I said I'd report on the democracy post and here's the stats: average page views are about the same as every day and there've been 43 brave souls who have accessed the theories of democracy post since it was published. Not exactly nobody but still pretty much as I'd expected. People simply aren't interested in real debate anymore.
Having said that, the debate that has been raging between three people has been superb. Very good points on multiple sides - I'm really fascinated by your discussion and am eager to read each post in entirety when it comes in. Thanks for your contribution folks, and thanks for giving me hope in the art of debate.
This is a useful resource for definitions on different types of thinking. The difficulty with it as a resource is that it doesn't specify what kind of thinking is relevant to specific problems. Further, it doesn't consider the issue of power, leadership and influence over specific environments. Creative problem solving that maximises the range of thinking styles that can be applied to any problem will be useless in an environment where the (short- or long-term) perspective of powerful players influences outcomes. As an exercise in creative problem solving, consider the position of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union and its influence on player selection in that country. How might the ZCU appropriately address the non-representative (white) bias of first grade players whilst also allowing top players to represent their country? What could be done to ensure such goals in the Mugabe regime? Should long term goals (racially representative selection) be given precedence over short term goals (International Cricket Council acceptance of Zimbabwe as a world class cricket team)?
What follows is a discussion of the unintended consequences of war, and the opposing views of justice and democracy. I'll be surprised if many actually read this because I am cynical enough to believe that very few people care. I'll keep tabs on my logs though. I might even report on how many people care about democracy in a future post.
In case no-one is aware of it, there's been an interesting debate that has been going on in the background in response to an earlier post of mine, The Dogs of War. Mitch and Sami have taken opposing views as to the significance of prisoner abuse in the Iraq war. I have refrained from contributing my 2 cents' worth as I feel my opinion is already well known and expressed by the original post. My feelings generally are that the context of the situation is irrelevant. It has always been my mantra that it is possible to judge a human by their treatment of those in their employ, and those who they regard (rightly or wrongly) as their "lessors". From a small child I was always troubled by my elders referring to other races in disparaging terms. I understand now, the motivation for such commentary - the legacies of war and ignorance - but even as a very young child who had no idea of the concept of racism, I could not comprehend the rationale for this deep-seated hatred and/or contempt. I couldn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now.
However, I do believe I understand democracy. And I am arrogant enough to believe that there are those out there who misunderstand the concept entirely. They have about as much understanding of the true philosophy of democracy as do those who spoke so disparagingly of our (losing) opponents in world wars.
Channel 9's Sunday program this morning had as their cover story, interviews with the masterminds behind the Bali bombing. In this story, Mukhlas and his co-accused, Amrozi, chronicled the history of their warfare with Russia in the 1980s; of the support of the US in the Mujahideen conflict, and the perceived betrayal of the US in its withdrawal of arms and financial aid upon the retreat of Russia from Afghanistan in 1991. The US regarded the interests of the Afghanis and their allies (including Indonesian, Malaysian, Singaporean, Thai and other muslim interests who fought in Afghanistan during this period) as beneath their notice. The objective was to defeat Russia, not to support the interests of the region (for an Islamic perspective on this history see here). In retrospect, the US was probably acting conservatively and democratically at least within the US: it was conscious of keeping out of any local conflict in the aftermath of the Vietnam war. But as a result of their removal of financial and military aid at the conclusion of the Mujahideen, the US sentenced Afghanistan to years of local conflict, poverty and comparative desperation.
