Sell your reputation for a song.

This is actually quite an old post that I have resurrected as I believe it has some resonance today.

People have idols; things they value above all others; even, unfortunately more than they value themselves – their self-worth, their honour and their reputation. There has been a spate of media reports about people who have indulged in, shall we say, less than charitable behaviour.  People from all walks of life have been found guilty of malpractice of one type or another.

I have said before that poets can often say in a few words what it takes others, like me, many words to express. There is a very appropriate quatrain (verse) in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Omar Khayyam was an 11^th Century Persian mathematician, astronomer and poet) - which goes as follows (verse 69): 

 

69

                                           Indeed the Idols I have loved so long

                                           Have done my Credit in Men’s Eyes much wrong:

                                              Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow cup,

                                           And sold my Reputation for a Song.

 

For many people their idols are money (or the “stuff’ that money can buy); or prestige and the power that comes with their position. If you “love” something above all others – an idol - this will soon be apparent to all who know you. You will have removed yourself from the rest of humanity; you will be using people as a means to an end; you will be using people to acquire more of what you “love”. They will sense this and you will have done your “credit in Men’s eyes much wrong”. 

To get your idol you will cheat, you will lie, you will become untrustworthy, you will be immoral, you will not be ethical in your activities. You will have drowned your honour in a shallow cup – lost your honour for something of little value – a “shallow cup”. 

Your love for, your fixation to, your worship of your idol means that you have lost all sense of proportion or reason and are prepared to sell your self-worth – who you are – for a “song” - something of no substance. You will have diminished yourself as a human being.

No one will ever trust you again – your self-worth, your reputation, your honour will have been damaged almost beyond repair.

Duty

There are few things that get up my nose more than injustice and cruelty. These two words (and the activities they refer to) will overlap to a greater or lesser degree and in some instances they may equate to the same thing. A cruel act will almost certainly be unjust and in many instances an injustice may be cruel. And then there are the overriding aspects of morality and ethics. Of a certainty, whatever activity or behaviour is unjust or cruel cannot be either moral or ethical.

The other day Archie asked for my comments on activities which are often disguised as, or confounded with, “Duty”, but are really cruel and/or unjust.

Now ‘duty’ is an old word, certainly going back to Anglo-Norman times. But it is unfortunately, often misunderstood. I know “duty” gets mixed up with obeying orders (in the military or paramilitary forces and in judicial or extra-judicial matters). It also gets a bad rap from the appalling revelations about the actions of totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian governments, and unfortunately some “democratic” governments such as  “renditions” when Americans sent (send?) suspected terrorists to countries that are prepared to sanction torture to extract information – “I was just obeying orders”. In my lexicon, however, “duty” has an ethical basis. It has a basis in an action for the benefit of others; a duty of care – almost an obligation. My old stand-by the Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as, “That which is owed; a debt of money, goods or service; the action or behaviour due by moral or legal obligation; action required by one’s business, occupation or function.”

But and it is a big but, as has been said before by others, “duty is not only about doing things right, it is about doing the right thing.” Typically, the demands of justice, honour, and reputation are “imbedded” with duty.

Of course, historically, as mentioned above, totalitarian regimes – and it is a depressingly long list, all, under the guise of “keeping public order” and therefore their “duty”, maintain(ed) an appalling level of control and vicious retaliation against any dissent. Religious persecution also has a large part to play in this – excommunications; witch hunts; death by stoning for blasphemy and such other extremes.   

It is a proven fact that when the conditions are appropriate (if that is the correct word) we are all capable of involvement in such extreme activities - all of us – individuals, governments, corporations and businesses included. We all need “over sight” to ensure that we do not lose our sense of proportion; do not lose our humanity. Without a “duty of care” civilisation would not be what it is. Not everyone agrees, which is why we have laws, rules and regulations.

Free speech is the basic tenet of democracy – all other “rights” stand or fall on this one fundamental, (the freedom to worship and freedom to meet and congregate with whomsoever). The exceptions (there are always exceptions) are that child pornography, engaging in or depicting sexual violence, inciting criminal activity, defamation or slander or engaging in the persecution of any ethnic group are generally strictly forbidden and legislated against. Similarly activities that engage in or encourage corruption, malpractice or fraudulent behaviour are legislated as crimes.

Obeying orders and doing one’s Duty is no excuse for harming another person.

Chinese ethics and plagiarism

It is interesting – I have just finished a month of intense studying and writing to lodge two psychology assignments within the due time. This is why I did not “blog” for the whole month of September. Actually I missed the opportunity of writing my thoughts that some, maybe a few, possibly only one may actually read!! I find writing a good outlet for my frustrations and any tensions.

What is really interesting and what I want to write about is ethics and the pernicious and apparently increasing academic crime of plagiarism. One of my recently completed assignments had to be submitted to the ‘anti-plagiarism’ process using the very useful web site called “Turnitin”. This checks the submitted work against a massive data base of previously published journals and books and tells you how much of the work submitted is original or plagiarised. Anything over 10% plagiarism is not acceptable and must be reworked and resubmitted. Mine rated at 5% without reworking, which I was quite pleased with.

