core promise” pray tell? Why bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a promise is a promise in any language?

My concern is about what it is that we are actually forced to vote for – a lie? Is this an example of being a good role model? Is this how leaders are supposed to behave? Is this an open, accountable and “mature Government”? Is this a Government that can be trusted?

Trust takes a long time to develop but can be lost in an instant. To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about this some twenty-five centuries ago:

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

In light of the astounding lack of trust and moral leadership shown - and admitted – by many leaders (political, business and religious or in fact any position with monetary significance), I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense. For example, just look at the corruption, the appalling moral and ethical short comings exposed by the various commissions of enquiry currently underway in Australia (into child sexual abuse and into corrupt union activities). Think about the financial scandals in England and the USA (LIBOR, Wall Street and “banks too big to fail”); the International Olympic games organization (athletes and performance enhancing drugs and also bribes being paid to officials); the International Football Federation (“ditto”); international cycling (“ditto”); international pharmaceutical companies (using corrupt methods to enhance sales of products with doubtful efficacy); using children as slave labour to produce low priced garments - the list just goes on and on and on!   

And then as a further Australian example, I was told in a letter (dated  9^th January 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull ( the Australian Minister for Communications) that, and I quote:-

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is owned and fully funded by the government - but three months later Turnbull cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from their budget allocation (possibly out of spite – the ABC, in the past, has dared to criticize the current government).

And we HAVE to vote for these people? Please!!

I believed Prime Minister, Tony Abbott when he said, before the recent general election, that there would be no changes to the Aged Pension or to Medicare, but there are changes. In light of the 2014 Budget cuts are these the words of a trustworthy man? All the cuts to health and education, and the reductions to benefits and allowances are, ostensibly, designed to “improve the economy” and balance the budget.

The trouble is the “Economy” is not some esoteric, alien “thing” somewhere out there. Without people there would be no economy – the economy IS people, the citizens of this country. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) and Treasurer (Joe Hockey) may well “balance the budget”- the Federal Budget - and help the “economy”, but they cannot ignore what the States do because they affect the “economy” as well. We are supposed to be the Commonwealth of Australia after all. But if they, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, hand-ball the hard work to the States (funding health and education) why do we need a Federal Government – or if you prefer why have State Governments? Having both, singing from different hymn books, does not serve.

If people have less money to spend (because of the afore mentioned budget constraints) how is the economy supposed to grow? It is worth repeating that the economy is made up from people – more money and confidence and it grows; less money and less confidence and it contracts.      

Who do we trust? No wonder there is a rise in the number of independents and micro-parties – if we HAVE to vote might as well vote for something or someone novel.

It is worth asking what we ACTUALLY vote for – what politicians SAY they will do or what they ACTUALLY do – which is discovered only after the event?

And Australians are penalised for not voting. Democracy indeed!

How shall we live? Confucius – he say!

We are living in a troubled world, beset by many trials and tribulations and where ethics is in short supply – as has always been the case, I suppose, but with modern communications they seem somewhat compounded and “in your face”, as it were. So this all begs the question – in this Twenty-first Century how are we to live? What should be our collective aims? What is mankind’s purpose?

Some time and quite a few posts ago I wrote about ethics and the conditions and attributes necessary for ethical conduct to occur. I now refer to some old texts to expand on this subject.

In the Analects of Confucius (551 BC to 479 BC)  translated by Simon Leys, there is a quote about the importance, in ancient China, of the notion of the word ‘gentleman’.

“Originally it meant an aristocrat, a member of the social elite: one did not become a gentleman, one could only be born a gentleman. For Confucius, on the contrary, a ‘gentleman’ is a member of the moral elite. It is an ethical quality, achieved by the practice of virtue, and secured through education. Every man should strive for it, even though few may reach it.”

To understand this statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago:

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

In light of the astounding lack of trust and moral leadership shown - and admitted – by many of today’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense.

Take the apparently common scenario: “I am spying on you because I know that you are spying on me but I want my spies to find out what your spies are trying to find out about me because my spies are trying to get the same sort of information about you”, kind of thing.

No one likes being spied on, so why do it? I mean, really, does this make any sense? Is this the way we want to live?? After five million years of human evolution if this is the finest example of all we have achieved, then God help us all!!!

If you are a “Creationist” I ask if this is the finest example of all we have achieved since the days of Adam and Eve??? Again, if it is, then God help us all!!

Just because spying is an age old “game” does not mean that it is the right thing to do; just because “everyone is doing it” does not mean it is the right thing to do; just because everyone is doing it does not make it ethical!!!

So – repeat after me, all together now, “Always treat others the way you would like to be treated - because there is no other viable option!”

Mental health, surveillance, controls and us.

Amended September 21, 2018.
This is another post from some years ago that is, I feel, particularly relevant today with the news that China is using millions of CCTV cameras (with face recognition software) to keep tabs of all citizens. Those who are seen to follow the "Party Line" earn "Social Credits" and are allowed to travel both within and outside China, for example. There are many more social activities that you or I would consider normal that are denied those with a low "Social Credit" score.


Today, when we are deluged with advertising exhorting us to buy this or that product, to follow this or that cause, to do this or that because “you deserve it”, how many of us actually know what we like or even who we are? Certainly advertising is useful – in its place. But when we reach a stage of believing everything we are told – by someone who certainly does not have our best interests in mind – I think we are in trouble. How can anyone know what I need, or want, or should do? They (whoever “they” may be) may generalise and say that statistically most people do this or that or the other thing. But when “they” try to apply their generalisations to me (or you) it becomes an opinion, because they don’t know my (or your) specific attributes and needs.