In such times, communities turn to higher (usually divine) forces to find the motivation to keep struggling on. Islam provided these struggling masses with the supposed "laws of revenge", a rather literal translation of the holy text, in much the same way that in Judao-Christian dictum, sodomy and homosexuality is regarded as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18, verse 22; Leviticus 20, verse 13; Deuteronomy 23, verse 17; 1 Kings 14, verse 24; Romans 1, verses 26 , 27; 1 Corinthians 6, verse 9; 1 Timothy 1, verses 9, 10... yes there's plenty saying that this altogether natural inclination for some people is obscene and wrong... hence my concern about literal translation of any religious texts). For the muslim warriors of the Mujahideen, the withdrawal of the US from this desperate region was and is the basis for their perception of US betrayal and evil. Muslim interests feel that the US acted against its own declared dictum of democracy, as decsribed in their 1776 Declaration of Independence. Read the following and replace the US colonial armies with the Muslim interests of the Mujahideen, and the actions of King George with the actions of the US:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Rather sad isn't it? Is it any wonder the muslim forces regarded the US with distrust and dismay? Because while the US saw themselves as acting democratically: ridding the world of a potential nuclear force in Russia, and refraining from interfering in civil conflict in Afghanistan following the retreat of Russian forces, the muslim fighters regarded the US as failing to live up to their own dogma that all men are created equal, and that it is right for those who are persecuted to rise up against bullying nations. To the muslim forces of the Mujahideen, the dictum of democracy expounded by the US was in conflict with their actions.
All this comes down to a miscommunication of democracy and ethics. It relates in part to my earlier post on the difference between acting morally and acting ethically. Morals and social mores are defined by a community. Ethics are laws designed to achieve moral goals. Democracy in its most simplistic form, is the doctrine that a numerical majority of a specified group can and should make decisions binding to the entire group. In Aristotelian terms, democracy means governing "by the people" (demos coming from the Greek "the people"). But to be democratic is not necessarily moral. Essentially if the majority agree to harm the minority, then the act of harming the minority is still democratic, even if it is not just nor ethical. Democratic socialism is the doctrine of a parliamentary democracy based on a welfare state, and the redistribution of wealth in an economy based on industry. Social democrats are those who support reformist capitalism (they are NOT libertarians). Laissez-faire capitalism (the general motivation of the parties located on the political right of most western countries) is the doctrine that the free market economy is best left unregulated and unfettered by government intervention. Utilitarianism and liberalism are doctrines that are based on free access to things that harm none (perhaps ironically, a basis of many pagan belief systems). Essentially, the doctrines of Jeremy Bentham, the father of Utilitarianism, are that there are theories of good and of right, and that good is based on what is for the good of the majority (greatest utility) and that what is right is based on what produces net gain to a community (utility again). Finally, pluralism is the doctrine that advocates tolerance and respect between differing interests in communities and between communities themselves.
All these political interests have a sense of democracy as a basis for their policies. Yet each is subtly different in their interpretation of democracy, and this is primarily based on moral grounds. What is just and moral often dramatically differs from what is regarded as democratic, as defined by the policies of those who are elected by the majority. Further, what is for the good of the majority is dependent on the political perspective of the speaker. If you are a merchant, then laissez-faire economics may seem fair. If you are a nation peopled by the poor, then a welfare state makes sense. If you are a people where the majority subscribe to a religious dictum that specifies what is just and moral, then it is democratic to act in a manner that may seem antithetic to the interests of a minority (say, the occupants of the Bali nightclubs or the World Trade Centre towers).
I am a pluralist. I am also unashamedly democratic socialist in my philosophy (and I accept that my views on some issues were in conflict with my chosen party policies, and that it was in my best interest and theirs for me to withdraw from that party). However, I am also driven by my own moral code. I believe that the best basis for democracy and pluralism is the kind of philosophy embedded in the US Declaration of Independence - that all people are created equal, and that the masses should rise up against repression and seek out happiness, freedom and safety as a matter of course in development of policy.
I believe the mistreatment of prisoners and the act of conquering and occupying a region is in conflict with both my moral and democratic code. However, I also accept that if the majority find that such acts are acceptable, then my opinion is irrelevant. If it is supported (ignorantly, or in full cognizance) by the majority, then I may have the right to express my perspective, but no right to force the masses to accept my opinions.
But then, I am an idealist.
