That sounds lovely Eric, but it won't happen. Pragmatic courses like business and engineering require a thinking style worlds away from the thinking demanded by philosophy. While we need both types there are precious few who can successfully do both.

What they need first is the capacity to distinguish between fact and opinion, fact and assumption, fact and scenario, and all laced with liberal doses of realistic probability. But don't start with the undergrads, best get re-educating our political/administrative elite who routinely extrapolate to extremes from limited inputs and then take it all on board as proven fact.

But even if we were to succeed it would all be for nothing if decision makers are left with so little time for contemplation of the whole. We are governed by "pace morons", otherwise intelligent people who are given so little time to properly consider issues that their output is indistinguishable from the work of cretins.

And having cheered you all up one can only say, "be alert, not alarmed".

Philosophy is a natural urge for some and some indeed are free thinkers whilst most are not, just like back in your day.

When Plato was around people were not free thinkers then either, yet he emerges. This is a nonsense crap article.

Some philosophy is trivial anyway.

A great idea - not that I think anyone will implement it, but in that it's like an awful lot of good ideas.

I particularly like the quote from the US employer who would rather English degrees than business degrees. Too much government policy seems to be based around the idea of universities as vocational training centres. Talk to anyone not in a strictly technical field though (law, engineering, medicine), and you'll generally hear that their work has little direct relation to their degree (whether it be business, commerce or arts). The idea that universities can and should turn out workplace-ready office workers is a myth - business itself is better placed to mould new employees. Let's leave universities to turn out well-educated, well-rounded people, capable of learning and adapting, and with an understanding of the society of which they are a part.

There is no evidence, as far as I know, that people who study ethics or philosophers, and certainly humanities academics in general, are any more ethical than those who do not study ethics. They may know more about arguments concerning ethics, and hence how to argue more effectively for dubious moral positions as if they were ethical ones (such people were known to Socrates as sophists), but this does not mean that that they will behave in a more ethical fashion. All that ethics courses can provide is a guide book or recipe book regarding the rules to follow if one wishes to be considered, or have the appearance of being, ethical. It is a great fallacy to believe that courses pitched at adults can modify their behaviour in a significant way.
If we wish to produce 'more ethical people' then the place to start is the family and the age should be before the child's 7th year. This is an issue of behaviour not theory. Advanced education generally teaches theory.
Even so the idea that we can educate people into becoming ethical sounds nice but bound to fail in practice. However, it does provide extra employment for professional philosophers and creates a new occupation of ethicist. One wonders, following Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe, if they would be on the advance space ship containing the telephone sanitisers and other such professions.

Business ethics. Now there is an oxymoron.

As stated by GregM, it’s a little too late in the development of a child to start teaching ethics when they are 18. Morality and ethics are traits generally inherited by primary objects (mother and father) in the child’s formative years.

Compulsory University courses in ethics would just mean that students would have to acquire a new set of hoops to jump through in order to pass exams and essays. There is absolutely no guarantee that these ethics would be employed in latter life.

As the un-named American CEO in the article implies, any graduate can be taught just about anything, University just teaches students how to pass exams and essays.

Eric ends his article with the sentence-

"If an ethics subject were rigorous, the BCA and Australia would be getting graduates who knew how to think deeply and critically about complex issues. Everybody wins."

This point seems to have been missed by most contributors so far.

After half a work-life in business and the other half in government, I have recently returned to work teaching Philosophy to Social Workers and Sociology to Nurses. These might be the only courses they take where the students are required "to think deeply and critically about complex issues."

Do we want 'vocationally' trained workers or do we want people who can think? Eric is right. We want both and I'ld put my money on the ones who do better at thinking.

Yep, we need thinkers, not more lefty stinkers:
Dare I ask: What Philosophy do you teach Stan 1? As I am shaking with fear and suspect a total Antitheist clash of Ideologies. (Matter and Anti matter type physics). Never shall they both meet, or else!

What are you saying, Stan1? That we nurses aren't deep thinkers?

Oh, wait. It was me saying that.

Good luck teaching sociology to nurses. My first day on the job summed it up. From my new colleague: "why are you reading the "Australian"? It's so boring. They should put more pictures in."

You're dealing with a workforce that'll still be voting Liberal when Tony Abbott's walking through the wards, sticking price tags on the equipment and referring to the nocte staff as room service attendants.

The 'humanist' says "This is the way, walk ye in it"

The Nihilist says "Why"?

The Humanist looks blank and his eyes glaze over.......

Suddenly, a spark of light returns to his glazing eyes "Wait.. we should walk that way, because it is 'good' to do so"

The Nihilist replies.... 'sure.. in your opinion, but not mine"
The glazing continues, and the humanist's countenance is downcast.

Then we have the 'bible basher, right wing fundy, Godbotherer' who comes out with the ludicrious statement:

"DO for your neighbour what you would have him do for you"

The Nihilist again says "why"?

To which the 'godbotherer' responds,

"Because on the basis of Gods covenant dealings with Israel, his rescue of a people from Slavery in Egypt, the 10 commandments, The prophets, the Law...
the life, teaching death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the miraculous conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, the triumph of the gospel over Rome within 300 yrs without a sword being used, and the freedom in Christ to 'be' all that a human being should be.......God, Creator and Redeemer says so !"

The nihilists eyes begin to glaze over.... his forehead becomes furrowed... and he goes back to the brothel.

People without hope, are people who either descend into hedonism, or wish they could do so without the social restraints or legal consequences.

How DARE you (BOAZ) insult my goodness... how DARE you suggest I am like that ? We don't NEED 'God' or anyone else to decide which is right or wrong... Mankind is essentially 'good'! ....

BOAZ goes and reads up on history past and present...and says...'huh' ?

Eric, How are all our poor undergrad journalists and lawyers going to get a jobs in the media industry if they get all 'ethical' for gods sake. LOL

I'm with Greg on this one. Many deep thinkers have been horribly evil.

In a university ethics course whose ethics do they teach? Utilitarian? Deontological? Relativistic? Many of these disagree on what is ethical.

Society doesn't need mandatory ethics courses, but a true basis for ethics which at least has a reason why everyone should behave in an 'ethical' way. (as boaz alludes to)

I am astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training. All professions and many organisations have their codes of ethics which members are expected to understand and to which they are expected to adhere. For example, that for Australian engineers is at http://www.ieaust.org.au/about_us/res/downloads/Code_of_Ethics_2000.pdf

When the partly built Westgate Bridge in Melbourne collapsed in 1970 killing 35 people, the cause was not simply that somebody misplaced a decimal point in a calculation. It was a consequence of "mistakes, miscalculations, errors of judgement, failure of communication and sheer inefficiency", a Royal Commission found. Furthermore a bridge of similar type designed by the same engineers had previously collapsed, http://www.westgatebridge.org/commem03.htm

HIH Insurance didn't become a smoking ruin because of an extreme weather event, and neither did Enron. In fact, Enron had its own 64-page Code of Ethics. You can read it at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/enron/enron.pdf Unfortunately, not everyone followed its admonition to conduct the business in a "moral and honest manner".

Anyone disinclined to glibly dismiss Claus's argument might care to visit Texas A&M University's web site on Introducing Ethics Case Studies Into Required Undergraduate Engineering Courses at http://ethics.tamu.edu/ or visit the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University, at http://onlineethics.org/

Professor Schwartz was a member of the advisory group for preparing a guide on ethics in higher education, at http://www.cihe-uk.com/ethicsPR.php so he has some acquaintance with the matter.

Another ethical path I like to see taken by universities is to refuse to pass those individuals who do not perform well enough in a unit. I don't want to see a doctor with PASS grades only (the current pass bar is too low in an intellectual sense).

I certainly don't want anyone to graduate from any university in Australia who lacks the standard of English language necessary for a sound tertiary-level education here. Each student must be seen to hand in fluent, original pieces of assessment at an academic standard worthy of respect and worthy of a degree.

This very much includes the failing of full fee-paying students where necessary (whether they are from overseas or not). This is a fragile area of our tertiary management framework that we need to strengthen a) for the sake of academic teaching and learning standards and b) for the sake of the future reputations of our institutions.

If academe itself is seen by its own students to abide by a very high standard of teacher and faculty behaviour then it can not help but establish the very desirable kind of ethical, stimulating and intellectual atmosphere that it wants and that its students are paying to be part of.

Once again - a philosophy of ethics course will not necessarily teach people how to be ethical but it will teach them "how to think deeply and critically about complex issues" which was surely the point of the article.

MikeM is "astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training", and goes on to talk about codes of ethics - but I rather think he is missing the point.

Ethics are the building blocks upon which decisions are made. Whether to lie, or to tell the truth. Whether to cheat, or to play fair. Whether to take advantage of someone's mistake or ignorance, or to point it out to them and thereby lose an opportunity of personal advancement.

Codes of ethics, the study of ethics, or even (save us!) the philosophy of ethics, have absolutely no impact on whether an individual will pass the test of actually being ethical in real live situations.

Boaz, your parable falls short of being convincing - your characters are made of straw, the storyline is weak and the revelation only twee.

Its irrelevance to the narrative came home to me when only a couple of posts later I saw MikeM's examples of Westgate Bridge and HIH.

“Hmmm”, I thought to myself, "according to Boaz's own statistics, 65% of Australians are Christians. So given that the builders were gathered from the Australian populace, the odds are 13-7 in favour of the conclusion that whoever were to blame, they had the ethics of Christianity to guide them."

I'm sure Boaz will quickly let me know where either my mathematics or my logic here is defective.

To believe that we have to teach ethics - even that we have such a thing as a Code of Ethics - is an admission of failure. It would be much more productive to criminalise unethical behaviour, to use the threat of incarceration in the same cell as a big tattooed guy called Knuckles (sorry mate, nothing personal) as a deterrent.

Over time ethics will once again become as mother's milk... "don't tell fibs, young David, or the bogeyman will get you."

I marvel at how this site somehow found anonymous intellectual giants who can definitive rule on so many things.

Pericles assures us, "Codes of ethics, the study of ethics, or even (save us!) the philosophy of ethics, have absolutely no impact on whether an individual will pass the test of actually being ethical in real live situations."

Well, thank you Pericles, I did not know that. I would never have guessed.

If understanding ethics doesn't have an impact on being ethical, what does, Pericles? Come on. You've got our attention now.

Tell us!

Stan1 I think taking a tough subject in ethics would BOTH help people think deeply about complex issues, and get them to think about being personally ethical. I agree with MikeM that learning what the great thinkers have written about ethics is likely to make a difference in how ethical you are personally, but no I don’t have any empirical evidence.

The logic is that if you have thought hard about it, you will make up your own mind. If you have not thought about it, you will just do what everybody else does. I agree many won’t be changed, but it would still be good to think about the ideas, rather than just do another business administration subject.

If all teachers are University educated, that ethics education would be brought to primary and high schools, even if it wasn’t directly taught. I think my kids teachers have taught ethics at their schools and done a good job at it. A University course would take it to another level, though.

Its not a cure for all the evils of humanity, it’s just a better way to set up a University course.

From my reading I would include Aristotle, Jesus, William Shakespeare, Mortimer Adler and Bruce Springsteen in a course about ethics, but Steven Schwartz and others like him would be much better suited to come up with the appropriate course content. Sign me up.

I was pushing the "deep thinking on complex issues" line but, ericc and MikeM, I agree it does seem reasonable to assume that an exposure to what the great thinkers have had to say about ethical questions would leave some impressions on us about the rights and wrongs of our actions. An awareness and a bit of thinking about it would have to be a good start.

MikeM and Pericles... well done.

Pericles assures us, "Codes of ethics, the study of ethics, or even (save us!) the philosophy of ethics, have absolutely no impact on whether an individual will pass the test of actually being ethical in real live situations."

...which of course.. was my point. However lacking in refinement and how ever much my characters were made of straw, and only representing probably very small numbers of real people, ... Mike has underlined it, by quoting Pericles and emphatically stating that he also 'gets' this point.

The problem with being ethical is not 'knowing' what the ethics are, its having a reason to abide by them. This is where self interest comes into play.

Pericles heads off in the 'Bogeyman will get you' direction, saying that 'Christians' reasons for being ethical are of this dubious and naive level. He also makes the point that statistically some of those responsible for the Westgate crash must have shared the foundation I am advocating, but it didn't change things.

Welcome to human nature.

If 90% of Christians failed to live up to Christs ethics, it would not change the fact that we need a divine reference point for our ethics. The point about 'slack Christians' takes us to the very nature of the Faith... its about a relationship, not a 'regime'.

.. and like marraige, that relationship is not always smooth sailing. We rebel...
like the 2 disciples who wanted to 'sit at your right and left hand in glory' just after Jesus had told them "We are heading to Jerusalem and I'm going to be killed". They were still thinking carnaly.
Peter would not have it that the 'Messiah' should be executed.