The thing is that it is so easy to follow what others do. There is comfort in knowing that we conform to what the group or society is doing (whether this is right or wrong). I suppose it is that same sort of comfort afforded to a herd of gazelles about to be attacked by a lion. There is comfort in numbers – an individual gazelle’s chance of being eaten by the lion is in inverse proportion to the size of the herd – a relatively small chance. Many of us may unconsciously try to comply with the same herd instinct. I am not sure that this is, generally, in our best interests. To revert to the example of the gazelles, each gazelle conforms to the characteristics of their kind – all are of a similar colour and size. Human beings, on the other hand, are not all of one colour or one size, and what are are the characteristics of our kind? We have attributes and characteristics derived from ALL animals – we live, survive and seem to thrive in every climatic and environmental condition.

So where does this leave us human beings? We have a propensity to conform – it is so easy to do so. There is no need for us to think for ourselves. Someone (who we presume must know better than us) tells us what to do because it is deemed to be best for us (as individuals). On the other hand it is a human requirement that we each grow and develop in our own individual way for our own individual purposes. We each learn from and react to experiences and circumstances in our own unique way. We are not clones. We each, in our own way on our journey through life, add to the sum of human knowledge. This is as it should be because in this way humanity benefits. There will certainly be ups and downs, positives and negatives in this journey and with the knowledge we gain in this process. But again this is as it should be. How else can we learn?

This gets me back to where I started from – other people telling me (or us) what to do. Rather than being told what to do, there is I believe a (possibly unconscious) covert move to influence us in other ways. Why are there so many surveillance cameras in most major cities? I believe it is because the authorities (whoever they are) want us to believe that we are under constant surveillance by some unseen authority. In this way it is hoped that we “internalise” this sense of being observed and alter our behaviour. This is a form of power whereby physical control is switched from the old concept of chains, to self control through the fear of not knowing for certain whether or not we are being observed. This uncertainty will change the way we think of ourselves as citizens by introducing the element of fear which leads us to “conform” to some vague, undefined, pattern of behaviour.

Ostensibly the surveillance is to identify criminals, and one has to admit it is useful in this regard. However are we to submit to some Government ill defined “greater good”, which limits individual freedoms? By freedoms I do not in any way suggest that we can or should do what we like. Not at all. Paradoxically, because we, as individuals, always hold to the core belief that we are good, any attempt to expose activity to the contrary (i.e. by surveillance cameras) is met with an element of anxiety – no one wants to be shown up to be less than their own idea of who they are. This aside, any constraint on our ability as individuals to express ourselves as we see fit has, I am sure, unforeseen consequences. The fundamental law of life – the law of cause and effect, may be forgotten but can never be avoided. Ethics, morality and values (both personal and cultural) must be adhered to.

Stress and anxiety are known to be precursors of a variety of mental problems as defined by the Psychologists “Bible” – the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual  – DSM5. It is possible, even probable, that the elements of stress and anxiety brought about by this background of constant surveillance is instrumental in the, verified, higher incidence of schizophrenia in cities as compared to rural areas.

In high density urban environments we are constantly pulled and pushed by conflicting demands – we need to maintain certain standards of behaviour (on the surface at least) to keep peace with neighbours; we have a desire to maintain living standards and to have certain material goods to satisfy our children and to “keep up with the Jones’”; we are aware that we are constantly being observed by our neighbours for any transgressions. Thus we are forced to conform to standards that are not of our making and which may conflict with our individual values and moral standards. To have added to this the knowledge that we are under constant CCTV surveillance is an additional level of stress.

This does bode well for our peace of mind.

Maybe the Chinese Authorities should recall that some twenty-seven centuries ago the Chinese philosopher Confucius stated that:

"If you govern people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard."

My freedom stops where yours begins

I wonder if you have ever thought about the true importance of the rather glib saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins?” It is so simple yet it is actually quite profound and has equally profound implications.

It is at the same time rather vague and yet very definite. To me, this statement has relationships at the core of its meaning. By relationships I am never just referring to intimate relationships but to the broader meaning – our relationship with the world around us; how we deal with our fellow beings.

We all understand this statement and its implications and in our own way we follow it. While I am no lawyer, it seems that this statement is the basis of all laws; it is at the core of our understanding of ‘justice’ – what applies to me must of necessity also apply to you. It is at the core of our understanding of the term ‘criminal’ – someone who by their actions has, by deception or other means, wrongfully deprived me of something which belonged to me, which is rightfully mine or for which I had had a duty of care to protect (this, of course also includes the ‘worst’ crime of all, murder - depriving another of their life). It is at the core of the word ‘cruelty’ – wilfully causing pain and suffering to another being.

I cannot think of anything else because ‘justice’, ‘criminal’ and ‘cruelty’ covers just about everything. The Laws we enact are supposed to help the practitioners of the Law to draw the line at the point where my ‘freedom’ (to do what I like) stops and your ‘freedom’ (to do what you like) begins. This is not always an easy task, hence the plethora of laws, rules regulations and other constraints placed on our ‘freedom’ to live our lives as we see fit.

To understand the statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-seven centuries ago:

“If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

So should this standard of ‘moral excellence’ come from the top down – from those who govern us, or from the bottom up – we tell those who govern us what to do? Or should we all do the ‘right’ thing?

Interesting.