What is next?

I know I have written about this before, but it is sometimes both interesting and instructive to refer to what the ancients had to say about life in general and in particular about money and wealth.  Plato (427 – 347 BC) in his Dialogues, particularly the Republic (Jowett translation) writes about Oligarchy and the changes that take place in people’s ways of life and expectations.

Plato defines Oligarchy as - “Typically ruled by a small group of men usually distinguished by wealth or with military backing. Seeking to rival rich men, the great mass of citizens become lovers of money. The more they think of money the less they honour virtue. Men become lovers of money and money-making; they honour and look up to the rich man and promote him to high office and dishonour the poor man ….. 

There is a further defect that arises, its division into what Plato calls a Timocracy. The State is not one but two States, the one of the poor, the other of rich men, living in the same spot and always conspiring against one another....

.... At the same time the rich with their fondness of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes.”

Plato defines Timocracy as, “An intermediate state between Oligarchy and Aristocracy (Aristocracy according to Plato is a state ruled by philosopher kings – rule by the wise) ... Timocrats are unique in their fear of philosophers as rulers (preferring passionate, less complex characters more fitted to war than peace) and on the value placed on military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars. But people living in a Timocracy are very like those in an Oligarchy in their covetousness of money.... They will spend large sums of money on women, and other others who please them .... they will spend that which is another man’s on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law...”

Oh dear! I wonder where I have heard all this before – it seems that we never learn! All this sounds distressingly familiar, doesn’t it? We can all relate to Plato’s comments, which show that human nature hasn’t changed in twenty-five centuries (at least)! 

Its well worth repeating that unless we escape the maelstrom that we are descending into, when people relate more to money and “stuff” rather than the wellbeing of people (human beings) whose labour produced both (money and “stuff”) - we have a real problem, as currently seems the case.

Rather glibly economists speak of the ‘global village’ and of the benefits of ‘globalisation’ but do they really know what they are talking about? Now that we are all in this together – the Covid-19 pandemic - isn’t it time that we recognized the benefits of prioritising the well being of the populace in one’s own country? 

As an example of the “dangers” of coveting money above all else, I offer the following – possibly extreme but true none the less. Some years ago now I listened to a sad tale, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview, about the changes that had taken place on a Pacific island (I cannot now remember which one). The speaker, an old Islander, told of how, certainly within his life time, there had been no unemployment, no starvation and no crime (except the occasional ‘crime of passion’) and that there had been a general sense of well being and of belonging to a community and of a long continuum in that community – going back generations. Each knew their place. Everyone was educated in the traditions of their community, their complex (and very accurate) system of maritime navigation and the various skills of canoe building, weaving and such like.  Everyone did what they could – they planted their taro, they fished, collected coconuts or whatever and they continued a simple barter trade with neighbouring islands – sometimes many days travel away in their out-rigger canoes. While they had never known any other way of living they were content.

Then all of a sudden some developer, with financial gain foremost in his mind, thought it would be a good idea to open a supermarket and associated infrastructure on the island. This brought about an abrupt change in the islanders way of living. Now all of a sudden they had to have money to purchase the many desirable items in the shop and they quickly acquired a taste for the different foods on offer. 

This brought massive disruption to their previously ordered society. Families were split up when some members had to travel to either Australia or New Zealand to find work to send back money to their families ‘back home’ so they could purchase ‘stuff’ from the supermarket. Previously unknown health issues arose (from the changes in diet and alcohol intake); previously unknown social disruption and types of crime occurred  – there was now theft, violence, greed, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and the occasional case of starvation.

The old Islander plaintively questioned, “Are we better off entering this “new” world   (i.e. the Global Economy)?”

I know things never stay the same and that longing for the past is a fruitless exercise, but I again ask the question - do the economists, who promote the “global” concept, really know what they are doing – promoting the acquisition of money as the end game of life? Surely the well being of people should be paramount? I fully realise this is not a simple Yes or No question – but it still needs to be asked.

I have often wondered about the ethics of globalisation and whether it really has brought the benefits to ALL that its promoters trumpeted that it would. 

E+V+V+M=L

Ethics + Virtues + Values + Morals = Life (and well-being). Why? 