I'm just thankful that we are discussing this important subject.

I also look to a day when on a national and community level we see a healing of our soul, as we take 2 Chronicles 7.14 to heart.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=14&chapter=7&version=31

Hey MikeM, if I have to put "in my opinion" in front of every statement I make on a forum called "On Line Opinion", it would get very tedious for everybody.

>>I marvel at how this site somehow found anonymous intellectual giants who can definitive rule on so many things<<

This is an opinion forum, I placed upon it my opinion. Get over it.

If it needs explanation for some people, that's fine, I will spend some more time with you to work through the idea.

Parents (remember them?) have the major role to play, by instruction and example, in a child's early years, in inculcating an awareness of "doing the right thing". This is the foundation upon which kids will base their perceptions of right and wrong, from a very early age.

Ethics as a topic of study is usually built from examples, writings, thoughts and deeds, illustrating ethics as an academic concept, which is then filtered through the individual's pre-formed understanding. This filtering process has the effect - because it acts at an instinctive, rather than intellectual level - of determining whether that person simply nods in agreement, or thinks "what a load of irrelevant tosh".

Similarly, if the human resources department of an organization takes the trouble to put together a booklet entitled "Business Ethics: our Number One Priority", it will have the same impact as their memo the previous week about courtesy in the car park. Someone will post a parody of it on the intranet, those who think it important will tut-tut, and the rest - usually those causing the problem in the first place - will simply snigger.

If your idea is to rely on retro-fitting these abstract notions on a fully-grown human being, I would suggest (remember, this is an opinion only, please do not try this at home without adult supervision) that you have a zero chance of altering their ethical habits. They either get it, or they don't.

If they don't, and it is important, punish them. Ethics are an attitude, not a science.

In my opinion, of course.

The thing is, Pericles, we don't know whether you are posting opinions like that in a futile attempt to be a thought leader or simply to let us see that you are a dill.

There is more to ethics than pushing a booklet out from the HR department. This is neatly illustrated by the current stoush between the Australian Investments and Securities Commission and Citicorp, over questions of alleged conflicts of interest and improper use of confidential information. Another current example is the questions that are being asked about investment advisers who accepted commissions of upwards of 10% on flakey Westpoint securities and yet marketed them as "low risk".

Is there such a thing as a "just war" and, if so, what is it?

What are the ethical issues to do with web search engines? Lawrence M Hinman writes about them at http://ethics.sandiego.edu/lmh/op-ed/google/googleethics.asp

Hinman is a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego and is editor of a comprehensive web site on ethics at http://ethics.sandiego.edu/

Pericles, you might try doing a little research to find out what ethics actually encompasses, before pontificating on the subject. You clearly didn't look at any of the case studies in the link I provided to Texas A&M or the material at Case Western. And you probably won't look at the San Diego site either (although other readers may find it of value). Which is why I tend to dismiss the thought leader hypothesis, and lean more towards an explanation of "dill".

If it's of any interest to BOAZ_David, the University of San Diego is a Roman Catholic institution. Even so, Hinman doesn't find it necessary to appeal to God or the Bible all the time to justify the ethical stances that he adopts.

What is it with you academics that you so readily resort to insults? Insecurity?

It is fine with me that you choose to believe that ethics can be taught like mathematics or engineering. But unfortunately the illustrations you provide tend not to support your case.

For example, you included in your references a copy of Enron's code of ethics, along with the comment “unfortunately, not everyone followed its admonition.”

That was because they were by nature unethical. Writing a booklet couldn't change that.

Your example from San Diego on search engines was a mistake – it is simply a succession of strawman arguments. The conclusion was dramatic, but erroneous:

"Search engines .... are largely unnoticed, their procedures are opaque, and they are almost completely devoid of independent oversight: powerful, cloaked in secrecy, and not subject to external control. Insofar as the flourishing of deliberative democracy is dependent on the free and undistorted access to information, and insofar as search engines are increasingly the principal gatekeepers of knowledge, we find ourselves moving in a politically dangerous direction"

What absolute hogwash! The first thing it tells you is that the author hasn't a single solitary clue as to how search engine technology is being developed, and how it is constantly evolving to ensure that it performs the function its owners intend.

A search engine can only survive by remaining relevant. That is to say, if it falls into any of the traps that the writer describes in dread tones, it will not be used, advertising revenue will dry up, and it will disappear. It will be replaced by an engine that achieves greater relevance... in the eyes of the searcher.

Relevance and transparency are their lifeblood. To cross the boundary and attempt manipulation would be business suicide.

The only relevance to ethical considerations was in the author's “lets imagine” scenarios, not in the facts.

But I expect he has a quota of such drivel to produce. But it is only of relevance to others who make a living from "ethics training".

I thought Pericles was improving when he managed to apply deduce that some of the workers on the Westgate Bridge were probably Christian. Top effort, Pericles! Folks, you read it here first!

Regrettably he has regressed. He claims that the measure of ethical conduct is commercial success. If that is the case, manufacturing antipersonnel land mines must the most ethical businesses on the planet.

BOAZ_David on the other hand has produced an argument of possible substance. Let's examine it.

Are Christians more ethical than atheists or (gasp!) heathens? What does the evidence say?

Unlike Pericle's feeble effort, let's use more relevant measures.

Most Australians describe themselves as Christian in their census returns. That's a luke warm measure of religious commitment. The World Values Survey has a better one. It recently surveyed people in 53 countries asking how many regularly attend church, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/rel_chu_att If people attend church at least weekly, surely they are serious about their religion.

How are we to judge the ethical strength of a nation? Transparency Internation runs a regular survey that assesses the corruption level in 130 nations, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/gov_cor Corruption level is likely a good inverse surrogate for ethical standing of a nation.

BO_Dav's hypothesis is effectively that nations with high levels of church-goers should be less corrupt than those with low levels.

What do we find?

Iceland and Finland, with only 4% churchgoers, are the least corrupt countries. Nigeria with 89% churchgoers is the second most corrupt, behind Bangladesh (which Muslim-bashers at this site will delight to observe, is secularly Islamic). The United States, with 44% churchgoers is significantly more corrupt that Australia, with 16%.

Conclusion?

Christianity does not help a country's people to be ethical.

It may in fact be a hindrance.

I’m wondering if that is the prosecutions statement in the implications of Christianity or if it is actually a textual attack on the Immigration policies. Mighty unethical in its presentation, and certainly opens the proverbial Pandora’s Box.
You are a genius Mike M and you did not know it.
Perhaps Sir Arthur Keith’s Evolution and ethics should be on top of your literature objectives soon.
Cic. in Lucullo: Dialecticam inventam esse, veri et falsi quasi disceptatricem. Topica, c. 2: Stoici enim judicandi vias diligenter persecuti sunt, ea scientia, quam Dialecticen appellant.
Hmmmmmm.

MikeM, it is obvious you are running out of ideas, as you resort to that ultimate device - rubbishing a claim I did not make.

>>[Pericles] claims that the measure of ethical conduct is commercial success<<

Your source for this can only be your imagination, since I have never made such a claim nor ever will.

The extreme example of commercial success I most commonly use - Microsoft - I present as a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success. To accuse me of holding the opposite view demonstrates how low you need to stoop in order to attempt to score a point.

Let's take a quick checkpoint on "who said what".

Your contention is that everybody should learn ethics.

>>I am astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training<<

You justified this by implying that a body of people (engineers) have managed to avoid a repetition of the Westgate Bridge disaster, because they now have a code of ethics.

You immediately contradict yourself by pointing out that Enron had a 64-page code of ethics but that "not everyone followed its admonition to conduct the business in a "moral and honest manner"

So it is not instruction that is lacking, is it?

Where the system falls apart is not in the teaching part, which simply allows lazy academics a financial sinecure for teaching that motherhood is, by and large, a good thing.

It is the fact that the law is far too light on the results of poor ethical choices.

A current classic example is the failure of the Department of Public Prosecutions to take any action against Rob Gerard, who was allowed to "settle" a tax bill for $150 million after a fourteen year investigation

http://afr.com/articles/2005/11/28/1133026405863.html

...and was then proposed by our Treasurer for a position on the Board of the Reserve Bank.

Only when we see a raft of ministerial resignations, followed up with some serious jail time, will anyone even start to take ethics seriously.

Pericles wrote, "I have never made such a claim, and never will."

You cannot know what you will do in future, but let's look at what you did, old son.

About a discussion on ethics of search engines, you wrote, "What absolute hogwash!"

If ethics are hogwash, what are you suggesting? That search engine proprietors do everything possible to avoid that "advertising revenue will dry up and it will disappear".

No quite "Greed is Good", but fair try.

Are you having trouble remembering what you have written, Pericles? It's a good plan to review it before posting again.

Professional engineers' codes of ethics long predate the Westgate Bridge disaster. Codes cannot prevent such disasters - they didn't. I never claimed that they could. However the Royal Commission and subsequent court cases found breaches of ethics codes were major issues.

Honestly, Pericles, you are an enigma. You seem able to spell and to form grammatically correct sentences, but to know nothing.

Implementing a code of ethics involves more than preparing a booklet. You somehow fail to understand.

You write, "I present [Microsoft] as a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success".

Yes, we know Microsoft was Googlebombed with "more evil than satan himself" in October 1999, http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2167621

But does that prove "a complete lack of ethics".

You write, "It is the fact that the law is far too light on the results of poor ethical choices."

The law sometimes bears on consequence of ethical choices, but often not. They are separate, if overlapping, domains. Were you never taught that?

Is there totalitarianism in your thinking? If, like Uday Hussein, you owned a soccer team, would you punish them for failing to win a game?

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/27_uday.html

If Microsoft's conduct constitutes a crime, do let us into what that might be, and what punishment would make the world a fairer, better and (if you can eventually grasp the term) more ethical place.

Once again, you deliberately misrepresent me in the pursuit of scoring points. Nobody's keeping score, by the way.

"Hogwash" was, and still is, my observation on the arguments and conclusions contained in that highly superficial skim over the mechanics of search engine technology.

The case I put forward is something far more radical than greed is good. That in the case of search engine technology, it is precisely a lack of ethics that will drive them out of business.

Google built its business on the relevance of the results it uncovered. Without this relevance, it dies - people will stop using it, and turn to another engine. Their revenue will dry up, they will cease to exist.

If they do not remain vigilant to the opportunities for corruption of their results, they will go out of business. That is one of the (many) reasons why they change the algorithms regularly - to make sure, as best they can, that the system is not manipulated.

This is the reason I described the item as hogwash.

As for Microsoft, you are simply grasping at straws. My statement had nothing to do with Google-bombing, but the result of the DoJ case. The company was found guilty of using its monopolistic position for competitive advantage. Some of the testimony from their own people provides ample illustration of their complete disregard of ethical considerations in the construction of their business plans.

Have a look at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/trial.html and judge for yourself how ethical were their OEM policies, for example.

To summarise:

i)it is possible to run a very successful business that runs entirely on ethical choices, and that a business does not need formal ethics training in order to be successful

ii)it is possible to run a very successful business entirely without ethics, and that no amount of formal ethics training will change this

I am surprised to have to walk you through this in such simple terms, but I hope you find the insight valuable.

Pericles is somehow convinced that Microsoft is "a classic example of how a complete lack of ethics leads to astounding commercial success."

What might "a complete lack of ethics" look like? Pericles presumably alludes to allegations contained in antitrust suits.

He is as well informed on antitrust law as on ethics.

Monopolies are not illegal; what is, is damaging customers' interests. Microsoft admitted practices deserving slaps on the wrist, but hearings lacked convincing evidence that it damaged consumers' interests. Initial ruling that the company should be split has sunk into the obscurity that, in my opinion, it deserved.

Indeed, growing popularity of OpenOffice (which I use), Firefox and Linux (which I don't) confirms that computer owners have choices. In a previous life as an executive I sometimes negotiated with Microsoft. I found the company to be sometimes irritatingly difficult but always ethical.

The New York Times carried a report on Sunday on US CEOs' remuneration rates:

QUOTE
The average total pay for chief executives rose 27 percent, to $11.3 million, according to a survey of 200 large companies [last year].

The 123 chief executives included in the survey for the last three years saw their compensation increase, on average, 15 percent, to $11.4 million in 2005. Last year, their pay was up almost 30 percent, to $10.2 million...

While ordinary workers' wages and benefits were squeezed last year, chief executives were largely immune from those pressures...
END QUOTE

Highest paid CEO last year was Ray Irani, Occidental Petroleum CEO, who walked away with $63 million. (What the hell does he do with it all?)

Lowest paid? Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, $309,000.

Second lowest? Steven Bullmer on $1.009 million heading a company displaying "a complete lack of ethics".

Pericles, have it your way, old son. If you enjoy your delusions, why spoil them?

