We might be law-abiding, but are we being ethical?
TWe should define and describe what we mean and desire when we talk about renewal and an ethical-based organisation
he search for saints among sinners in the broad church needs to acknowledge some harsh realities. First, the law sets the minimum standard of ethical conduct at the lowest point. We all defer to the rule of law, not just to salvage ourselves from murky situations but in stark recognition of the need for consistency and justice in the application of the set of rules.
Second, this search for saints is sometimes compromised by the hunters themselves not necessarily being beyond reproach. In the eyes of the public they may resemble those being hunted, that they hunt for devils with horns that protrude further than theirs. Consequently, the public square becomes a stage for a public spectacle of battles fought by rivals clothed in fake moral and ethical regalia.
Our eagerness to use individuals as markers of ethical failings has not fermented into a strong theoretical foundation that seeks to achieve a moral compass. From this foundation, a vision for an ideal ethical organisation and society could have been imagined. Through this obtrusive diversion from the norm and by attempting to theorise moral cleansing through people, we risk being perceived as another faction or engaged in a witch hunt for the biggest sinners. It becomes a battle of proportions of wrongdoing.
At the level of the abstract, what will the just, ethical and morally upright broad church look like? In practice, what must it manifest? What are our 10 commandments?
Further muddying the waters is the conflation of law, ethics and morality. The law, though imbued with the values of the cultural majority (those with power to shape ideas and decisions), remains a safer refuge. Consistent application fosters a sense of uniformity and justice. It has established principles of “due process” and “judicial review” as safeguards. The other two processes lack such protective shields.
Ethics, conceptually standing above the law, function as an ethereal ideal for reasonable people who desire to see their fellow beings do the right thing, even when no-one is watching. It presupposes a moral compass guiding us towards just, equitable and transparent choices, regardless of circumstances. They serve as both the spear and shield against our own desires and dilemmas.
However, to avoid perceived or real arbitrariness, ethics must be envisioned and established before being applied. The Batho Pele statement in Singapore is: “Will you treat your mother the same way?” This is the ethical foundation on which the public service is professionalised in that Asian country.
The perennial questions of all ages are: can ethics be taught or they are intrinsic to consciousness, like a baby learning to suckle? Is knowledge of conflicts of interest and how to avoid it innate? Is corruption hereditary? One-eyed suburban consciousness disagrees — it views politicians as ethically ready-made technical beings who are uninfluenced by the broader society they live in.
Yet we know that in the corporate world ethics are codified, taught and enforced.
The moral (third) dimension, often confused with law and ethics, carries the most peril. Moral judgements are prone to deep bias and selectivity. They can violate the principle of fairness by attributing value based solely on disposition and feelings. Moral judgment often lacks strong normative foundations, making it even more precarious than ethics. Those who attempt to draw from religion risk a descent into prejudice and double standards, as religious institutions themselves can become havens for philanderers, scammers and nudists.
So, what is to be done?
Cleansing ceremonies (renewal as we call it in the broad church) hold little power without first addressing the spiritual dimensions. When families gather months after a loved one’s passing, recognising their spiritual connection, they perform rituals to heal their souls. This includes offering a final opportunity for atonement (a concept currently absent from the august movement’s open discourse on second chances), rapprochement and sanctioning. Only then, with the belief that the departed rests with the ancestors, can they move towards addressing the material dimensions of healing, such as matters concerning the estate and prospective heirs.
Perhaps, as a long shot, there is a need to return to open discussions — both in discussion papers, boardrooms, branches and on the streets — to grapple with ethics as an abstract and the ideal panacea for the moral decay. But without a common understanding, the discussions will vacillate, change form and content, depending on who is involved. We should define and describe what we mean and desire when we talk about renewal and an ethical-based organisation. What is the minimum standard? What tools can we use to gauge ethical conduct?
How can we demonstrate that ethics are more effective as self-regulators than tools of judgment? We must seek conceptual and practical clarity regarding the differences and relationships between ethics and the law. Ethics, being the higher bar, unlike the law (the minimum standard), are best applied by individuals using their agency, as opposed to relying on enforcing agencies who use the legal bar to make determinations of right and wrong. It may be legal to buy a car for the mayor, but it may be judged as unethical to prioritise it when the municipality’s garbage trucks are broken and sewers blocked.
Ethics tend to be normative, as a natural law guiding rational people. They transcend time and space, acting as an internal compass that guides moral choices. Ethical leadership requires just, unimpeachable and upright individuals as vanguards. Ethics are a dream, an aspiration, not a kangaroo court where the perceived or actual powerful wield them as a tool of control. If ethics are to permeate the air we breathe within the broad church, we must define and describe how an ultra-liberal society that champions social justice while celebrating avaricious materialism can create members and leaders who defy the pervasive force of “I want that too”.
Otherwise, the public perception risks becoming one where the search for the devil has long ceased, replaced by a hunt to eliminate the one with the longest horns. By not achieving conceptual clarity on what we expect from each other, we risk being seen as unjust and inconsistent. Rampant factionalism makes matters worse, as it weakens our defences against those who might have acted unethically (another pitfall of subjectivity in the absence of well-established codes). As one wise woman from the troubled Inanda ghetto aptly phrased it: “The ethics debate in the movement is like the infidelity sermon led by a charismatic church pastor who has three young children outside of wedlock. They hunt carrying salt and knife.”
The search for saints amongst sinners in Gomorrah is a Herculean act of bravery, but the only catch might be the weakest (those who get careless are caught). Punishing the weakest might offer fleeting satisfaction, but ultimately leaves everyone wondering why things have not changed. Right now, when looking at us all, the masses see porous borders on all counts: the law, ethics and morals.
May a hundred ideas contend and a million voices speak. After all Nelson Mandela told us, we are all sinners trying to do better. The conundrum is, kuyashoda and kumnandi! As supporters of the broad church, we are a society and society is us. Not forgetting that the ethics discourse in the polity has become a TikTok (a meaningless fad) video for many members and supporters. Public displays of absurdity are no longer the preserve of the lumpen, as the most senior commit dastardly acts of absurdity.
The contemporary moment and clarion calls for renewal require breakthroughs in the study of society, its pulse and mutating DNA — and these are the variables we should compute in our theorisation of the ideal ethical organisation. In the ruling party of Singapore, having an extramarital affair constitutes misconduct. In China having poor people in your constituency is unethical. Are these the ideal standards we wish to adopt?