I have enjoyed following British politics for many years. I began as a college freshman in the winter of 1974 walking to the Gorgas Library at the University of Alabama to read copies of The Times of London which were mailed to Tuscaloosa, obviously a few days after the publishing date. The British were embroiled in a sudden general election which would turn out to be a dead heat. I would have been astonished to know that 35 years later, I could read The Times immediately from the comfort of my home.
For some years, members of the House of Commons have been able to receive a second home allowance to help cover the cost of maintaing two homes, one in London and one elsewhere, usually in their constituencies. Not an unreasonable idea, but as people are wont to do, many MPs took advantage of this to get all kinds of work done on their homes at taxpayers' expense and some even redesignated or "flipped" what was their second home between London and elsewhere to get work paid for on both! One even got a fancy duck island in their pond (pictured) paid for! Not a bad deal, unless the public found out.Well of course they have, and there is an absolute firestorm of rage against the offending MPs and against some who didn't offend much (or at all). A new election is required within a year, and this isn't the time to have to face your constituents who themselves are in the midst of hard times.
One of the defenses that some MPs have raised was that "it was within the rules" or that "no rules were broken". If the question is "What can I get away with without violating the letter of the regulations?", the questioner has missed the point of ethical rules entirely.
If we focus solely on whether we have crossed the line between fair or foul under the rules and ignore whether what we are doing is truly right or wrong, we may be safe from punishment, but we are a long way from acting ethically. If that is our focus, what in fact does it say about us?
We should follow ethical principles because we know they are right. If we are ethically people, we instinctively recoil from taking advantage of situations for our personal benefit, simply because either "it's within the letter of the law" wholly ignoring its spirit, or, even worse, because "they can't prove it."
In the Federal government, we have a lot of ethical rules and regulations. Because it is a part of my job to advise people on them, I have a binder thick with them. I can advise people where I think the boundary line between fair and foul is, but I can't make them want to do the right thing all the time. That has to come from within.
A recent column by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the subject in The Times said:
Religion-based morality is often castigated for imposing irrational and arbitrary rules on people. But the truth is that its primary concern is with how to encourage us to act in such a way that we can be glad of what we have done--and can also recognise that bad actions diminish us. Of course there is a debased religious morality that is all about the fear of punishment. But the major faiths all see our task as becoming what we are made to be and called to be--as growing in integrity, in fact, and responding to a vocation. God sees the heart, so there is absolutely no possibility of hiding what is really going on in us.
Have these MPs truly been "glad for what they have done", even before this came out? Have our government officials who have taken advantage of their jobs for private gain been "glad for what they have done"? If we believe, as I do, that most of us has an inner sense of morality--a conscience, if you wish--don't we die a little inside every time we do something we know is ethically wrong and excuse ourselves with "it was technically within the rules"?
No comments:
Post a Comment