"It is possible to run a very successful business entirely without ethics, and that no amount of formal ethics training will change this."

Examples?

Pericles, you aren't a financial advisor by any chance who was recommending Westpoint promissory notes?

Westpoint wasn't actually successful, was it?

MikeM, it sometimes helps to know a little whereof you speak, but I have noticed that you don't necessarily view this as an impediment.

>>[Pericles] is as well informed on antitrust law as on ethics. Monopolies are not illegal; what is, is damaging customers' interests <<

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's verdict was that “Microsoft had abused its monopoly in personal computer software, harming consumers and competitors”.

You will note that he observed Microsoft had damaged competitors, not just consumers. In the politically-motivated settlement that followed, this constituency didn't get a look-in.

>>Microsoft admitted practices deserving slaps on the wrist...<<

Now you see, that's the kind of statement that undermines any credibility you believe that you have. Microsoft admitted nothing, either then or now. They make a virtue of admitting nothing.

It may have also come to your attention that they have been found guilty of similar charges by the EU.

“Microsoft antitrust verdict – guilty and €497m fine”

They are still fighting that one, of course. Admit nothing. Call in the lobbyists (that they pay handsomely) and keep fighting. It's Microsoft, therefore it is the rest of the world that is out of step.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

But don't take my word for it. This comment is taken from an article by Rushworth M. Kidder of the Institute for Global Ethics:

“What caused [Judge Jackson's] finding? Put simply, a lack of ethics. Microsoft said it was not colluding to control the market. Yes, it was, said the court.”

Google Microsoft ethics. I got “about 18,800,000 hits”, and I couldn't find one article that had a good word to say about them. Not that I looked through all 18,800,000, you understand.

Incidentally, if I had Warren Buffet's $44 billion, or Steve Ballmer's $12.1 billion, I wouldn't bother with a salary either. In fact, I wouldn't even relieve the company of the odd lazy million. I'd do a Steve Jobs...

“Apple Computer chief executive Steve Jobs received a $1 salary and no other compensation for fiscal year 2005, unchanged from the previous year.” AppleInsider March 2006

Pericles,

I'm pleased to see that my encouragement moved you from a position of ignorant bluster to trying to actually research the question.

Well done!

Your comprehension skills could do with improvement though.

I didn't say that Microsoft admitted that its practices were unethical. It certainly admitted to practices that courts considered unethical.

In two minutes, with a slightly more sophisticate Google search than you used (microsoft ethics "path dependency" antitrust), I came up in the first page with a paper, "The FTC and the Law of Monopolization" from the prestigious Antitrust Law Journal. It seriously questions the US Federal Trade Commission's interpretation of the law:

QUOTE
Although Microsoft has attracted much more attention, recent developments at the FTC may have a greater impact on the law of monopolization. From recent pronouncements, the agency appears to believe that in monopolization cases government proof of anticompetitive effect is unnecessary. In one case, the Commission staff argued that defendants should not even be permitted to argue that its conduct lacks an anticompetitive impact. This article argues that the FTC's position is wrong on the law, on policy, and on the facts.
END QUOTE from http://law.gmu.edu/faculty/papers/docs/00-34.pdf

Also on the first Google page was an indirect link to a paper that appeared in the George Mason Law Review journal, "Don't Disintegrate Microsoft (Yet)".

There isn't space to quote from it at length, but the final sentence of the abstract says, "Absent further findings that validate the government's story, Microsoft should remain intact", http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=288115

As indeed it has.

There was extensive debate on Microsoft's case among both lawyers and economists. The fact, Pericles, that you couldn't find links to pages supporting Microsoft proves nothing about Microsoft.

It simply shows that you still have plenty to learn about using Google and that you don't understand much economics.

Ridiculing my Google technique, MikeM, smacks a little of argumentative desperation, and your latest offering reeks of it.

>>I didn't say that Microsoft admitted that its practices were unethical.<<

Nobody accused you of this. Why do you bring it up?

>>It certainly admitted to practices that courts considered unethical.<<

Microsoft does not “admit to practices”. It gets found out, and when cross-examined in court, cannot deny them.

>>This article argues that the FTC's position is wrong on the law, on policy, and on the facts.<<

And what, pray, was your point in introducing this red herring? I have not used the FTC as a witness or an example, so a rebuttal of their position is utterly irrelevant.

Do you know what a Wookiee is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

>>"Absent further findings that validate the government's story, Microsoft should remain intact"<<

Oh look, another Wookiee. Nowhere have I made the suggestion that Microsoft should be broken up, merely that they built their market share on a fundamental lack of ethics. Breaking them up would, in fact, simply spread the contagion.

>>The fact, Pericles, that you couldn't find links to pages supporting Microsoft proves nothing about Microsoft.<<

I was doing a crude – but quite effective – search on items that contained both the word “Microsoft” and the word “ethics”. While this is an admittedly inexact process, it was interesting that none of those pieces put the two search arguments together in a positive light.

Of course you can find items that say it is a wonderful, highly ethical company, if you search deeply enough. I can find plenty of sites where they still think that Stalin was deeply misunderstood, too.

And to get right back on topic, there isn't a policy you could write, or course you could take them through, that would make a blind bit of difference. It's bred in the bone.

And just out of interest, why does my criticism of Microsoft make you so cross? It's only capitalism in action, that's all. And I am completely sneer-resistant, by the way.

Thank you "sneer-resistant" Pericles. You have confirmed my intuition. I sensed that you would not take offence where it wasn't intended, and would take what I wrote in the spirit that I wrote it.

Hence, although I hold no particular brief for Microsoft, I have been happy to spend the time helpfully explaining to you where you have gone wrong.

I am sorry to say though that you are accepting my advice as fast as you should. You unfairly criticise me for, quote, "Ridiculing my Google technique".

In fact, I was encouraging you when I wrote, "you have plenty to learn about using Google". Where there is room for improvement, there is room for hope.

To conduct a feeble search that gets "about 18,800,000 hits" and conclude that because the first (how many? 10? 30? 100?) don't demolish your case that you have a convincing argument leaves, well, room for improvement.

Honestly, wouldn't you agree?

I mean, I conducted a Google search on Pericles and Microsoft and, out of the first 50 in a mere 114,000 I found no pages that indicated that you know anything about the ethics of Microsoft.

But, to me, that is unconvincing evidence. Nor should it convince you.

Yes, I know you avoided mentioning FTC. The reason is obvious. FTC, which is normally responsible for prosecuting antitrust law, set the parameters of the case. When they found that it was ineffective, strangely, it was picked up in a vendetta by the US Justice Department, similar to the vendetta that Control Data Corp encouraged the Justice Department to kick off 40 years ago against IBM.

If we start to question FTC interpretation of monopoly law, we question the whole foundation of Penfield Jackson's findings. That is what many have done. I provided links to two such papers.

In a contradictory observation, Pericles, you state that the Microsoft case is "only capitalism in action".

Excuse me?

Where in capitalist economics does it say that government instrumentalities should hound publicly owned corporations that have never stolen a cent from anyone, simply because they are successful?

MikeM, You continue to flounder around, clutching at straws, in an area of which you clearly have not the slightest understanding.

>>Where in capitalist economics does it say that government instrumentalities should hound publicly owned corporations that have never stolen a cent from anyone, simply because they are successful?<<

If this is your assessment of the anti-trust actions against Microsoft, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, as you have obviously supped deeply of the Redmond KoolAid, and there is no hope of anything remotely coherent from you.

However, I rather suspect that this is simply the result of a few minutes trawling around the web in search of contradictory views - of which, thanks to the power of the Microsoft dollar in the media and in government circles, you will find many.

Your "views" on the mechanics of search engines should have alerted me to the fact that you are in alien territory here. Glib statements about "hounding... simply because they are successful" only confirm this.

I have no idea of what your "specialist subject" might be, but it most certainly is not the software industry. If it were, you would know of the dozens of individual cases that have been brought by small companies who have been laid waste, not by fair competition from Microsoft, but by unethical dealing.

Here is just one, which I use because it is one of which I have direct personal knowledge.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-523518.html?legacy=zdnn

Note some of the phrases:

"A federal judge found that Microsoft Corp. engaged in wanton, reckless and deceptive business practices"

"Microsoft's deceptive practices were deliberate and had been approved at the highest levels of the company in order to protect its market power, the judge found."

"Judge Hall also found that senior Microsoft executives hadn't testified truthfully."

And there are many, many others.

Getting back to the article....

I believe that ethics are as basic and essential as the 3 R's.

From the day we toddle into pre-school we are interacting with others. Negotiating, compromising or bullying depending on our nature and the standard of nuture we receive.

Ethics is more about how we would like to be treated and how we should treat others in return. There are many stories (fables) that can provide a framework for children to understand how our actions affect others.

After all, religion likes to get started on the young early, so it makes sense that philosophy, ethics and reasoning should start early also.

It won't eliminate psychopathic behaviour of individuals and organisations completely. But, somehow, I believe that if you don't give a flying *@#k about others' welfare by the time you reach UNI then its a bit like closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Ah, Pericles, so...

You are a propellor-head who was singed by the Great Satan. That explains equally your vehemence and your cursory understanding of commercial law.

I note that in the Bristol case Judge Hall overturned a previous judgement that found Microsoft had committed a minor offence - worth a fine of $1. Judge Hall's finding was potentially subject to further appeal. Instead the two parties reached an undisclosed commercial settlement in February 2001.

Bristol Technology is no longer in its original business. Presumably the settlement failed to achieve Bristol's objective - to obtain access to source code for later versions of Windows than Microsoft had contracted to provide.

BusinessWeek, reporting on the case in November 1999, observed:

QUOTE
Undermining Bristol's legal argument is the fact that its main competitor, Mainsoft Corp. in San Jose, Calif., was able to successfully renegotiate its earlier code-licensing agreement with Microsoft in 1998. Mainsoft officials say they achieved better ends because they kept talking to Microsoft instead of suing.
END QUOTE at http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/news/date/9911/f991111.htm

Small, trigger-happy companies that think the way to wealth is to litigate can create enormous trouble. They often get no more than they deserve. The highest profile recent case is SCO, which claims that the Unix world owes it a living, http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Pericles, my helpful advice to you is that you should stick to your day job.

BOAZ watches Pericles and MikeM going at it..... :)

guys guys.. it seems u 2 are more interested in coming out of this looking 'ok' rather than exploring the philosophical underpinning of Ethics.

But Mike mate..I'm getting a distinct odour of intellectual arrogance drifting in from your corner..Whereas Pericles seems more to be defending his intellectual integrity ?....

My reading of Russells "The History of Western Philosophy" (Probably the only secular book on Philosphy I've read) was illuminating.

From Plato and Socrates to Mill, and Hume and Sartre and many others, the problem of ethics arose just a microsecond after they set aside any reliance on revealed truth.

Mike.. I did read that link you gave about the Lift thing in which a worker was killed, and the design issues. The ethical issue is clear to me "Do for others as you would have them do for you". The article distinguished betweent he 'legal' requirements and the 'moral obligations' but it all comes back to the golden rule.

As soon as we depart from it (the "do unto others..." ) and depend on the 'legal' situation, people will soon get the message "As long as I'm covered legally... it doesn't matter how I do things"

Which seems to me to be a most inadequate foundation for a society.

I conclude (as I began) by saying we need a 'reason' to be ethical, and it had better not just be 'or I'll get sued or jailed'. How wonderful life would be if we built our communal values on Loving God and Loving our fellow man.

BD states:

"we need a 'reason' to be ethical"

Well, maybe you don't have one and that's why you have to refer to a book for 'guidance', but the majority of human beings have what is know as a conscience. We use these to determine whether we have done a bad thing or a good thing, BD.

Humans are naturally a societal creature - this means cooperation, hence the development of a conscience. This ability to cooperate and communicate is what assisted us to become the dominate species on earth.

We had already populated vast tracts of the planet thousands of years before Judism, Islam and Christianity. We had a sense of right and wrong then - we're not just little robots.

True there are people who have no conscience, they are classified as psychopaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath - for your edification.

The majority of us, however, care about our actions and their consequences. Some better than others - this is true and this is where the teaching of ethics can strengthen our natural inclination. And it is why I recommend the teaching of philosophy and ethics as a part of school curriculum rather than as a last resort at University.

To Pericles and MikeM - if you keep it up you'll go blind.

;0)

Thanks, Scout and BD.

You have brought a not very interesting debate (over whether Bill Gates was the most evil man who ever lived) back to the issue in the original article. Macquarie University vice-chancellor Steven Schwartz asks, should the number one priority for universities be the teaching of free thought and ethics?

Scout, you may be pleased to know that I can still see.

BD, I reject Christianity as the basis of ethics, considering it (along with other religions) as a sometimes ugly side effect of an ethical sense genetically embedded in most humans. We are, as Scout points out, naturally social animals. That leads to behaviours where cooperation is more common than conflict.