Amended 8 January 2020: 

I know I wrote this many years ago now (maybe I was in a more serious mood!) - but it still holds true - particularly in world at present! 

At least in my mind it does.

---///---

There seems to be some confusion about the terms Ethics, Values, Virtues and Morals. Certainly the terms Ethics and Morals are used indiscriminately and are considered interchangeable as are Virtues and Values. Yet they each have a name and therefore a purpose. 

It is here stated that virtues are at the core of both morality and ethics. Virtues are the qualities people admire and aspire to and define a ‘good person’; the qualities of kindness, compassion, courage, honesty, temperance, humility, integrity and justice. A person cannot be either ethical or moral without also being virtuous. Anyone’s ethical and moral qualities together with their virtue are dependent on their set of values; their beliefs, something that is at the core of their being. Values are not just mannerisms or a set of preferences. They refer to something much deeper and more subtle, to a line that cannot be transgressed. It has been suggested (possibly unkindly) that human beings as a species are neither intelligent nor creative enough to have invented morality, virtues, ethics or values; that these are innate and part of the human psyche.

In a general discussion, however, it is sometimes best to consider each term separately, even though they are interwoven and have a symbiotic relationship. They work together because to be at ease with yourself and to create and  maintain a meaningful balance between the conflicting demands of work (to earn a living); family (love and building and maintaining relationships); time out for one’s self (R and R and to reflect on and assimilate the varied influences that affect your quality of life) they cannot be isolated and used or applied piecemeal. 

Ethics, morals, virtues and values should be considered as facets of the same jewel – a human being who has fulfilled their potential. Each supports the other and somehow the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts – like the facets cut on a precious stone.

Similarly they cannot be considered as disposable items, to be used and then discarded. Nor are they to be written up only to be kept in a drawer and dusted off when a crisis looms. They need to come from the heart. They need to be practiced daily, to become a habit of excellence. In effect they are the essence of Humanity and what it is to be a good person. And we all want to be considered good – in fact to accuse someone of not being ‘good’ is an affront and taken as an insult. 

So then:

Ethics: the principled treatment of other so as to cause no harm – “treat others as you would like to be treated”. 

Morals: the reasoned ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or positive and negative in relation to the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings.  

Virtues: the qualities which determine the Moral excellence of a person.

Values: the beliefs which set parameters or limits to a person’s thinking, and which are evidenced only by their actions.

Someone who is ethical has sound values, supported by appropriate virtues and moral precepts - in other words the basis for a good, socially integrated, Life. 

Is “Civil"-"isation” in jeopardy?

At this time of year when we wish for “Peace on Earth and goodwill to all”, I ask the question, “Is civilization as we know it in jeopardy?”

Today, December 23, 2018, trust is “missing in action”. Trust has been absent without leave – AWOL - for quite a while and trust is desperately needed. Right now. And trust is such a subjective, fragile thing. It cannot be bought or sold. It has to be earned.

Trust in governments; government trust in the electorate; trust in parliaments; trust in politicians; trust in financial organisations; trust in big business; trust in religious institutions; trust in all these, so vital for the smooth running of societies is no longer there. In consequence no one is considered trustworthy.

Trust evaporates when secrecy prevails, with closed meetings, and when cameras are banned from recording; trust evaporates when money takes precedent over humanity; trust evaporates when greed takes precedent over compassion; trust evaporates when veniality is condoned or simply ignored; trust evaporates when those in positions of power tell lies; trust evaporates when meaningless words -“spin”- take the place of policy action; trust evaporates when there is an attempt to indoctrinate with lifeless words.

People – the populous – citizens (the “civitas”) are not stupid. For any leader to consider them as such is a massive mistake. For any leader, anywhere to ignore the will of the people is to do so at their peril. The old saying, “even the worm turns” is very true.

The answer, in my view, is very simple – just treat people, others, the way you would like to be treated. It is an ethical thing.  That is what a “civil” society is based on. That is what “civilisation” is based on. Being “civil” to each other. No matter what colour or creed the “other” may be. All are Human Beings.  That is why it's called the "Golden Rule". 

Is that so difficult?