A quick post to wish my lovely Mum a very happy birthday! Hope you have a great day, Mum! Glad you liked the pressie, and look forward to catching up tonight :-) Love you heaps!
My motherboard is indeed, dead, so I'm going to have to wait for a week or two until I can afford a new one. Fortunately I have this work laptop at home to keep up with most of my email in the interim. Not a long term solution, however, as laptops generally suck.
My friend, Kevin (for those who know the story), is in Greenslopes Hospital until the end of the weekend at least. Meningitis was ruled out but it was nevertheless a rampant and rapid meningococcal-style infection that was 3 millimeters away from causing brain injury. Another 5 or 6 hours and the worst would have happened. As it is, the left side of his head is blown up like a bee sting around his ear, and he is on a cocktail of high-potency anti-biotics and pain killers to deal with the symptoms he is still battling. His CT scans which I saw yesterday were exceedingly scary, to say the least. The brain scan showed just how extensive the inflammation was through his head, and explained away the hallucinations and excrutiating pain poor Kev experienced on that 30 hour journey home. He's optimistic and joking away but can't smile as it causes him so much pain, and he only just began to talk yesterday anyway. Hope he remembers I visited him yesterday!
In case you manage to read this hon, we're all thinking of you and wishing you well. You scared the living **** out of us and will pay dearly for that, I assure you. I look forward to some DVD nights with you when you're back home and up to it. Only I think we'll be sticking to pineapple juice and maybe creamy soda as our drinks of choice for the next month or two! *BIG HUGS* to my dear friend. Love you heaps, hon.
I just want to send *vibes* to my dear friend, Kevin, who is very ill at the moment, having just emerged from CT scans and drip-fed antibiotics. I'm thinking of you hon, and hope the results of the tests provide more encouraging news. If there's anything I can do for you babe, please let me know. You have a lot of friends out there who love you and want you well. Get better soon, hon.
Have had the most wonderful weekend with my dear friend, Louise, who came up to stay in Brisbane. We have had a very girly weekend and done all sorts of things from shopping, to heritage viewing, to drinks and facials! Just wonderful to have seen you, Lou! Love you heaps and miss you, too!
Thanks must also go to Demosthenes for coming around for lunch on Sunday - was great to see you hon! And also huge thanks to Vanessa, for the gorgeous silk scarf she has knitted me! It's absolutely divine, Van - I love it!
In other news, my home computer has failed for the time being. Not sure whether the BIOS battery has gone flat or whether it's more serious. Will have to leave it to check until tomorrow though, as I'm teaching for 6 hours and auditing another 3 hours today. Long day!
c.f. Act III, Scene I, Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare, C. 1608
Shakespeare said it best. The price of cruelty in war is more war, and more cruelty. Australia's The Bulletin has a review of the heinous acts of soldiers in their treatment of prisoners of the Iraq war in their current edition, headlined 'The Dogs of War'. The story appears fast on the heels of the execution of a US contractor, recorded for posterity on an Iraqi website, and it is unfortunately true that the atrocities of this war are likely to worsen before they improve. A curse, indeed, has befallen those caught in the crossfire, and in a globalized world, there is no place to hide.
I am exceedingly frustrated with the willing blindness of those who believe that the acts of cruelty portrayed in the torrent of photographs emerging from the US military, are somehow less severe, less concerning and less extraordinary than at any other point in history. Such blindness is almost as bad as the cruelty itself. Nothing and nobody should ever forgive these acts. Nothing is worse than a supposedly civilised society that has learned the lessons of the past, and yet still is as stupid and as evil as to betray the trust such experience has placed in them, anyway. Learn, people. Or suffer far worse than indignity.
Several rather good links have been passed on to me by Kevin and others in the past few days and I have finally got around to posting them. They get progressively more interesting as you get down the list!
Firstly, the culprit behind the Sasser virus has been arrested in Germany. Here's the story that discusses his discovery, and his motivations for creating the worm.