Scout, I don't imagine that Steven Schwartz thinks that ethics should be taught at university to the exclusion of ethical teaching by parents and in schools. He does not intend "a last resort" but continuing education in dealing with increasingly complex issues.

Schwartz is saying that ethics teaching should not stop with home and school. In modern society it raises complex issues: genetic crop modification; stem cell research; global warming; species extinction; animal use for medical research.

Ethical issues are more complex than what children learn at their mother's knee.

In my first post on this thread (6 April, 11:47:12 AM) I provided links to web sites describing current university level courses in applied ethics specifically relating to professional training. I find it odd that anyone objects to including that material in tertiary courses.

Building on the ethics that university students should have when they arrive, Eric Claus wrote in the article at the head of this thread:

QUOTE
If an ethics subject were rigorous, the BCA and Australia would be getting graduates who knew how to think deeply and critically about complex issues. Everybody wins.
END QUOTE

Anyone who has trouble grasping that there is more to ethics than the Ten Commandments might visit the St James Ethics Centre's "What Is Ethics" page, http://www.ethics.org.au/things_to_do/ethics_workout/what_is_ethics/index.htm

MikeM, you do like to go for the easy explanation, don't you?

>>Ah, Pericles, so... You are a propellor-head<<

You couldn't be more wrong. But I do happen to know all the protagonists in the Bristol case, whereas you simply select your comments from a couple of cursory searches on the internet.

>>a not very interesting debate over whether Bill Gates was the most evil man who ever lived<<

Yet another example of how you continually grasp the wrong end of the stick.

Bill Gates has never had much to do with the commercial aspects of the development of Microsoft as a company. He is a programmer. All he ever wanted to do was to “write really neat software”.

Bill is in fact one of the least evil individuals you could wish to meet, but the business he founded has over the years been run by others with far fewer scruples.

>>Ethical issues are more complex than what children learn at their mother's knee<<

So you keep saying.

But it is the issues that appear to be more complex. The ethical toolset with which to resolve them is not.

It is the one that mother taught.

Take for example the “dilemmas” you cite: “genetic crop modification; stem cell research; global warming; species extinction; animal use for medical research”. Explain please, exactly where in dealing with these situations you need a level of ethical awareness above and beyond that which most people learn in their early years at home.

(I notice you didn't include search engine technology, I assume you now realize what a dumb example that was.)

My point is this: the ethics “industry” has been concocted by a bunch of academics to provide an easy ticket to the gravy train. Since no two elements of society are ever going to agree absolutely on what “doing the right thing” consists of, it is the perfect sinecure.

“Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any[one] goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we?” - Douglas Adams

Pericles,

You are still off-topic.

Dills who spent $10 million in legal costs to attack Microsoft, not get what they wanted and extracted what, at best, was a rounding error in MS's P&L, were smarter and more ethical businessmen than the Mainsoft executives? Mainsoft were commercially reasonable, reached agreement with MS and have a flourishing business. This proves Microsoft is unethical? Puhlease.

It's risky to analyse someone on the basis of forum posts but I'll try. The Myers-Briggs personality type indicator classifies people according to four dimensions, explained at http://conferences.alia.org.au/newlibrarian2002/documents/MBTIforNewLibrarianSymposium(static).pps (type ").pps" on the end of the link to find it.)

If I am not mistaken Pericles, you are (like many people in the ICT field) a classic INTJ personality: introverted, intuitive, unempathetic and judgemental.

Intelligent - often. Possibly successful in your job (although you could choose smarter employers). But you lack skills to connect with others, are quick to reach conclusions and close your mind before knowing full facts.

Ethical considerations with search engines? Of course there are.

* Site ranking
* Ongoing battle between SEO companies and the search engines
* Debate over google.cn's censorship agreement
* US Justice Department's recent demands from search engine companies for data
* Paid vs algorithmically prioritised listings

But I was reluctant to be repetitive.

Your imperviousness to the knowledge within philosophy in general and ethics in particular reminds me (an analogy for BOAZ) of a heathen savage who worships gods of the forest, has never been introduced to the Holy Gospel and cannot imagine its existence.

Sounds introvertedly & intuitively judgemental to me.

Meantime if we are going to continue this thread, can we get back to Claus's original piece?

Claus is a professional engineer. He has found that ethical considerations figure in his discipline. He quotes Steven Schwartz, whose university is concerned, amongst other things, with turning out properly trained and employable professionals. He has found this too.

You, Pericles, sit in your little midden of cerebrum saying, with no discernible evidence, that these people are speaking nonsense.

Don't you feel slightly, uh, awkward?

I can't help but think that most posters here are confusing professional survival attributes (how to utilise risk management strategies) with ethics. But perhaps this is another ethical dilemma?

Mike and Pericles

Ok... I’ve been watching the Frasier marathon this weekend.. when I’m feeling like a break, zip into the lounge and aaaarrrrr feel that warm rush of intelligent comedy surging though my humor veins...

Frasier’s humor is developed over a long time, based on ones knowledge of the characters. This way, just a glance, a word.. a gesture.. is enough in context to bring the house down.

The interaction between you 2 is a bit like that :) .. “PROPELLOR HEAD” ? .. my my.. when I saw that, after all the serious stuff and persuasive combative banter, I shrieked in a kind of ‘ROFL’ kind of way.. and felt for a moment Frasiers writers had some serious competition :)

MIke, what I cannot quite get here, is why you seem to be making it much more complex than it appears to be (to me).

You mention GM foods,as an ‘ethical’ issue but surely this is more of a ‘research’ issue ?
All ethics boil down to the application of the golden rule “Do for others....”
Now surely this has to be the criteria to determine if GM foods are ‘ok’ or not ? They are either ‘harmful’ in some tangible way or they arn’t. If they are, then the ethics is clear “NO”. It matters not whether developing them will mean squillions for some company like Monsanto. On the other hand, if they are not harmful, then its a ‘YES’.

When it comes to business ethics, it becomes interesting.

-Price wars ? (the goal is not to sell more but to destroy ?)
-Should I ‘manufacture’ a superior version of something already made ? where, if I’m successful, it could result in the demise of a competitor and loss of jobs and severe hardship for his former employees ?
Perhaps the problem is the ethics of ‘Capitalism’ itself ?

hmmm... * wanders off in a reflective mood * I guess I expect them to do the same for me, so I try harder, or make something else

MikeM - relieved to hear you're not blind, but still the topic meanders....

You stated: "Steven Schwartz (does not) think that ethics should be taught at university to the exclusion of ethical teaching by parents and in schools."

Well one would like to think so, but that's not exactly how I interpreted the article. In fact if you could lead me to the place where he made a point of how vital this aspect of education is - I would really appreciate it.

In fact very little discussion is given to the teaching of ethics in primary and secondary schools - along with a lot of other topics under the heading of 'life skills'. Religion is taught in many schools and yet there is no balance with teaching ethics. No one here seems to be interested in the fact that ethics are important and vital to the development of our young people. This is why we end up with questionable organisations like Microsoft and somewhat topically - AWB.

What should have been an interesting debate has bogged down into turgid point scoring.

Yawn.

>>Pericles, You are still off-topic<<

Sadly true. I have allowed myself to be led astray.

The article devotes itself to the proposition that ethics is a study topic for adults, as in "make a university subject in ethics both mandatory and rigorous."

I suggested that ethics is not teachable in the sense that a language, or mathematics, is teachable, and that if you have to wait until university, it is far too late.

All the garbage in between has been largely the result of you making unwarranted ad hominem attacks on me, instead of engaging with the argument.

MikeM, you still fail to explain why additional instruction in the subject at university level will have the slightest impact on what is, at base, an emotional issue.

The subject “Ethics”, I will state again, is not teachable in the traditional sense. Providing illustrations of ethical dilemmas and hypothetical examples for people to work through will not make anyone more - or for that matter, less - ethical in their behaviour. Understanding ethics does not itself make an impact on the tendency of an individual to act, or not act, ethically.

Boaz muses about GM foods. Ultimately the question has to be asked "what is the right thing to do?". And if it can be shown that "the right thing" is to save a million children from starvation, that's the problem solved, isn't it? If on the other hand it is merely a device to increase Monsanto profits with no other benefit, that's also clear.

And if the issue sits half way between - as it inevitably will - the answer will also sit half way between, won't it?

Where does a university education in codes of ethics add to the discussion?

If you spent more time addressing the question instead of thinking up new insults, we might make some progress.

The rest of your observations on the information technology industry only serve to highlight the fact that you are in unknown territory. As with your suppositions on my Myer-Briggs profile, which are so far off track as to be laughable.

*looks around*.... is MikeM analyzing me.... nope.. ok.. we may begin.

Pericles.

the point you make about Uni being way too late to inculcate a sense of ethical behavior and attitude in young people is very true. The corollary of it being the raising of children in the way they 'should' go is probably the closest to an effective method of sharpening "concience". (unfortunately they come to an age where they ask 'why should I' specially when confronted by this worlds carnal delights)

The idea that a mature concsience (Mike) can be awoken at Uni as a result of a course of instruction is kinda lame to put it mildly. Pericles is absolutely right saying "Its way too late".

I think both of you have underlined the correctness of my own position, in that we have to 'want' to do right, not just know about it. Our desire to do it will depend on our sense of benefit/shame/outcomes if we don't.

I maintain that an ethics framework must exist in a community, where those on the 'throne' must demonstrate and promote right values to we in the 'marketplace'. But this is just simple social theory, it won't make Mr Machievelli into Mother Theresa.

We cannot legislate morality, or ethics beyond a certain point. So it comes back to people.

I think we need a balance between a legal/social framework, along with a continual appeal to the heart, based on revealed truth. Yessss I know.. that is the point where your (Mike, Pericles and Scout) sympathy with my reasoning evaporates right ?

Mike is campaigning for Ethics courses at Uni.. (err worried about a dodgy tenure Mike ? :) Pericles is campaigning for 'bring em up right' and here I am... thumping you all with the ol Good Book.

On GM foods, as long as research demonstrates no ill for people or the environment, I'm supportive, irrespective of profits to Monsanto.
But then, I might have issues with the idea that a company can 'patent' something crucial for survival of humanity. "Do for others" ...because the Almighty says we should.

1. For the record: A person who says that ethics should be taught at University is NOT saying that ethics should not be taught in primary or high school any more than a man who orders fish for dinner is not saying that fish should not be eaten for lunch. Fish should be eaten for lunch and ethics should be taught in primary and high school.

2. I believe that anybody who sits down and thinks hard about ethics will be more ethical. That is the way the brain works. I don't think it is a panacea for turning Macchiavelli into Mother Theresa, but I think it helps at any age. I'd agree that like almost anything learned, it is better to learn it young.

3. I also think that anybody who sits down and thinks hard about ethics will be a better thinker and that is important for business and civilisation and is, I hope, one of the goals of a University course.

Boaz - Although I think the golden rule is a good idea it is not everything you need to know about ethics. For example, when flipping the channels with my wife in the lounge room if the cricket is on, the Golden Rule says it is time to settle in and keep watching. My soulmate on the other hand views it as a form of unfathomable torture (especially when Tony Grieg does the commentary). Ditto when Led Zepplin comes on the radio. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, does not work if our tastes differ. This is trivial, but there are more serious examples.

I assume that you believe that someone should respect your religion and according to the Golden Rule, you should respect theirs. But if that other religion says that people should be killed because they are not true believers or some other reason, then the Golden Rule does not work.

I think the Golden Rule should be taught at University, primary and high school along with all the other aspects of ethics.

BOAZ wrote GM foods "are either ‘harmful’ in some tangible way or they arn’t. If they are, then the ethics is clear 'NO'.”

Genetic modification techniques apply to a wide variety of life forms besides food plants. It is not that simple.

Only a firm with a death wish would market 'harmful' food.

But how much testing is needed to know whether something is harmful or not? A month with 10 people? A year with 100? A decade with 1000? Have you still filtered out a disaster like thalidomide?

What is 'harmful' anyway? Can you transfer a peanut gene into strawberries, and simply label them, MAY CONTAIN TRACES OF PEANUTS? Are hamburgers harmful to health?

Can companies patent plant genes so that anyone using a plant containing that gene must pay a royalty? Animal gene? Human gene - for example a gene that predisposes women to breast cancer, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5016 ?

Should substances be tested on animals? If so, what would justify that?

Should Monsanto have been allowed to commercialise its 'terminator gene', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/465222.stm ?

Scientists through genetic engineering have created living polio virus from common chemicals. Should they have done the experiment? Should they have published a paper describing it?

Should human embryos be tested for inherited diseases? And if positive, what?

There are many ethical issues that arise as we learn more about manipulating the genome.