Oh! And Merry Christmas.

On being Human

Anyone who reads this is, by all accounts, a human being. But then what are human beings? And I don’t just mean the physical attributes of the species Homo Sapiens, I ask what else is there, or should there be, to determine that a human being is truly “human”?

Of course there are the ultimate hypothetical questions – “Why are we here? Why us?” These I cannot answer. Obviously. So what I’ll do is remove some of what I would consider to be the negatives (not in any particular order of importance) from the “equation” that determines a true(?) human.

We are not here just to make money.

We are not here to kill each other.

We are not here to exploit or take unfair advantage of others.

We are not here to enslave others.

We are not here to force either men or women to adopt certain, exclusive, roles.

We are not here to be forced or coerced into believing any one particular belief, or political, system is the only correct one.

We are not here to pillage and destroy the only home we know – Planet Earth.

This narrows things down somewhat. While this may seem like a watered down version of the biblical Ten Commandments - it is not supposed to be. 

These “negatives” hone in on a favourite subject of mine – Ethics.

To avoid falling into the all to human trap, or mind set, of believing that ignoring any of the “negatives” will have few or no consequences, I ask just three questions:-

1.     Would you like it if you were caught up, as a victim, by any of the negatives?

2.     Why not treat everyone, yes everyone, as you would like to be treated?

3.     Furthermore, if everyone, yes EVERYONE, did what you are doing, or proposing to do, would the World be a better place?

If the answer to any of these questions is “No” (as I strongly suspect), then don’t do it.

Simple really!

In my understanding, to be “human”, in the truest sense of the word, is to be ethical. I do not believe there are any viable alternatives. 

Bank Ethics (and trust).

I feel that I may (repeat may) possibly have had a small influence in the Australian Banks decision to "allow" a Banking Royal Commission - I'm not boasting mind!! Some weeks ago I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association and I offer this contribution for those interested to read:-

The Chief Executive Officer

Australian Bankers' Association
Level 3, 56 Pitt Street,
Sydney. NSW 2000

Dear Ms Bligh,

Re: Bank Ethics (and trust).

I am sure I need not remind you that it is obvious, not just to me, that the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia needs to be addressed. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed and moral shortcomings evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008, (the GFC); we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world-wide for aiding and abetting questionable financial transactions - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators, the public and politicians.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banks have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said before, many times, that without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default, no need for shareholders. Money is not “self-emergent” – it is a human construct.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers (i.e. people), are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world-wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - the “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until all these people conduct themselves with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until there are changes, banks will continue to be mistrusted and reviled.

I will be very interested in any response you may offer.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Campbell-Watt

The difference between Ethics and Religion

I know I have written about this before but it is a very good question and today an ever more important one. They are, however, two quite different things. To me the very basis of ethics is the “golden rule”:– Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

All religions (repeat all religions) have this written somewhere in their “Book” or “Books”. But to me the words – written and book – are the problem with religions. The “words” were written by human beings and are interpreted by human beings, no matter how Holy, or Divine, or educated, or devout they may be, it will still be their writing and their interpretation of what they heard or saw. And people, all people, religious or otherwise will interpret what they see and hear through the filter of their life experiences. It cannot be otherwise. Remember that not one (not one), not Buddha, Jesus or Mohammad, ever wrote anything down. There is some dispute as to whether or not they were even literate. Everything that we know about them and their teachings was written by their followers – sometimes many years later.

People have opinions based on their life experience, education and current circumstances. This, most certainly, colours what they do and say – also what they write.

And there is a difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religions, in my understanding are supposed to give guidance to followers, to understand how to get closer to God (or Allah, or Yahweh, or the Great Artificer, or whatever name you give to the Almighty). In other-words how to become a better person and (possibly) more spiritual. If this were not so, why follow any religion?

There are over 7 billion people on earth at present. There are, I believe 72 Jewish sects or interpretations or schools of teaching; there are 3 sects in Islam with, as far as I can determine, 73 different basic interpretations or schools of teaching; there is dispute about how many Christian denominations, sects or schools of teaching there are – a quite astonishing figure of about 20 000 (twenty thousand) has been quoted; there are 5 basic divisions in Buddhism with many difference interpretations or schools of teaching; Hinduism – the oldest surviving religion in the world, has hundreds of different interpretations of the various teachings (I am unable to determine how many).