Then there's the story about the fastest book ever written through a television experiment in text messaging. The Joy of Text was screened in the UK as a kind of reality-television-meets-telephony-bizarro-entity in what can only be described as a what-were-they-thinking? moment, but which has already beaten world records. Oh dear.
Next on the List O'Links is the rather interesting article from David Etherington on the nature of computer game design and the addictive nature of gaming. As an avid WarCraft fan, I have to agree that the foundation of games in cliché actually adds value to the formula for players. Escapism and script-theory oriented gaming are successful hand-in-hand.
Finally, there's the article citing Cory Doctorow (long time inspirational source for this blog), wherein Doctorow gives his views on how the conservative reaction to copyright violation via digital media, and electronic snooping, have mobilised some netizens to political action in ways never before experienced. The empowerment of connectivity has driven many to speak out on issues about which they feel passionate. Doctorow is virtually arguing that accountability in the digital age is returning to older interpretations, where policy-makers are required to answer for their actions, and where citizens are not content merely with policy based on financial management.
Apologies for the absence again. Been busy muddling around in different tasks. But it's all good news. Mondays are fairly exhausting (6 hours of teaching and 3 of auditing) but the response to teaching has been good and the auditing interesting. But today has been a great day! I have some personal messages in this post and links on the next....
Congrats to my friend, Liz, for her achievements at work (including job offers!) and for a good health report for herself as well as her hospital-bound Dad. Also congrats to my friend Lou for her second interview for a possible new position! So looking forward to having you here, hon! *hugs* to Camilla for all the good things happening in her life right now, and to my old school chum, Melissa Boughey in Melbourne, for her new home! And thanks to Kevin for links, lunch, laughs and levity :-)
A very happy Mothers' Day to all the Mums out there, and very special wishes to my own Mum for her love, her kindness and her tireless efforts to look after my brother and me! Happy Mothers' Day, Mum, and thankyou for everything. Love you heaps!
Thanks to Cam for a fab night at the footy tonight with the Queensland Reds downing the NSW Warratahs 23-7 at Suncorp Stadium on a cool but comfortable night, where the drinks flowed and the bar company afterwards rocked! Fun was had by all! :-)
There follows a discussion of the differences and relationship between morality and ethics. I've kept it to the extended entry because for most people, this discussion is apparently not of interest. Sad, but true.
One of the things that has been keeping me busy at work has been a review of our core units in the MBA program at the Brisbane Graduate School of Business. As part of our Accreditation program, we have been reviewing the content of our curriculum to ensure we cover the fundamentals of content as required by the Advanced Association of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). One of those requirements includes a course on Business Ethics.
The difficulty we're having with this requirement is that all lecturers claim to cover aspects of ethics in our pre-existing courses. And the trouble with surveying current and potential students on the scope of an ethics course is that survey participants believe that because they regard themselves as moral people, that they understand ethics.
This is a philosophical debate, but there are strong differences between morality and ethics. Morality, as Resnick (1997) and others have defined it, refers to those guidelines and social mores that an individual or group uses to determine right from wrong, and good from evil. Mores themselves, are culturally specific, as they tend to relate to the specific needs of a society. Ethics, and specifically normative ethics, are prescriptive rules on behaviours to "answer" questions about morality. Ethics are situational, so Kantian Ethics, Utilitarian Ethics, business ethics, biomedical ethics and so on, are all possible - dependent on one's operational perspective.
But to be a moral person does not necessarily mean one understands ethics. To be moral does not even mean one understands business ethics. Ethical practices are not defined by one's morality, but by one's recognition and accommodation of moral principles. Where moral principles are breached by any player in an environment, then the player has failed to act in an ethical manner, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with a moral code.
