Injustice is always the problem.

The thing about injustice is that it is not a “one size” fits all. What is perceived as just for you may not be seen as just by me. And then there is the added complexity of perceptions. Without knowing the full range of facts I may perceive something as just or unjust.

This emphasizes the importance of ethics because in these cases ethics is, sadly, often forgotten or ignored – which is why they are unethical (obviously).

Spend a moment to think about this. As a hypothetical - I may feel it is just that I am now a wealthy man because I worked hard all my life and built up a large organization that employs many people. Others may have views that differ. They may consider (or perceive) that I exploited my workers by paying them the lowest possible wage so as to maximize my profits; or that I used my economic “clout” to force suppliers to reduce their costs to me, again to maximize my profits.

It matters not who the suppliers or what the products – banks and financial products, miners and raw materials, manufacturers and semi-finished products, machine tools or whatever. Forcing my suppliers to reduce the cost of my “inputs” forces them to reduce the wages they pay their workers; it forces them to consider alternatives such as lowering the quality of what they make. To meet my demands and to maximize their profits (that, also, is what they are in business for) they may consider activities which are criminal; acts such as “sweat shop” conditions and/or employing child labour; acts such as prosthetic companies filling breast implants with industrial gel; acts such as butchers selling horse meat as beef; acts such as adding melamine to baby milk formula; acts such as pharmaceutical companies reducing the number of, or “adjusting”, test results for medical products, and so on and so on.

All this is done, often, without a thought for the purchaser or end user.  Either way it is a matter of perception – mine or yours, and ethics.

Then of course there is the greatest cause of unethical conduct and injustice ever known – the gender difference – male and female. Women, the female of the species, seem to have been discriminated against forever, certainly as far as we can confirm, at least since written records began. Why just because women, generally, are less physically strong are they discriminated against by men? Is it because women are the “gate keepers” of sexual union?  If any force is used against a woman for sexual favours it is considered rape, which in most societies is a crime. I don’t know why men have this perception that they are superior to women – but it seems strange that this discrimination exists at all, because every man was, of a certainty, born of a woman – and most sons hold their mothers in high esteem. So why denigrate, why abuse or discriminate against someone else’s mother or someone who will, in all probability, become a mother?

Possibly the second greatest cause of unethical conduct is skin colour. There is no known way of choosing your own skin colour - you are born with it. No one is born superior to anyone else. It is, again, a matter of perception. Just because someone may look “different” is no reason for discrimination or abuse. To discriminate against someone, or to abuse them because of the colour of their skin is not only unjust but also unethical.

The other major cause of injustice and unethical conduct is religion. Why in God’s name (quite literally) this should be so is beyond my comprehension. There is – as I believe – only one God. So to me it matter not what He, She, It is called and I cannot think of any good reason why He, She, It would care what name we humans use; we humans who live on a miniscule speck of rock at the edge of a very ordinary galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies in a incomprehensibly large universe which He, She, It presumable created (the big bang?). I mean really, does it matter what name we use? Anyway how would anyone know what He, She, It thinks or feels about the issue of a name – or anything else for that matter?

All these are matters of perception – about gender, skin colour and religion – just a person’s opinion. And yet millions have died; millions have been abused; millions have been tortured all because of perceptions which, inevitably lead to injustice.

But then has injustice of any kind - force, abuse, discrimination, torture, cruelty - ever changed anyone’s opinion or perception? I doubt it!

Syria – don’t add fuel to the fire!

It is a very dangerous course of action to try a pick a winner in a war zone. Particularly in a civil war and even more dangerous when to opposing sides are divided by religious beliefs.

I am not a Syrian, I have never knowingly met a Syrian – nor am I a Muslim. I strongly believe that no person, group or country that is neither Muslim nor Syrian should interfere in Syria. Bashar al-Assad may not be a very nice person – but look at who his father was and look at what his father did to the Syrian people many years ago. He killed thousands. So his son, the current Syrian president, has not had a particularly good role model to emulate.

The Syrians started this “war” two years ago (Amended Feb 22, 2018:- actually started March 15, 2011, so now seven years ago) and while I am appalled at the violence and the escalation into neighbouring countries I strongly disagree with any attempt to “support” any of the warring parties by supplying them with weapons. The Russians are wrong; the EU is wrong and the Americans are wrong in offering support to either side – in other words trying to pick a winner. (Added Feb 22, 2018:- Also  don't forget the religious side of this war Shia - the Alawite ruling minority and Shia majority in Iran vs the Sunni majority opposition allied to the Turks and others in the region).

Picking winners in a civil conflict never works. The Russians and the Western Coalition tried it in Afghanistan; the French and the Americans (and allies) tried it in Vietnam; the Americans and their allies tried it in Iraq and there are many other examples to draw on (Palestine?) – history is littered with such attempts - all failed or are failing. The Americans themselves should know better than to interfere in someone else’s civil war – each side resisted interference from the French and/or British in their various "home grown" conflicts hundreds of years ago.