But (with the exception of Buddhism) they all claim to worship God - a Supreme Being (presumably the same one).

There are so many religions and interpretations because we are all different, with different expectations and views on life. We are not clones. People will always try to find some form of worship that is close to their way of thinking, something that satisfies them and brings them comfort and peace.

Another problem is that religions (all religions) give power to the leaders or teachers. A classic example is the Catholic Church, which is a vastly wealthy organization, and the Pope (an elected leader) wields immense power in many areas.

Power always brings corruption and abuse of power (as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, famously wrote, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”). And with human beings, fickle as they are, this always has been and always will be, even with checks and balances. Corruption is not ethical. People in power will always try and use it for their own benefit or to make them seem “better” in their own estimation.

There is, and always has been, abuse (sexual and physical) of women and children in all religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Priestly abuse and paedophilia are oxymorons. They should not go together, but they often do, unfortunately.

This is why, in my understanding, there is a difference between Ethics and Religion even though all religions have written somewhere:- Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

And again, that question of spirituality. This I cannot answer. But I know that religiosity is not the same as spirituality. Never was.

If anyone is interested I was born into a not very devout family – Church of England. 

Revenge and Injustice

NOTE: This post has jumped 6 years - it was originally posted May 14, 2011 hence the comments about bin Laden etc. Very old news. Not sure how or why this came to be "re-dated"!! 

No matter which way you look at it revenge is not a form of justice. Revenge is always personal – normally to seek retribution for some imagined wrong or perceived damage to someone’s ego (“loss of face”). Justice, to be true justice must be provided according to the law and be seen to be done – in other words justice must be a public affair. All trials and judgements must be made in public. No secret trials, no ‘kangaroo courts’, no ‘renditions’ to secret locations, no private ‘extra-judicial’ killings or assassinations.

Take the recent Osama bin Laden event in Pakistan. Whatever his crimes (and they were many), as a human being, he rightfully deserved his day in court. No matter the feelings of anger, hatred or fear and loathing engendered by his name and activities, he was entitled to a fair trial. To believe otherwise is to sink to his level, to a level of barbarism that does not sit well with any professed civilised society.

The law is based on trust and ethics. The great Confucius said some 2500 years ago, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others” - (the Bible says this and the Koran also expresses this guiding principle). This common sense principle is the foundation of all laws, of ethics, of compassion and of the general process of living. This is where the trust element resides – in the sure knowledge that you will be treated the same way that you would treat others. Any country that professes to abide by the law but, when convenient, flouts this principle loses all moral authority - read the USA, Sweden, Israel, China, Iran, Australia (and unfortunately many others).

When trust falters and people are unsure about how they will be treated, problems arise. Citizens will either live in fear, or will flout the law with a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t’ attitude. Neither bodes well for peace and prosperity in any country.

No matter how much "spin" the Americans use to dress up the killing of bin Laden; no matter how much the Swedes approve their closed trials for sexual crimes; no matter what the Chinese say about their secret trials, imprisonment and execution of people for spurious violations of their laws; no matter what the Israeli’s call their killing of Palestinians; no matter how the USA describes their treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay; no matter how Australian police justify their treatment of the original inhabitants of Australia, such activities cannot be justified and are wrong – plain and simply wrong.

Think of it like this – if the positions were reversed, the people imposing these penalties would not like to be treated this way, would they? Remember that violence - in any form - is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.

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.

No matter what – banks are still bastards!

It is not just me complaining about the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia. Australian politicians are now supporting what I have been saying for a long time, and it is unfortunately all too true. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008; we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world wide for aiding and abetting questionable  activities and money transfers - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), the Australia and New Zealand Bank (ANZ), National Australia Bank (NAB) and Westpac (and some of the smaller ones) have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). They have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said, many times before – without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default no need for shareholders.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers – i.e. people, are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - their “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until these people conduct banking with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until they do change and adopt customer best practice they will continue to be mistrusted.