In the case of the torture of prisoners of war as depicted in the images released to the world, US soldiers have acted immorally, unethically and illegally. And these three things are very different. The soldiers have acted unethically because they have tortured prisoners. They are immoral because they celebrate victimisation. They have acted illegally because torture of prisoners is in breach of the Geneva Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. See the difference? Ethics, in this case, refers to their actions, and is a reflection of morally (un)acceptable practices. Morality refers to the soldiers' beliefs and their lack of solemnity or remorse. Legality is simply the rule of law. So in this case it's pretty simple to condemn the soldiers.
But it is possible to act in an unethical manner whilst not necessarily being observed to have breached moral codes. What is in one's own interests, for instance, may not be congruent with the sort of dispositions that would be advantageous for that person (see Mackie). So if a business leader acted in a moral manner of open communication, honesty and truth, she would, upon being requested for the information, divulge her business strategy to her competition, but in so doing, the strategic advantage she maintained over her opposition is lost. It would, therefore, not be prudent to divulge her strategy. Therefore there is a dimension of ethical practices which is rational, and prudential. Indeed, if the same business leader were to divulge her strategy to her opposition, she may put the interests of her "society" (investors, clients and so on) at grave risk. Thus she would be acting against the continuing welfare of that society. And as morality refers to the needs of a society, and the welfare of that society, it may be deemed to be immoral for her to risk her business's market leadership. And yet to refrain from divulging her strategy, she is acting against her own code of honesty and truth. She may not be acting deceptively, but she is acting secretively. Some may argue this does not mean that by acting ethically and remaining silent on her business strategy that she is immoral. This may well be true, but there is a conflict between her own interests and her own moral code, and that of the society of which she is a leader. The greater good outranks her personal codes.
This is a very long way of saying that business ethics are generally situational. And while basic fundamentals of business ethics may be useful, and while the study of the philosophy of ethics is important, it is also necessary for each branch of business studies to address ethics in education separately. It is still true that while many would act in an unethical manner in business in order to get ahead, that business leaders and managers are more likely to be successful if they act ethically. It's just that being a moral person may not lead one to act in an ethical manner. The interests of the society to which a manager is bound will affect what may be regarded as ethical, legal, moral, prudent and rational.
It never ends, does it? I am back to busyness - hence the lack of blog entries - but I have been watching some debates on several fronts. I have found the behaviour of football teams from NRL to AFL after decisions by the public prosecutor not to press charges against players after rape allegations to be despicable. There is still physical evidence of rape - just not enough to warrant charges. And yet the teams are acting as though their players have been proven innocent. It's positively disgusting.
And the images released to the media, displaying the heinous acts of US soldiers in their treatment of prisoners of war are beyond vile. Once again, it has been shown that the rhetoric of democracy and self-righteous assumptions about the fairness, moral fibre and benevolence of the western alliance are not merely preposterous, but weird caricatures of the true force behind this occupation: greed, arrogance and barbarous, victimizing inhumanity.
Finally, the issue over gay marriage, and the arguments that have ensued because of actions of the Prime Minsiter of Australia, have caught my attention - but with nothing like the kind of passion that seems to have driven other commentators, and as more of an opposition to my responses to the issues mentioned above. I am well aware of why people want gay marriages to be possible. I am just astonished and slightly annoyed that commentators and debaters have mounted soap boxes to argue about the supposedly "disgraceful" act of John Howard in excluding gay people from marriage in this country, when that isn't what John Howard is proposing. I personally find it extraordinary when people call others to arms on a subject about which they are entirely ignorant. Precious few people have bothered to investigate the terms of the Marriage Act 1961, and fewer still understand precisely what it is John Howard has proposed: specifically, that the terms of Section 46 of the Act, and the intended application of the Act, as defined in Second Reading Speeches of the Marriage Bill and its amendments in Hansard, become formal clauses of the Act. Protestors are arguing that John Howard is changing the law to exclude gay couples from marriage. This isn't true. The Act already excludes gay marriages (unless a recognised religion decides to accept gay marriage). The formalisation that John Howard proposes simply removes any legal loophole that may loosely be interpreted to have evolved from the existing legislation, as a result of the discussion of gay marriage. The timing of this formalisation of the wording may be unfortunate, falling as it does on the heels of US President, George Bush's opposition to gay marriage, but that timing is not surprising, as Australian courts are most likely to follow the US lead with a bombardment of equal opportunity cases, testing the legislation. Howard is merely saving the Australian people the cost of funding those immensely complex and time-consuming cases being brought against the Government. In such cases, the only institutions that profit are the legal fraternity.