Now the Russians are ramping up their supply of weapons to Syria. This will inevitably be matched by the “West” and by Israel. To what end? Such actions will just add fuel to the fire. This Syrian civil conflict – as in all such conflicts - has its origins in injustice (Palestine?). And injustice can never resolved by violence. Violence just creates more injustice, as we have already witnessed, this in turn will promote more violence to “redress” the additional injustices and so a vortex of violence and injustice will ensue. No one benefits – except arms dealers and weapons manufacturers and suppliers.

By all means provide humanitarian aid to the millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and to support these countries in their efforts to assist the refugees  - this is  fair and just. But not to supply weapons.

Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.   

Now we have to pay to vote!!

The “Lucky Country” – Australia – has lost its political marbles and its politicians are quite frankly acting in a grotesque and extraordinarily self-serving manner. They have now approved a payment, by the Australian Government, to their respective political parties, of $1.00 for everyone who votes for them.

Furthermore, and this sticks in the craw, democratic Australia (note that carefully) has a compulsory voting system wherein people are fined for NOT voting. So not only are we compelled to vote, we now have spectacle of seeing our taxation money (money we have no option but to pay to the Government) being paid to the very people we are forced (under threat of penalties) to vote for! So in effect they are being paid twice.

As it stands now, in this democratic Australia, I am forced to vote; I  am forced to pay my taxes (this is just and fair); my taxes pay politicians (also, I suppose, just and fair); without my agreement my taxes will now pay political parties because I am forced to cast my vote (not just and not fair); if by any chance I don’t vote, because I am uninterested in their policies or because I neither like nor trust them, I am penalised and fined (also not just and not fair)! Is this democratic?

If the politicians got off their fat butts, took their snouts out of the money trough and actually WORKED for their votes; actually door knocked and stumped their electorates; actually found out personally what their constituents needed, they might, just might, have a higher rating in the public esteem rates than they do.

As it is they totally rely on opinion polls with a sample base of around one thousand people.

A pox on the politicians I am forced to vote for (and pay for – twice).

Addendum: One major political party in Australia (the Liberal Party) has now bowed to public pressure and reluctantly decided to withdraw support for this payment and the respective legislation - even though they had previously indicated, in writing, that they would support it. Oh well! 

Ethics, People and Reputation – or money?

The callousness displayed and the venal attitude of the international apparel companies that use the Bangladeshi sweat-shops to produce their goods is almost beyond belief. I say “almost” because when money is involved most people, most companies and most organisations, will do almost anything to keep the profits rolling in; companies will do almost anything to maintain the value of their shares. Now, only now, after hundreds have died are they worried about their business ethics and their reputations! I say, “What ethics and what reputations?”

Loblaw, Benetton, Primark and many other clothing companies are now apparently prepared to compensate victims of the South Asian country's worst industrial accident. Is this supposed to earn them “brownie points” and be a salve for their conscience?

It is to be hoped that the many other companies that sell low cost clothing manufactured in Bangladesh will revise their manuals on ethical business practice and only buy their products from companies that not only pay reasonable wages but also ensure the workers employed have a safe environment.

As has been stressed in these posts time and time again – apparently to deaf ears – commerce and industry is, without exception, in business to SERVE people, that is people such as you and I. It is people who buy or use the products no matter what the product is – coal, chip-board, iron ore, satellites, paint brushes, robots, clothing or whatever – the end users are always and only people. And people are involved in the process of manufacture – always and only people. And it is the labour of people which creates money and wealth – always and only people.

It is NOT the “economy” that is paramount – it is people who are paramount - always and only people. Without people there would be no money, no business and no “economy”. It should therefore be obvious to any thinking person that if any company wants people to buy their products they need to provide a SERVICE that satisfies people, their customers. It is only customers, only people, who will buy (with money) what they are selling – always and only people. Reputations depend on people – always and only people.

It is unfortunate that this has to be repeated again and again - provide a good service and people will return and spread the word about the SERVICE. Money and wealth always follow SERVICE, never the other way around – service will never follow money. And a SERVICE can only be provided by people to people – always and only people. A good reputation will develop only as a result of service to people – always and only people.

It is therefore obvious that people, all people, should be cared for – because it is people, you and I, who are labourers, workers and customers. This is the ethical way. By being ethical, in all dealings, such unfortunate events as occurred in Bangladesh would possibly have been avoided or at least ameliorated.

Never forget that the “law” of cause and effect will always apply. This “law” is unwritten and not codified but applies in every situation – it cannot be avoided and is forgotten or ignored only at great 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 has to be paid for. Hubris seems to invite Nemesis and the “Goddess” Nemesis is implacable in the pursuit of her cause, to track every wrong back to its doer. The old saying applies to all – “pride comes before a fall” and no one can foretell what the effects of this “fall” will be.

