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.

Unintended consequences.

Added Feb23,2018:- I obviously have (partial) ability to foretell. Not boasting, mind!

The effects of the proposal to cut or reduce the printing of newspapers in Australia and the corollary of encouraging the use of electronic formats will have many consequences, mostly unintended.

For instance there will be a reduced requirement for wood pulp (to make newsprint). This will certainly help the conservationists cause. Alternatively it may encourage exports of newsprint, of pulp or woodchips, to make up the shortfall in revenue. But then there may be more employment opportunities for those who work in the electronic media industry! There is a possibility, of course, that the drive to increase readership of electronic media and cut costs will result in more “out sourcing” of jobs to lower cost countries such as India. This, if it occurs, will not help anyone in Australia.

Then what about the countless “news agencies” in Australia? They will either cease to exist or have to change and sell something else. What about the various sawmills and pulping plants in and around the country and the people employed by them? And then what about the vehicles delivering the wood chips to make the pulp from which newsprint is made? What about those who deliver the finished product – newspapers?

This is not just a “game” of hypotheticals, it affect real people. No one can foresee the future or the effects of any changes in plans or policies. This is why it is so important to ALWAYS consider people first (the ethical and moral considerations of the effects of any actions or activities) and not, first, the financial impact on the “bottom line”. To consider the “economy” or money before people puts the “cart before the horse” and will result in unnecessary anguish and hardship.

I know it sounds trite but happiness results – always - from helping people, not from making money. By all means use the money you have made to help people. To do so is good policy.

Remember that money is a useful medium of exchange invented by people. Individuals, people, you and I, normally work to earn it to exchange for goods or services they may need. Money does not create people or work or innovation or any goods. Only people can do this.

People “make” the economy, not the other way round. Without people there would be no commerce and industry and no “economy”. Commerce and industry are for the benefit of people; people are not items on some economic game board to be moved around for the benefit the commerce and industry. The Russian Soviet Republic tried this and failed spectacularly.

I know the old saying is that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” but it is essential to, always, have the welfare of people as pre-eminent - to act, always, with this consideration foremost in one’s mind. This is the ethical and moral way. Acting not for me but for all, will go some way to avoiding unintended, and possibly unpleasant, consequences.

In the case of newspaper publishing organisations, cutting staff to save costs will reduce the quality of the publications and the resulting bad publicity will reach a tipping point beyond which the organisations will spiral down towards total failure.