This ethical training has little in common with studying the works of Plato, the Bible or later philosophers.

It involves learning through practice to:

* Determine facts
* Identify issues
* Identify stakeholders and their interests
* Determine possible courses of action
* Consider implications
* Assess the according to society's accepted ethical and legal principles
* Choose a course of action that 'best' balances stakeholder interests with ethical considerations.

Solving ethical problems in a professional field is often a group process and may require negotiating a solution.

Negotiation, whether of trade treaty, ethical dispute, commercial contract or fall-out from a marriage breakdown, is a skill that is teachable and improves with practice.

What possible objection is there to teaching this?

BOAZ,

I wouldn't want psychoanalyse you. Pericles of course is another matter.

When we talk of universities teaching ethics in engineering, law, medicine or other professional fields, we are not talking about teaching amoral people that it is wrong to kill, steal, or covet thy neighbour's wife. They are supposed to already know the basics when they get to university. (I know there are no separate ethics courses in Australian schools, but there don't need to be. The principles are supposed to be integrated into whatever is taught.)

Even so, vehicle design engineers and their executives make trade-offs every day between the design of a new vehicle and its cost, and the possibility of people being killed. Few go as seriously wrong as the infamous GM sidesaddle gas tank case, http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=504&scid=94

Stealing is wrong. Kids are supposed to know that. But what got into Wall Street in 1999-00 that allowed a former high school basketball coach to take shareholders to the cleaners, resulting in a $1.4 billion settlement against 10 Wall Street firms, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/wcom/

While coverting other people's wives (and indeed husbands) may be unethical, where would gossip magazines be without a steady stream of the rich and famous doing this all the time? And why do millions of ethical(?) people buy them and read them?

I'm not sure that there are applied ethics courses for gossip magazine editors, but there certainly are for engineers and finance professionals. They take the basic principles that everyone is assumed to know, and apply them to complicated situations, like how safe to make a car, or how to advise clients on an investment on which you are paid a commission.

OK, we're back on topic, which is something. But what a let-down. All that is at stake are just some fancy negotiation tactics, apparently.

>>Solving ethical problems in a professional field is often a group process and may require negotiating a solution. Negotiation, whether of trade treaty, ethical dispute, commercial contract or fall-out from a marriage breakdown, is a skill that is teachable<<

So when we look at MikeM's list of ethical issues, we are actually not seeking a single ethical answer to any of them. Which at least answers my original question, which was how a university course would improve upon the ethics learned at mother's knee. Clearly the answer is that it is not intended to, it just enables you to add to your negotiating skills.

>>But how much testing is needed to know whether something is harmful or not? A month with 10 people? A year with 100? A decade with 1000? Have you still filtered out a disaster like thalidomide?<<

It is actually quite liberating to finally understand that underneath all the verbiage, we are still left with the need to negotiate a compromise between the need for a cure, and the risks associated with applying it to human beings. Just as it always has been.

>>Should human embryos be tested for inherited diseases? And if positive, what?<<

This is where it gets difficult. No amount of education on the topic of ethics is going to bring the community to a single answer to this question. For a start, there are those who have immutable religious convictions that provide them with the answer without them having to think about it. Are we prepared to accept then that there might be two “ethical” answers to a single question that are polar opposites?

Because it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a compromise.

None of this disturbs my position that the study of ethics – as intellectually stimulating as it clearly is to many – will not advance anyone's ability to recognize “the right thing to do”.

What would've be the outcome of putting a so called ethical man like Bob Brown (one of Virginia Wolfs Winni hating crew for example) in charge of WW2 as opposed to Winston Churchill, who was as "victory at any cost" as they come.

I'd say certain death.

Stem cell etc can be debated within the realms of commonsense with a good outcome for each side of the argumument. Ethic "studies" are full of idealisitc biased(they can't help it) and abstract assumptions on behalf of people who may well prefer commonsense.

Sometimes u just gotta do what u gotta do. Bob Brownists may well squeal n sqwark but hey stuff happens

You've got the picture, Meredith.

Interesting that you mention Churchill, as this reminds us of the ethical issue of "just war" - and I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do, even if morality usually holds that violently killing other people is wrong.

There are occasions in life when you can't squib a decision by saying that there are two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose.

Whether to accept a marriage proposal, whether to decide to split up, whether to sign a contract with Microsoft, or sue the company.

People who can't resolve such conflicts suffer from the problem that doomed Buridan's ass:

“To be pulled in many opposite ways at once results negatively, but it is not the same thing as to feel no impulse at all. An ass between two bales of hay is said to have died of starvation, but not from indifference.”

- US Supreme Court Judge Learned Hand - P. 10, Class-Day Oration, (1893).

From http://president.uoregon.edu/Learned%20Hand%20revised.htm

Mike

"and I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do"

Sorry man, but these days I'm totally sure they would.

Thanks for the link I'll read it n get back on it soon.

Meredith,

When I wrote "I don't think any ethicists would denigrate him for doing what he decided he had to do" I primarily had in mind Churchill's declaration of war on Germany - to fight a "just" war - as opposed to eschewing violence and surrendering.

There are many specific incidents in WWII that have generated heated ethical debate, notably the firebombing of Dresden and dropping nuclear bombs on Japan.

If you are interested in "just war theory" the BBC has an extensive web site on the subject at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/index.shtml

If you want to discuss it, you might like to join the St James Ethics Centre's discussion forum and revive this discussion: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1078 or this one: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=626 or even this one: http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=104

Or you could start a fresh discussion on an aspect of the subject.

Dear Mike
pretty much all of what you are raising is either

1/ Negotiations for a mutually satisfactory outcome. (do for others...)

2/ Or.. raises questions where theological position may influence the decision. e.g Stem Cell research.

In principle, harvesting useful cells from embryos may be beneficial in the treatment of certain diseases, but I've heard passionate arguments that adult stem cells can provide the same results, its just that the funding momentum and the politics of the area is controlled currently by the 'embryonic' stem cell mob.

To me, the definition of 'life' and a living soul is from conception.
This is theological but I also feel it is common sense.

This is where in the absence of Theology, "ethics" gets verrrrrry messy or at least 'flexible'. Who is to say it is unethical to clone, to use embryo's for various purposes, to create 'super'men and women by genetic manipulation etc....where do we draw the line of how mature an embryo is b4 'manipulating' it ? etc.. It will boil down to 'opinion'.

I've ranted about the atheistic/secular society being a 'ship without a rudder in the sea of life' problem many times, and this is where it becomes clear.

CHALLENGE -Have a read of 1 Corinthians chapter 15, then tell me on the basis of evidence, why you reject it (If u do)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

My work here is done.

We have now come full circle, from a position where MikeM is "astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training", to the point where "there are occasions in life when you can't squib a decision by saying that there are two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose."

I get the strong impression that the overriding objective of ethics studies must be to train people to raise and discuss ethical issues, so long as they don't actually have to come to a conclusion one way or the other. A mutually satisfying debating society, perhaps, where the outcome is to agree that there are perhaps "two ethical answers and it is not possible to choose", at which point you can walk away, satisfied with a job well done.

What has yet to be answered is what skills have been acquired along the way that exceed and surpass those learned at one's mother's knee. Improved debating skills - tick. Knowledge of the "language" of ethics - tick. Improved decisions? Not proven.

I am sure that professional ethicists will make a great deal of money from their ability to lecture folk on the need to "do the right thing", but that is not necessarily going to add to the sum total of either happiness or goodness in the world.

Unless of course you are a professional ethicist with a degree in ethical studies, in which case you are firmly on the gravy train.

BOAZ,

You raise interesting issues. Although they stray from Claus's article, let me respond within 350 words.

I don't share your faith. Religion is unlike gravity or atomic theory, decided on the balance of evidence for and against. Facts won't convince a Christian to become an atheist or vice versa.

You say, "in the absence of Theology, 'ethics' gets verrrrrry messy or at least 'flexible'".

Yes it does. In the presence of theology it also does. You need only consider Christian theological debate since Thomas Aquinas about "just war theory".

C19 English Utilitarian philosophers set out to build a theology-independent ethical framework. Flawed in detail, it succeeded in grand design: our legal code - a reflection (admittedly distorted) of our ethical code - appeals to no religious doctrine for underpinnings.

When does life begin? The facts are clear. For human eggs, when they ripen and leave the ovary. For sperm, when they mature and leave the testes. In both cases life is brutally short, except in the tiny chance that they conjoin and form an embryo. Even then their joint chance of survival is no more than 50:50. Many embryos spontaneously abort before a mother even realises she is pregnant.

So what's special about the moment of conception?

You are right, BOAZ, that drawing the line for stem cell research or abortion becomes arbitrary. But a society can still reach a majority consensus as to where that line should be, as indeed we have.

Other societies reach different consensus.

Princeton philosopher Peter Singer even thinks that consensus is possible that that line could be after live birth, http://www.equip.org/free/DD801.htm

An interesting article about the relationship between politics and religion (and ethics) appeared in Monday's Herald, http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/humanity-the-loser-in-rigid-models-of-rule-and-religion/2006/04/16/1145126005798.html

Tim Costello and Jim Wallis argue that "it is possible to have secular politics with spiritual value".

They write, "religion does not have a monopoly on morality. The issue is not whether a political leader or party has a personal faith but whether they have a moral compass."

OK, I'll bite.

>>a society can still reach a majority consensus as to where that line should be, as indeed we have<<

>>Other societies reach different consensus<<

>>Princeton philosopher Peter Singer even thinks that consensus is possible that that line could be...<<

Could you help me here - where is the linkage between consensus and ethics?

The above descriptions refer to a problem that would appear to have deeply ethical considerations.

Do these different decisions perhaps rank "pari passu" in the eyes of the ethicist?

Perc,

the vote is fairer than often unwanted idealism.... and isn't fairness the question here?

Mike said:

"Other societies reach different consensus"

Which of course is rather what I've been saying. Moral relativism.

Pericles and I have had this debate previously, so I won't re-hash it.

Mike, you can apply that statement to 'other groups' within an existing society, and I don't feel we have reached any 'consensus' on anything, we have reached a political settlement, with those on the losing side still adamant that they are right.

While I completely agree that we can have a framework of ethics apart from 'faith' and religion, I still hark back to the issue of the matter of the 'will'.

My point about 1 Corinthians 15 is as follows:

1/ The essential content of the Gospel [Christ died (history)...for our sins,(meaning)]
2/ Pauls own testimony to having encountered the risen Christ.
3/ His very sound reasoning "If Christ is not raised, we of all men are most to be pitied"

If he knew point 2 to be fake or questionable, I doubt he would have subjected himself to such suffering, after all, that would be "Pitiable"

This letter itself is 'evidence' which can be scrutinized in terms of authenticy, date, author etc. Its worth a look. After all, it makes claims which cover our eternal destiny. If we say "I have my mind made up, I suppose I should now look at the facts" we are not thinking clearly.

I don't for a moment think we could or should ever implement laws which are specifically 'Christian' like "All Aussies must attend Church every Sunday" but I believe it is legitimate for renewed Australians, those in Christ, to use their vote as they see fit.

If Ethics is nothing more than the current concensus, (or political flavor) then I feel we are prone to the rudderless ship syndrome.

*Waves at Pericles*...

yes.. your observations are duly noted re the cyclical nature of Mikes 'Ethics' argument.

Pericles - pathetically - implores, "Could you help me here - where is the linkage between consensus and ethics?" I don't think so, Pericles. Your previous posts and the Bristol Technology affair suggest that nobody can.

BOAZ wrote, "If Ethics is nothing more than the current concensus, (or political flavor) then I feel we are prone to the rudderless ship syndrome."

No.

Humans have a genetic disposition to altruism towards their relatives and an inclination to punish cheats. Individuals vary in the degree to which they exhibit those traits. Hence we sometimes have totally unethical megalomaniacs on the one hand and, on the other hand, people who are prepared to lay down their lives for others ("saints" if they are Christian, "terrorists" if Muslim.)

The utilitarian philosophy school, which I mentioned in my previous post, is an example of a train of thought that builds on basic human psychology rather than inherited dogma.

BOAZ, I don't understand how Paul's letter, "is 'evidence' which can be scrutinized in terms of authenticy, date, author etc."

More to the point, does it matter?

I totally defend your right to believe what you do. Religious belief is also a genetic disposition (although one that I have been minimally endowed with). I hope you defend my right to my disbelief; we can exist peaceably in this country. More importantly, while we may disagree on some topics, I don't see this as a battleground.

You cannot sidestep the question with bluster, MikeM. Bringing up Bristol, a subject of which you know nothing more than you have selectively scavenged from the Internet, won't help.

meredith put it into perspective with her question “the vote is fairer than often unwanted idealism.... and isn't fairness the question here?”