I repeat what has been said countless time over the centuries – “always treat others the way you would like to be treated”.  There is no other viable option.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

Boston - It is the System not always the Individual.

Some of my readers have asked me about the appalling acts that marred the recent Boston Marathon. While all the facts are still to be discovered a few broad aspects can be discussed without compromising anything.

Causing unnecessary death, injustice, cruelty, torture and general unkindness is wrong, plain and simply wrong. Even though such events appear to be part of the human condition – they need not be so. When a system is in place that encourages – or at least does not discourage – authoritarian attitudes and unquestioned obedience then most people, because we are social animals, will conform to whatever the system requires. There is a great deal of social research which reveals that when the situation people may find themselves in is such that it corrodes human values and creates a “them or us” or a “are you with us or against us” attitude then normal well-adjusted people will be persuaded to perform unspeakable acts on their fellow beings and animals. In certain situations, where the system demands it, usually “normal” people will submit to the “social convention” applicable at that time and in that particular situational environment – no matter what the “social convention” entails.

This is not to say there are no “bad people”, of course there are, but more often than not it is the situation that people find themselves in – the system – that alters behaviour. I am not excusing the killing or cruelty perpetrated by individuals who are deviant in this regard – those who enjoy inflicting pain and suffering – such people may be considered sociopaths or psychopaths. There are definitely such people. Not many, fortunately, but a few. It is, however, generally the system, the situation, that is the real culprit.

In this instance I am talking about normal people in abnormal situations. What determines “normal” is a moot point and an “abnormal situation” is generally an entirely personal experience – what is abnormal to me may not be for you.   This applies to all “parties” – to those in a particular situation forced to submit to authority and those who because of the situation are “expected” to act in an authoritative manner. This also depends on how long the “abnormal situation” lasts and how long any “adjustment” may take.

Think of the situations and the systems that prevailed in the precincts of the financial institutions on Wall Street in 2008 and the catastrophe that resulted; think of the situations and the systems that prevailed in children’s institutions run by the Catholic Church; think of the situations and systems created by the Nazis and the subsequent Jewish “holocaust”; think of the mishmash of perverted religious ideals and politics that is “taught” in some Islamic madrasa (schools); think of the strict Biblical interpretations and “creationist” concepts taught in some American schools; think of the situation and system that resulted in the appalling treatment inflicted on the inmates of Abu-Ghraib prison in Bagdad; think of the situations and the systems that encouraged the illegal practice of  “rendition” – the CIA sending prisoners to countries that allow torture; think of the situations and systems that allowed the cruelty inflicted upon animals in abattoirs that has been captured on video in Australia, the Middle East and other countries; think of the situations and desperate conditions forced on “boat people” or so-called “queue jumpers” by Australian politicians who seem to be in competition to see who can inflict the harshest “punishment” for daring to try and reach Australia (the “lucky country”) by any means possible.

In these cases, without exception, the rhetoric, the propaganda, the “spin” promotes the notion that what is being said is “normal” (Jews are evil and all Muslims are extremists) and that any and all alternative views or interpretations are radical, wrong and “abnormal” (if you are not with us you are against us!). What is deliberately distorted and played upon in these situations is that we, that is all human beings, are “social animals” and need relationships. We all have an instinctive desire to be “included”; if we are included we are socially “rewarded” by the approval of those we are now included with; we feel “safe” because responsibility for our actions is now shared with others and is therefore no longer considered to be our individual responsibility – “I did nothing wrong. I was only obeying orders. I was just doing what I was told”. Sound familiar?

Such systems, such conditions, such environments subvert humanity, compassion and logical reasoning. They subvert the concept of “conscience”. They subvert the inclusive basis of all religions; they subvert the fact that all human beings are related by our very humanity. They subvert the fact that we are human and that our relatedness is conditional upon the creative or productive aspects of this relatedness - love. The “faculty” to love fulfils the vital condition of enabling us to retain our individual freedom while, at the same time, unites us with our fellow beings. Anything else is a travesty; anything else – which causes pain, anguish or diminishes another - is plain and simply wrong.

This is why, I suggest, the origins of the warped thinking that led to the recent appalling actions in Boston lie in the system, in the environment, in the conditions that the perpetrators – the two young men – grew up with or immersed themselves in while living in the USA. Also never forget the corrosive effect that injustice – actual or perceived – has on individuals. Racism, exclusion, bullying, derisive comments about a person’s apparent poverty or appearance or accent or lack of English language skills all have a deep and lasting effect on the victims and are not only unkind but are also unjust. People remember injustice long after the cause has (apparently) been resolved.

Never forget the “law” of cause and effect, of unintended consequences which will always apply in any situation. This is why, as has been stressed many times in these posts, there is no viable alternative to treating others the way you would like to be treated – being ethical at all times.

I will end with a quote from a speech by Frederick Douglas, on 24^th anniversary of emancipation, Washington, DC 1886:

“ Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails and where one class is made to feel society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”

It is always the system. 

Think about it.