If people wish to argue for gay marriage, then the entire legislation for the Marriage Act must change. This is not a minor amendment, but an entire reworking of the philosophy behind marriage. Perhaps such a revolution in the concept of marriage is due. But this is not merely a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of replacing existing traditions about the concept of marriage. It is no minor matter at all. And those who argue against Howard's position, either wilfully misunderstand his actions, or are sublimely ignorant of the enormity of the changes they propose. Of course, there is an easier way. We could institute a recognition of a legally binding commitment ceremony with all the same rights for the parties, as marriage. After all, many marriages that take place in the community today, are little more than legally binding commitment ceremonies. The religious tenets of the cermeony are largely ignored, and marriage celebrants have ostensibly been conducting commitment ceremonies for forty years. Frankly, that would seem to make far more sense than to ask recognised religions to change their views of marriage to allow gay couples, or to resolve among those recognised religions, a new category of marriage, which has equal status. Because when it comes down to it, the Australian Marriage Act is based on religious principles and precedent. To change that Act has implications most advocates of gay marriage seem to wantonly ignore.
It is time some realism came in to this debate, and time that those who argue either for or against change, develop some understanding of their proposals. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's far too expensive and time-consuming to be tolerated as the basis for public argument on a topic that is already closed.
In Brisbane today is the holiday associated with Labour Day (1 May) and I'm here at work. Ah well. At least I get to wear jeans and inappropriately diving necklines.
Of more interest is the virus which has been ripping through computer systems worldwide and which I managed to get on my laptop last Wednesday. The Sasser worm doesn't do any actual damage. It's just basically annoying. But I'm prepared to bet it had something to do with the NSW transport disruptions reported at the weekend and certainly did shut down Big Pond connectivity for the past few days. Anyway, anyone who has been affected by an instant shut-down message should download the free cleaning tool available at F-Secure, open and run, and then run Windows Update.
This has been yet another public service announcement for the virus-ridden Microsoft Users' Community!
Yes the reason why I have been offline for the past day and a half has been because on Friday afternoon I got my new toy :-) I am now the proud 'owner' of an HP2210 iPAQ Pocket PC, and I have spent most of the weekend entranced by it (when I wasn't out winning bar competitions on Friday night). I also have a 256Mb SD card for data storage. Of course, I couldn't possibly afford this by myself, but as a result of consultancy work I have done for the university (from which I have not seen a cent), I have a research account that has funded this new baby. It remains a property of QUT but I get to use it. Yay :-) Huge thanks to Brad at work for placing my order, getting a great price and getting it to me so quickly! Oh, and also for dealing with my tendency to get over-excited about technology :-)
I have resisted getting a personal data assistant (PDA) for a long time, primarily because I didn't really see a huge application for it. I organise my life predominantly online, and so older PDAs didn't really seem worth the money. Plus integration with existing applications was clunky and the units themselves were either large and heavy or small and really hard to read. Later models have improved dramatically but there still wasn't really a huge need for me. But now that I mark essays from students virtually exclusively digitally, and now that I can synchronise my online diary for work, my email and my file sharing via laptop, desktop and pocket PC it finally made sense for me to have one. Plus it doesn't hurt that I get to read e-books via the Pocket PC version of Acrobat Reader. Screen text readability on this unit is about the best I've seen. So it's fun, it's functional and ... well it's just damned gorgeous.
Happy :-)