This is the pragmatic approach. We collectively display a certain ethical approach that sits somewhere along the spectrum that MikeM describes as “totally unethical megalomaniacs on the one hand and, on the other hand, people who are prepared to lay down their lives for others”.

As with every process that involves an entire population, the extremes are averaged out into the middle, and we sometimes elect this mob and sometimes another lot.

In the process, it is only possible for the elected body to make those ethics-related decisions for which it has a mandate. These will obviously differ from those ethics held by the extremes.

The article asserts that this is exactly where we would all be better off. With formal training in ethics, we would, it is suggested, elect a more ethical mob.

But meredith also makes the point – isn't this about fairness? Which, in the political perspective, it is. But from the individual's point of view, ethics is not about fairness, but about “doing the right thing”. Which takes us right back to our mother's knee, where we complained “that's not fair”, only to get the response “it may not be fair to you, but it's the right thing to do”.

So I am still inclined to see consensus – the collective view of a society as to what constitutes fairness – as differing from the personal, character-based, almost visceral approach to ethical decisions that most of us exhibit.

Learning about utilitarianism, and the various other schools of thought that analyze man's disposition to make ethical decisions across a wide range of motivations, is a good and worthwhile activity if you enjoy delving into the world of philosophy. I still maintain that it has absolutely no impact on making an individual “more ethical”.

So Pericles. How does one person become more ethical than another? When and how is it learned or is it learned at all? Is person born ethical or unethical?

Is your "ethicalness" shaped by your experiences? Is education one of those experiences that might shape your "ethicalness?" Has thinking about what BOAZ and MikeM have written in this forum changed anything in the way that you see the world, and the way that you might make decisions? It has for me.

Dear Mike
Panic not, I wont be calling out the faithful with Torches one night to surround your house and lead you off to a dubious fate :)

You are indeed free to believe or disbelieve as you choose, but I will give it my best shot to persuade you (and Pericles and others) of the merits of belief, specially when all you have to do is 'change the chanel'err..I mean thread. Its not like I've got my foot in the front door waving a WatchTower at you....

Pauls letter is indeed evidence. In the same way that any historical document is evidence for the various figures of history and their personal exploits.

The Letter of Polycarp is extremely important, written around 150, which quotes many of the New Testament documents, including 1 Corinthians, and suggesting Pauls writings are well preserved.

This being so, it raises the question as to whether Paul was deluded or a liar...or.. that he spoke 'as it happened', in which case, you and I and all mankind are confronted by the good news of Salvation, through repentance and forgiveness, in Christ.

There remains the question of what we 'do' with that news. This is only something each person can answer. But let it not be without adequate information, lest we claim there was no 'warning label' on the packet when we are admitted to the "Peter McCallum cancer ward" of eternity.

So,it does matter, therefore I push,and prod,and argue and debate and seek to persuade.

Erric.

You are right, when a religion declares those who don't believe should be killed, the golden rule cannot apply at a State level, only at a personal. On the personal,I struggle terribly with this, waxing and waning between loving them and kicking their asses!

I know one thing though, walking in Christ does not leave much room for the ass kicking :) So,perhaps I sometimes walk outside the loop. Pray that I will walk only 'in Him'.

Sorry I'm not following the finer points of this thread often,

Perc,
my ref to fairness was written in sarcasm,

but basically how can one strive for a balanced "fair" point of veiw in an (by the very terms of the word fairness itself)unbalanced unfair world... ...

it's better and more honist to acknowlage reality and pick a side and fight for your preference on your future.

We live in a world influenced by ethics committees religions etc, some comfortable and sane and some not. We all have adgendas.

its not may the best man win, Mr Churchill, and yes even the atom bomb. Its the best man will win.

Life goes on out of our personal grasp after all of us are gone.

PS sorry for sloppy spelling.

Pericles randomly waves thoughts. A dying cockroach randomly waves its legs. Pericles, we have moved on.

BOAZ,

Of course I don't expect you to surround my house. We can have a reasonable discussion - and learn from each other, and still disagree.

There is established scientific evidence that human minds have capacity for spiritual experience. Christians can attribute that to God's work. Atheists have a different explanation. Both satisfy holders' beliefs.

The Dalai Lama provides encouragement to scientists to explore the state of mind of people when they meditate or feel the presence of a Greater Being.

Archives of science news magazine New Scientist come up with 18 hits on "Dalai Lama". In a May 1993 report, "The colour of happiness", Owen Flanagan writes:

QUOTE
... an interesting question for neuroscientists is how do the brains of Buddhist practitioners - or indeed any other wise, happy and virtuous people - light up? How are the qualities of happiness, serenity and loving kindness that arise from the Buddhist practice of mindful meditation reflected in the brain? ...

Neuroscience is beginning to provide answers. Using scanning techniques such as PET and functional MRI, we can study the brain in action. We now know that two main areas are implicated in emotions, mood and temperament. The amygdala - twin almond-shaped organs in the forebrain - and its adjacent structures are part of our quick triggering machinery that deals with fear, anxiety and surprise... The second area comprises the prefrontal lobes, recently evolved structures lying just behind the forehead. These have long been known to play a major role in foresight, planning and self-control, but are now crucially implicated in emotion, mood and temperament...

Buddhist meditation and mindfulness, which were developed 2500 years before Prozac, can lead to profound happiness, and its practitioners are deeply in touch with their glowing left prefrontal cortex and their becalmed amygdala.
END QUOTE

Christians, Muslims and devoted adherents of other faiths probably exhibit similar brain activity, although I know of no studies.

The studies provide no evidence either for or against existence of a God.

Dying Cockroach ? good grief Mike.. have you sunk to new lows of ad hominem ? Yes, I realize it was aimed at Pericles, but I'm starting to compile a mental list

-Propellor head.
-Dying Cockroach.

At least you have not joined Irf's camp and begun slinging around the lazy "Armchair Nazi" slogan.

Your quote about Buddhist meditation and brain function, while providing some interesting scientific observation of neurological fact, does little to address my challenge of:

a) The authenticiy and reliability of Pauls letter
b) The eternal implications of its content(particularly Chapter 15 of First Corinthians.)

But I won't persue that further for now, I think I've provided sufficient information with which you can grapple in your private times.

But before I conclude this post, let me touch on the Buddhist experience. Buddhism has nothing to do with any concept of a 'greater being'. It has to do with 'detachment' and the attainment of a state called Nirvana, complete detachment from all passion, lust, selfishness etc and that which causes suffering and pain. Needless to say, that a person achieving such a state, would experience substantial cognitive resonance as opposed to dissonance, where their actions and attitudes are in full harmony.

But a problem I see in this, is that it constitutes a psyhological state which probably cannot exist apart from a state of deep meditation, rather than a functional member of the human race in the real day to day, blow by blow world.

Further, it is just a psychological state, not the outcome of a living relationship with a risen Christ.

Here endeth the lesson.

Have a wonderful day all who have contributed to this thread. I think it has run its course.

Moved on, MikeM?

I call it "changing the subject because you cannot justify, when questioned, a single one of the positions you have chosen."

Ericc, you asked "How does one person become more ethical than another? When and how is it learned or is it learned at all? Is person born ethical or unethical?"

My suggestion is that ethical standards are predominantly communicated by parents to their offspring during the first dozen years of the child's life. Linkage between criminal behaviour and poor parenting is not hard to find, and while this has only a circumstantial connection with the broader topic of ethics, I believe it to be significant.

So one person will be more or less ethical than another due to their different upbringing. And yes, it is learned, but more in the sense of absorbed through behavioural observation and imitation than a formal "let's sit down and talk about ethics" process.

More often, the communication will be along the lines of "let's sit down and discuss your behaviour", where the need to do the right thing is illustrated, and enforced wherever possible. The lack of such guidance results in the lack of behavioural boundaries, which in turn leads to a low awareness and understanding of the need to behave in an ethical manner.

And no, I don't believe that one can be born unethical. One may be born with genetic traits that relate to intelligence, but cleverness has absolutely no influence on an individual's ethics. As many very clever people in business consistently demonstrate.

For similar reasons, I believe that the formal teaching of ethics in universities or elsewhere will have absolutely no impact on the ethical behaviour of individuals within a society.

Thanks Boaz and yes, I think it may be time to go before we get bored with the repetition.

No Pericles,

I have moved on because of your repetitive mantra that "ethical standards are predominantly communicated by parents to their offspring during the first dozen years of the child's life."

Evidence? None. Inclination to explore the subject? Nil.

In the event that you have learned nothing after your first dozen years of life, it does not preclude the possibility that others have.

Clearly, if I can add to BOAZ's collection of ad hominisms, Pericles, your mind is as closed as a dunny door after a feed of crook prawns. Mind the emus don't kick it down.

Well Mike.... you may not have convinced either me or Pericles about your view on ethics, but BOY OH BOY you have been entertaining..and educative.. that last one was awesome !

dunny door..prawns.. ROFL.

Did you examine 1 Corinthans ? 'prod'

yeh its been a good string...

Just a short reminder as I close the dunny door behind me, that I can make exactly the same claim - "Evidence? None. Inclination to explore the subject? Nil." of your contributions, MikeM.

Trawling for a couple of friendly quotes from the internet doth not an argument make, however many times you lather, rinse and repeat.

My evidence is all around you. Jails are full of kids whose blue-collar parents failed them miserably in their formative years. Those same jails are also filling up with an increasing number of white-collar graduates whose awareness of ethics - as contained in the HR-produced tomes of virtue-speak their companies produce by the bucketload - should be heightened by their superior intelligence. But somehow is not.

Your evidence is stuck in some wannabe-professor's notebook, waiting for the day when someone will pay for the trite, motherhood statements that will bore the fingernails off his students. Not once were you able to point to any information to support your view that teaching ethics at secondary and tertiary level is beneficial.

And the evidence you were able to cobble together - written exclusively by people with a strong vested interest in the proposition itself - was shoddy in the extreme.

But have a nice day anyway.

Can I ask advice from longer standing members of this forum?

If I quote evidence from credible sources, or opinions from people whom I think are wiser than I, albeit through linking to material posted on web sites, am I transgressing some unwritten rule here?

To be accepted, should I confine my comments solely to OLO articles posted and to fact-free personal opinions and petty prejudices?

If, for example, I posted that jails are filling up with white-collar criminals or posted that they are filling up with Christian criminals (or with atheist criminals) because I fantasised that that was the case, would it be more acceptable to forum membership than posting statistics from, say the web site of the Australian Institute of Criminology, http://www.aic.gov.au/ ? (Which does not classify criminals by religious persuasion. Awkward, isn't it, to build cases based on religious prejudice.)

If it's frowned on to use evidence here, perhaps we could give the the distasteful practice of invoking it a name and a measure. I suggest that we call it periclism, after the member who has so bravely unmasked it. The unit of a pericle refers to periclism so egregious that it totally swamps differing opinions with incontrovertible fact, leaving debate barren.

Of course, the millipericle (being one thousandth of a pericle) must be the usual measure in practicle discourse. Most disagreements are closer to that scale.

Short answer to BOAZ: yes.

(Around fifteen millipericles.)

MikeM, in answer to your question. There have been plenty of links posed by various contributers (myself included) during my time on the forum. I suspect that little attention is actually paid to most. You may have noticed the complete lack of response to references to government stats on child abuse on a thread about "reasonable" fear of violence. No one challenged the stats, no one came back and said "I'm really surprised by that".

I tend to ignore articles when the site or the article does not look at all independant. I suspect that most of us overlay our own biases on the concept of "credible" - what we agree with is more credible than what we disagree with. Links are nice if not to many and credible enough for those seeking further understanding but probably useless to change a firm opinion.

On the overall topic - I tend to the view that our approach to ethics is developed during early childhood learning but refined as we grow. I'm still working on better ways of dealing with various life situations and expect that process to continue for the rest of my life. I suspect that those who don't regard ethical behaviour as important will not change their views as a result of a course but such a course may help if and when the person does some re-evaluation of their life. The path to personal growth is different for each of us.

R0bert

Mike,

I've posted on OLO for a while, off n on for a year or so... I think if you are getting into a big thing crediting your info is importent.

I once chased someone for about 10 000 words over links supposedly to war atrocities that had no records any of us could find... my thought was the paerson posted the links along with the stated (fake) atrocity thinking no one would check the link (which was to another atrocity of different no's of casualties in a different year). I thought it was to heavy to let go, war atrocities bin no light subject and worhty of more respect than tossing around like that.

Tho we all know who we may respect may be seen as a crock by others n vica versa.

Dear Mike....
the subject of linked evidence is a bit of a mine field, but still a neccessity. Generally I find 'left' leaning evidence, is voluminous, repetitive, predictable and negative and 'right' leaning evidence is rather selective.

We had this character TIMKINS who supplied link after link ad infinitum, on domestic abuse/family court etc suddenly we see laws changed in the direction he hoped for.. maybe 'SOMEONE' is reading the links :) ?