This reworking is actually not that difficult it means that the original work that you have referred to must be reworded, in your own words (with appropriate citation or reference). This is as it should be and shows that you understand the topic sufficiently well to be able to write about it without using the original author’s actual words. Again, this is as it should be. Imagine if you were the original author and you read about your ideas and original work, in your words, but claimed as original by someone else? How would you feel? Very annoyed I suggest. Again, imagine, if you will, the consequences of plagiarism and academic cheating if you were treated by an alleged medical doctor who had fake qualifications? How would you feel? Apart from showing a lack of respect, it is cheating and considered to be intellectual theft and is rightly condemned by all.

What brought about this train of thought was an article on the very subject, in the Friday 8th October edition of the Australian Financial Review (AFR), entitled “China fails to rein in fakes”. This is an interesting article because it highlights what seems to be a growing trend in China, something being encouraged by the government there, the feeling, “I must get ahead at any cost.” This attitude applies to individuals, businesses and the government as well. There is a tragic incident, quoted in the AFR, about Chinese airline pilots who faked their flying hours and experience which resulted in an accident in which 26 people lost their lives. I can understand that the Chinese Government wants to trumpet the greatness of China and believe me somewhere in the vast throng of 1.2 billion people there will be some really great and noble individuals. But they will not become great by cheating.

Then there is the statement made by a masters student from Tsinghua University, Lu Xiaoda, that plagiarism is ok and that it is not that students are incapable of the work – copying someone else’s work saves time!! How does he know they can do the work unless they actually do it? Take also the reported case of Xiao Chuanguo a well known Chinese urologist. He was so incensed that two investigative journalists found out that he had been cheating about his skills that he arranged for them to be savagely attacked and beaten up. When confronted by the police he confessed. His reason for this attack was vengeance for the revelations which blocked his appointment to the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Science! (What a nice man he must be). Yet his university employer, Huazhong University, has not removed him from his position. This case I find quite astonishing. To me both the man himself and his university are worthless.

With greatness comes power and with power comes responsibility – this is something the Chinese have to learn and learn quickly. Responsibility means owning up to ones obligations, accepting ones faults (no one is without faults!) and dealing fairly with all. This is where ethics comes in. A country, a business or an individual must treat others as they would like to be treated. To do otherwise is to attract consequences that may not be pleasant. It is the same as making a cane for others to use to beat you with. And given the opportunity they will, Oh, they will.

The article in the AFR states quite correctly that unless this practice of plagiarism in China is stamped out, Chinese academics will be marginalised by the rest of the world, and their work considered as worthless because no one will be sure of its accuracy or its true worth. So who suffers? China! Its reputation will be in tatters and its people diminished. That is no way to greatness!!

Moral high ground

The moral high ground is when you think you are better than anyone else, or from a national point of view, believing that your country is guided by something higher than mere people and that all others are lesser beings because of this.

Problems are inevitable when this thinking prevails. This is pride, this is hubris to a high degree, and a fall is inevitable – such a high ‘standard’ can never be sustained. We have seen quite a lot of this recently.

There have been the Rugby League shenanigans – excessive alcohol consumption and sexual misconduct; British politicians rorting their allowances; former US President George Bush and his very ill advised invasion of Iraq; US policy of ‘rendition’; prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison; the on-going saga of incarcerating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (‘Gitmo’); the Israeli treatment of the inhabitants of Gaza (attacks and sixty years of blockades); the shocking treatment of the harmless minority ‘Falang Gong’ by the Chinese Government, and of course their treatment of Tibetans; and then of there have the various reports in Australia and elsewhere on paedophilia, sadistic physical, sexual, emotional abuse, neglect and brutalisation of children, perpetrated by priests and nuns from various Catholic Church orders and organizations culmination in the recent Irish, Ryan Report about similar abuse in Ireland’s industrial school system (run mainly by the Catholic Church, particularly the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy).

It is a massive report – five volumes with a total of about 5 000 pages. I have not read the entire report, and I do not suppose I ever will because it is very distressing (it is available, in full, on the internet). Apart from the incalculable physical and mental harm to the children all the reported abuse diminishes the perpetrators and reduces them from being the upholders of a noble Christian ideal – care for and provide succour to the distressed, the lonely and those in need - to being criminals who used and abused those most vulnerable in our society, our children and who need to be brought to justice. These people and the institutions they represent have lost all moral authority to tell anyone, anywhere, what to do and how to behave. For them it is obviously a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ This is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

I think President Obama has got the message and is doing his best to restore some semblance of moral authority to the US Government’s activities.

I am not sure the Israeli’s have learned anything and still follow their rather primitive Old Testament dictum of an ‘eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

Rugby League and British politicians are cleaning up their acts purely and simply because it hurts their wallets, not because they actually believe they have behaved in an antisocial or unethical manner. Their standard response is ‘but I have done nothing wrong’ or ‘but she asked me up to her room.’

The Ryan Report highlights the truly astonishing level of abuse that some 800 priests and nuns are accused of perpetrating over a period of about 70 years in Ireland, UK, Australia, Canada, Gibraltar, India and the United States to many thousands of unfortunate children, now men and women. I am not at all sure that the Catholic Church has the inclination to really change.

You can lose a reputation in a second – and it will take a very long time indeed to restore.

“Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a song.”

(Quatrain 69, Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Edward FitzGerald translation)