Most of us select that which suits our purpose, and it is up to the reader to connect them to the issue and weigh it up.

Gun related crime in South West Sydney compared to the NSW state crime rates is a good example. Rather than win or lose that argument, my solution is that each individual should prepare themselves in no uncertain terms for that day when they are asked 'Are you Aussie' ? by some olive skinned individuals; by having their own golf club in their car, and have a basic (but effective) knowledge of how to respond to at least 2 or 3 attackers.

You must love Pericles :) now allocating his nick to a new unit of measure. But Pauls words are worthy of 'mega' not 'milli' portions of time.
Its quite possible from an evidentary point of view in standard document research to compare various writings, such as where Paul is quoted, alluded to, or opposed, over many many sources and time periods to build up a 'balance of probabilities' (speaking from a human view point) and one would be forced by the weight of evidence to conclude "Yep..this is the real deal" or.. to the contrary "Hmmm looks dodgy to me"

But saying "I reject it because I do" is neither scientific nor reasonable :)

Or..as some modern (18c onward) did, take the 'scientific' approach which says "People don't rise from the dead today, we see no evidence for it, THEREFORE Christ could not have risen".

Ok..enough prodding.

MERI.. how u doin mate ? :)

Robert.. welcome to the thread.

Your straw man arguments are entertaining, MikeM, but ultimately self-defeating.

"The unit of a pericle refers to periclism so egregious that it totally swamps differing opinions with incontrovertible fact, leaving debate barren"

Nice piece of writing, of course, but once again displaying your unique ability to avoid addressing the issue by changing the focus of attention away from the topic at hand. Lets call this manoeuvre the martinette, shall we? Elegant, but empty.

I have been trying, but failing, to draw you into a defence of the position you established for yourself some time ago, namely that you are "astonished by the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training".

You have used every possible tactic since that time to avoid justifying your stance, choosing instead to resort to schoolyard name-calling.

>>If I quote evidence from credible sources, or opinions from people whom I think are wiser than I, albeit through linking to material posted on web sites, am I transgressing some unwritten rule here?<<

The problem is, the evidence you quote is in itself contentious, yet you present it unapologetically as newly-minted truth, freshly (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor) carved in tablets of stone. As soon as one of these "credible sources" is challenged - that drivel about search engines springs to mind - you stamp your feet like a spoiled child.

Unlike you, I make no claim to knowing the answers. But I can at least think for myself, and if you disagree with me, that is totally fine with me.

But I would just point out that once again, you have avoided the question on the value of ethics training per se. Of course we continue to learn and grow - well, some of us at least - but this is not in itself a justification for setting up a department of ethics. We have a right to know whether our taxpayers' dollars are being spent on achieving an outcome, and what that outcome might be. Pious hopes simply don't cut it.

The study of ethics enable us to not only reason more effectively, but to articulate our thoughts and opinions.

People often behave unethically when unable to effectively communicate with others, eg they may erupt in violent action when unable to articulate anger. These skills cannot necessarily be acquired from our parent’s ‘knees’, any more than other skills.

The better we are at reasoning, the better we are at interpreting the world around us, the better chance we have of determining the truth of a situation.

A comprehensive article concerning this thread is at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTSLR/2001/13.html

“...Companies are set up and evolve in a way that deliberately pushes at the boundaries of what is widely regarded as acceptable. This is endemic to the capitalist system. The spirit of capitalism stressed the importance, to the economy in general and social welfare in particular, of the duty of entrepreneurs to maximise their profit….

• to appreciate the breadth of the corporate role, i.e. that it extends well beyond profit maximisation;

• to engage in debate about values and application of judgment;

• to see business and management education as a moral endeavour rather than just the transfer of skills and knowledge;

• to deal satisfactorily with increasingly pressing global pressures without compromising local established cultural values;

• to develop the capacity to recognise and articulate the ethical dimension of managerial decisions and to develop an appreciation for the legitimate place ethical discourse has in business;

• to understand that the separation of commercial activities from community concerns is a divide that is not in the best long term interest of a business;

• to explore the systemic causes and consequences of unethical behaviour;

• to identify opportunities to contribute to the broader community;

• to identify the indicators of poor leadership;

• to understand how absence of vision, insufficiency or inconsistency of values, inability to distinguish between power and authority and a preoccupation with self interest lead to disabling outcomes such as workplace morale deficits, loss of organisational and individual purpose, decline in production and profits, diminished trust and erosion of legitimacy.”

Pericles

I think you are just playing the devil's advocate here. In which case I believe a read of the link above will answer many of your questions.

R0bert

Re: DV thread - I didn't comment on your stats simply because the rows of numbers didn't make much sense. I would've appreciated a verbal analysis along with the numbers.

Regards

Thanks to RObert, meredith, BOAZ and Scout for answers to my question and for advancing the debate.

Now, about Pericles...

I am reluctant to assume that he has no brains whatever, but perhaps they are fully engaged in remembering his userid and password.

He seems obsessed by my surprise about "the lack of importance that most posters seem to accord to ethics training."

It's time we looked at the evidence.

Claus's article: "University graduates need... an understanding of ethics".

Responses prior to my first post:

* lovely Eric, but it won't happen...
* don't start with the undergrads...
* This is a nonsense crap article.
* A great idea - not that I think anyone will implement it...
* the idea that we can educate people into becoming ethical sounds nice but bound to fail
* it's a little too late... to start teaching ethics when they are 18...
* do we want people who can think?
* Yep, we need thinkers, not more lefty stinkers... I am shaking with fear and suspect a total Antitheist clash of ideologies.
* Good luck teaching sociology to nurses...
* People without hope are people who... descend into hedonism...
* How are all our poor undergrad[s]... going to get jobs... if they get all 'ethical...
* Many deep thinkers have been horribly evil.

If even one Pericle can find enthusiasm for Eric Claus's suggestion in these responses, then he can probably find bankable amounts of Australia's gold deposits in Peter Costello's back teeth.

Pericles actually reinforces my view in his first post, immediately after mine, "To believe that we have to teach ethics... is an admission of failure".

Not just lack of importance? No, "admission of failure".

Game. Set. Match.

Mike,

what i dislike is ethics is so so often pushed into legislation, typically the PC...

This is so unwelcome and unjust, other idealisms are just that, idealisms, ethics legislated into my personal freedom of choice reminds me of a kind non secular facism.

This problem arises from it being "taught" rather than naturally chosen or instinctive. Or

Some one who may hold a beleif that beer is evil for themselves or the whole of Sydney or even the World, cannot not enforce it it on others. They just don't do it themselves. Thats enough.

If you can bebothered can i point you to a solution I as an animal righter offered another overly idealistic animal righter on PETA. My method is totally unethical in approch but I beleive had the most practical and humane solutions for the Animals and people involved.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4040#28438

Welcome to the Punch and Judy show :) hmmm you would have to be as old as me to 'get' that.... I'm not sure which of Mike or Pericles is Punch and which is Judy. I'm reluctant to allocate 'Judy' to Pericles, as she is female, but Punch did the whacking, Judy was the victim.

Mike, Pericles does have a point. Scout also has a point. But for me, same old same old.. 'Need more of a reason that 'dad/mum' taught me' or "Dey learned me good in da Uni". I still maintain we need a source of 'desire' to do good/behave ethically apart from the awareness of potential legal or social consequences.

I tend to think 'Mum and Dad' would have drilled us with 'Don't do that or such and such will happen or so and so will be mad at you or our family will be humiliated' or some permutation of them.

Uni is probably more about 'There will be more lawyers over this than ants to honey if we go down this path and are busted'.

God, and our relationship with Him through Christ is...

"I am crucified with Christ, It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me".

This is not to say those outside of Christ will be continually and culpably living debaucherous lives, but a little voice tells me that pretty much all of our law is in the same form as the 10 commandments, "Don't"...do such and such or x amount of penalty units will be cheerfully awarded by the Magistrate, for reasons of our predisposition to clash with them at some time or other. If not outwardly, at least inwardly.

I often wonder what goes on in the mind of a person with no Godly reference point, when they are confronted by a very attractive opportunity to 'make money' 'enjoy a hot but illicit sexual liason' 'get back at someone' etc.. do we ask ourselves "Is this right" ..or "can I get away with this"....?

I think I could be counted as someone who had some agreement with Klause’s argument – although my original couple of efforts to focus on the benefits of thinking deeply about complex matters didn’t seem to raise much interest.

I think that saying “teaching about ethics” rather than “teaching ethics” could clarify the argument. If we have the words and an understanding of the concepts, would not this further our thinking about our human condition - including ethics? Of course it won't necessarily make us any more ethical - but can you think of a better place to start?

Stan1 - Thanks, I think "teaching about ethics" is a helpful expression. The idea of thinking through issues to come up with the best way to live my life has been valuable to me, although perhaps not as valuable to others.

Pericles - Let me see if I can understand your arguments.
1. Many things can be learned after the age of 12, but ethics is not one of them.
2. Nothing about ethics can be learned that is superior to what was learned at "your Mother's knee"
3. Teaching "about ethics" at University is useless because:
a. It bores the fingernails off students
b. It wastes taxpayer dollars
c. It won't help anyone figure out "the right thing to do"
d. It allows useless philosopy professors to waste the time of students who could be learning more important things

Can I assume then, that you would prefer the assumed Business Council of Australia option of teaching more trade, business, accounting and finance courses at University instead of ethics, other philosophy subjects and other subjects that encourage the student to think for themselves about complex issues?

Boaz - For me I've found that I feel better doing what I consider to be "the right thing." Probably primarily with some utilitarian basis.

That may or may not indicate that I have some feelings regarding a divine being, but I am fairly certain it does not reflect anything about Christ rising from the dead.

Thanks for all your comments. This continues to be very good.

Proposition One: teaching university students about ethics will have a positive impact on the community.

Proposition Two: if parents brought their children up properly, they would have a firm grounding in ethics before attending university.

The evidence for Proposition One does not exist. It is purely theoretical.

The evidence for Proposition Two is that parents who bring their children up badly tend to disadvantage them ethically.

Dr. Fraser Mustard, President of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, asserts that "the evidence is overwhelming ... These problems are set before the kids hit the educational system. The wiring of the neurons of the cortex - that is, the cerebral cortex - occurs within the first three years. If you receive bad nurturing in that period you're not as well equipped".

Claus' article suggests that we embrace Proposition One, despite the fact that it is impossible to validate in any meaningful manner. Just believe, we are told, that lectures and workshops will make the world a better place.

The incorporation of ethical studies within - for example - Business Studies at UTS (thank you Scout for the reference)is summarised by its promoters as follows:

"Although it is too early at this point in time to demonstrate the benefits of taking an integrated approach to the teaching of business ethics with business law at UTS, the success of this enhanced subject cannot be doubted. Its success is evident in the high level of student engagement in discussion of the moral issues associated with commercial activity and the clear willingness of the students to probe into the more difficult dilemmas that arise for corporate leaders"

Doesn't this "evident success" seem a little, shall we be charitable, less than completely evident?

"Although it is too early to tell whether Cooma Under thirteen reserves will make an impact on the AFL, the success of their inclusion in the league cannot be doubted. Its success is evident in the high level of activity on the field, and the clear willingness of the students to ruck and rove with the champions"

Activity as evidence? Not a good look.

As MikeM has already taken pains to point out, I'm a little slow, so I only just worked out that "ericc" is in real life the author of this piece – hi Eric.

Let me see if I can summarise my position a little more coherently for you.

Ethics are essentially behavioural traits, not intellectual. And while I accept that most emotional/behavioural instincts are learned (and by definition can therefore be unlearned), I cannot see that tertiary education is the way to achieve this. This is akin to attempting group psychotherapy in a classroom environment.

Surely, by the time a student reaches university, unlearning these behaviours would require a process closer to cognitive-behavioural therapy than the lecture hall or the tutorial.

You ask whether I believe that it is possible to “learn” ethics after the age of twelve?

Of course it is, we never stop learning.

You ask whether I believe that it is possible to learn more about ethics than that learned at mother's knee?

Of course it is. But does "learning about" lead to doing, in a behavioural sense? Not necessarily.

You ask whether I believe that teaching “about ethics” at University is useless?

Not in the sense that any exercise that causes a student to use their brain is a good thing, no, it isn't useless. My contention is however that it will not make any one of those students “more ethical” than they were when they came into the class. More aware, more knowledgeable, perhaps. But not more ethical.

You ask whether I agree with the BCA on their approach, more trade/business/accounting/finance vs “thinking subjects” etc.?

No, I think uni students should be encouraged to use their brains at every opportunity. But I question the implication that because they can now “think for themselves about complex issues”, they will automatically become more ethical.

You can lead a horse to water....

I'm not sure that this helps, except to highlight that you believe that university can beneficially influence deeply ingrained psychological behaviours, and I don't.

My problem with ethics taught is that the ethicists become a slave to a mode of thinking, dependant on just another bunch of "fashionable rules of thought" rather than natural human choice.

What happens to people who are affected by ethical decisions which they find deeply offensive in reasoning?

Also its a waste of time money and uni time. What ever the ethical stance is on iran or usa and nukes for example, what will happen will happen regardless. If it does, one can only hope it is quick and efficient and that our preffered side wins.

Judy, er, Pericles (thanks, BOAZ) presents a proposition:

* teaching university students about ethics will have a positive impact on the community *

... then mistakenly debates with himself, thinking it the subject of the thread. Since it has nothing to do with the proposition that Eric Claus put in his original article ("If an ethics subject were rigorous, the BCA and Australia would be getting graduates who knew how to think deeply and critically about complex issues") we can only assume that Judy is not interested in debating issues other than those that he invents himself.

Judy, do us a favour.

Go to your room, dear boy. Shut the door. Turn out the light. Lie down. Now mis-debate with yourself.

That would be more polite than doing it in public. It would also save Forum bandwidth and allow the rest of us to get on with constructive discussion...

Meredith,

Your linked post on live sheep export vs possibility of achieving a less ambitious but more realistic goal is an excellent example of thinking deeply about critical issues.

There is no possibility of converting the whole Australian population into vegetarians. The live sheep trade is particularly cruel. By focusing on that, rather than meat-eating in general, can we achieve something? Could we, as an army general might say, successfully climb the foothills before attempting to conquer the mountain?

Your last post criticising 'just another bunch of "fashionable rules of thought" rather than natural human choice' is not criticising what was originally proposed. Claus's intent is to encourage critical thinking, not mindless application of rules of thumb.

To give a specific example: Muslim societies, like Jewish ones, have specific rules about ethical slaughter. There are Australian Halal slaughterhouses, so why can't sheep be slaughtered here?

Practical reason: Cool stores where meat can be safely stored are scarce in many Muslim countries. In Iraq, after the Coalition of the Willing has been so helpful, electricity supply is so dodgy that even those that exist are not much use.

Engineers introduced to the ethical complications might come up with neat technical solutions.

Mike,

Better yet, dump the Middle East all together for our sales of slaughtered carcass, Malaysia will buy them frozen. We never sold to Israel anyway, they are capable of growing grass and inventing fridges all for themselves.

Sorry if it bothers you im slightly off topic on what was originally proposed, but it is a free country and one can drift in conversation. (Pericles as well is free to)

Ethics at uni produces in general a bunch of bulling drones and time wasters… I’m sorry I just don’t agree it’s doing good over bad… there isn’t enough lack of left/pc self interest in the Uni’s these days for much free thinking at all.

Did you see the debate between Andrew Bolt and the RMIT?

It’s a big d/load if you are on dial up, if your interested I’ll go get it for you… the main point I took away from it, was RMIT claimed have both “left and right”(for want of a better word) “education” on offer and Bolt proved they didn’t

Good grief MikeM, you really do clutch at straws.

If the objective of teaching ethics is not to have a positive impact on the community, what is the point? That this particular piece addresses business training is merely one angle of many.

Still, I suppose it did enable you to get in a schoolboy pun on masturbation - my, how you must have laughed!

It is good to know that you play the same sneering games on other forums as well. I particularly liked the response from SmilingPolitely earlier today...

"MikeM: You know... I half-expected you to actually engage in a debate or address the points raised. Alas not. Please allow me to surreptitiously act superior [posts a lot of links, scratches chin and nods wisely in imitation of intellectuals, poses question to others instead of actually making or responding to a point or issue raised]"

Captures you perfectly.

It must take a lot of effort to be so sad.

BOAZ wrote, 'I often wonder what goes on in the mind of a person with no Godly reference point, when they are confronted by a very attractive opportunity to 'make money' 'enjoy a hot but illicit sexual liason' 'get back at someone' etc.. do we ask ourselves "Is this right" ..or "can I get away with this"....?'

This is a truly interesting question.

Equally interesting to me, what goes on in the mind of a person who DOES have a Godly reference point?

Not all Christians are ethical. Ray Williams, former head of HIH Insurance had a private chapel built at his home in Gwandalan. He is now serving three years in jail.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are very rich men and apparently do not believe in God, http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/meet_a_few_atheists.htm

While Gates has been criticised over some of Microsoft's business practices, he has not been criticised over his determination to donate the bulk of his wealth to making the world a better place, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

It simply isn't the case that believers are ethical and non-believers are not.

Many if not most contributors to this site deride any contribution of philosophical study (and specifically ethics) to society. (Why?)

Thomas Nagel, in his classic 1974 paper, "What is it like to be a bat?" explored the difficulty of getting "inside" a totally different mind from one's own, http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Is there a way that I could "get inside" BOAZ's head and he could "get inside" mine?

BOAZ and I are far less different from one another than bats from humans. Although my parents were atheists, they brought me up in the Anglican tradition. Whether one believes or not, religion has an important place in most societies and it is helpful to have an understanding of it. (I won first prize in my scripture class in year 4.) I think I have a limited sense of what BOAZ feels.

But how can I share with him what I feel?

"I often wonder what goes on in the mind of a person with no Godly reference point, when they are confronted by a very attractive opportunity to 'make money' 'enjoy a hot but illicit sexual liason' 'get back at someone' etc.. do we ask ourselves "Is this right" ..or "can I get away with this"....?

Weeell Boaz_David, I usually avoid discuusions with people who 'know' in favour of those who don't 'know'. But you have sucked me in with this one.

The impudent inference in this statement is that people who believe that a virgin who was fertilised by a god and gave birth to a god who was killed and after three days rose from the dead, are more moral than those that don't.

I don't know how ethical you are but your belief system is unlikely to have any influence on it.

I don't believe in this myth and that is more likely to have a positive influence on my ethics.

How arrogant of you to presume that you are more ethical than me.

Pericles - Going back to your Friday post in which you responded to my questions - I don't think we are very far from each other on this subject.

I agree that a university course will not quickly change the deeply ingrained psychological behaviours of university students. I took philosophy subjects with people who openly said "I know what the professor wants on the exam, but that is not the way it works in the real world. It's dog eat dog out there and you have to do, what you have to do." No amount of argument could change their minds. Other students, though, were profoundly influenced by the rational discussion of what was right and wrong.

The biggest impact for me, though, was that it made me think about things I had not thought about before. I was about 17 and a half when I first went to University. Not much in my personality was "deeply ingrained psychological behaviour." Most of my decisions about right and wrong were taken without a great deal of thought. When I did start to think in a different way about ethical issues, it changed the way I made some decisions.

I think there are probably many students who would benefit from just thinking about ethics and ethical behaviour, simply because they have not thought about it much before. I also think it would be useful for University students to spend their time thinking about those kinds of complex issues, as opposed to thinking about vocational subjects. My argument is not that it is a cure for all society's ills. It is that rigorously teaching "about ethics" is a slightly better way to run a University

EricC

Excellent point. The study of ethics does give us the opportunity to re-examine the way we think about the world and our place within it. It also provides us with the skills to express our thoughts and values.

I have noticed that people who lack the ability to articulate effectively often resort to violence or verbal abuse (case in point this forum) - reducing violence alone is a worthy goal.

The best time for teaching ethics is in our formative years (up to the age of seven), however that doesn't mean ethics should then be abandoned, like other life skills they need to be a basic part of our education. Clearly your studies at age 17 had great impact, but I suspect you were open to new ideas, not everyone is so flexible.

I am puzzled by Pericles' POV on this - on other topics he is very erudite, that is why I thought he was playing devil's advocate. Will cast a more sceptical eye over his posts in future.

Thank you Eric - please keep the articles coming, clearly greater awareness is required, given the generally negative response by posters to OLO.

Eric, I think you may have crystallized the problem I have with your article.

>>I took philosophy subjects with people who openly said "I know what the professor wants on the exam, but that is not the way it works in the real world. It's dog eat dog out there and you have to do, what you have to do." <<

These people would be very likely to “pass” an ethics examination, agreed? After all, they are smart enough to know "what the professor wants".

The thrust of your article is that potential employers will be reassured by this.

“Make the students who are taking an ethics subject read the works of the great thinkers in the field and then do exams, do assignments and write papers that require a lot of thought and effort to get a passing grade. Let all employers know, and all Australia know, that by getting a university degree the student has taken at least one tough course in ethics”

The caveat I have tried to put on this position is to point out that the owner of this particular elephant stamp cannot be considered by a future employer to be more ethical than an individual who doesn't. In that sense – and in that sense only – the BCA has a point that the time may be better spent on more practical topics.

None of this in any way suggests that learning about ethics is a “bad thing”. If it changes lives in the way you describe it changed yours, then of course it has benefits. Any discipline that helps one think more clearly is never wasted.

>>If an ethics subject were rigorous, the BCA and Australia would be getting graduates who knew how to think deeply and critically about complex issues<<

The missing element here is how much reliance a company could put on this 'deep and critical' thought producing a more ethical individual. And I think we are at least agreed on the position that it doesn't, and cannot.

Sorry Pericles. I guess I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I didn't mean to say that because some people were unchanged by their ethics course experience, that nobody got any value out of these subjects or that nobody became more ethical. I strongly believe that people did and will become more ethical by thinking deeply about ethics. Not everybody to be sure, but a significant enough majority to make the time and effort worthwhile.

I certainly don't think that everybody who takes a University course comes away with a full and complete understanding of the subject that they just passed. I taught post graduate students who passed High school algebra but were mystified by the most basic algebraic concepts. I taught students who passed University chemistry who were not quite sure what an element was. I doubt if any University subject (including the ones I assume the BCA prefers) perfectly educates every student and never misses one.

Secondly, being able to, and being encouraged to, think deeply about a range of topics has value in itself, regardless of whether it makes you more ethical. I'd rather employ a student who had sat down and thought hard about the pros and cons of stem cell research, euthanasia or genetically modified crops than a student who had memorised a little more of the Federal tax code.

BD, I might as well join those who have found your pondering of how those of us who don't live in fear of your punisher/loving god can have ethics.

This life and how I choose to live it is the only thing in the universe that is truly mine. If I want my life to be of value I will live it as well as I can. Quite simple really.

Now that is resolved you might move on to another question in a similar vein.

How do those who believe that no matter how well they live they falied failed to meet the standard and who believe that almost no matter what they do it will be forgiven have a basis for a consistant ethical standard?

I'll help out here and provide what I consider the answer. Those who do hold that belief and manage to live for the most part ethically do so for the same reason that those of us who don't hold the belief. It's the only way they know to live a life of meaning. They might dress it up in different words based around honoring Christ etc but essentially it's the same thing.

Some/many of those who hold that belief fail to see the value in living life that way just as some/many who don't hold to that belief also fail to see the value.

It's not so hard to understand really once you get put aside the propaganda you have been taught about the meaningless and hollow lives of those without Christ. That stuff is marketing not reality.

R0bert

Oddly, although in Pericles' first post in this thread he wrote, "To believe that we have to teach ethics - even that we have such a thing as a Code of Ethics - is an admission of failure", he joined the St James Ethics Centre's ethics discussion forum at http://www.ethics.org.au/ethics_forum/default.asp a fortnight ago and has been lurking there off and on since.

Perhaps he's hoping to learn how to admit failure.

There's simply no pleasing you is there MikeM?

I follow a link that you supplied so that I could find out a little more about the background to this obsession of yours. That's why you provided it, wasn't it?

When I got there I thought I could usefully take part in some discussions and deepen my understanding of ethics. Unfortunately every thread seems to be flooded with your own contributions, which of course makes them impossible to contribute to. I wonder how many others have simply given in to your arrogant hectoring and walked away? I would give some more examples here, except that they are terribly repetitive and universally boorish.

Eric, if you are recommending to employers that they push for mandatory ethics courses simply as evidence that the individual with a degree has been subjected to the disciplines of rigorous analysis and reasoning, that's fine and reasonable. I remain unconvinced however that on its own it can make "a significant enough majority" (as you claim) more ethical, and in any event I'm certain that it could not be measured in any realistic way.

My concerns are that the promoters of this course will inevitably make a connection between the content and the outcome, forgetting that - as you point out - at the end of the day, it's all about passing exams and nothing about individual behaviours.

Just a quick question, though. Is capitalism an ethical concept in itself?

Ethics is a biased opinion that actully has no place in any attempt at fair play...

In truth it's just another tainted (as all are) agenda pushing its way.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of fair play, but when one learns at the Aussie Uni's in the current left wing faddish state they are, it is dishonist to present ethics as anything but another bunch of leftist robots stamped and passed pushing their own agenda.

ethics learned via the hands of life from street living to the biggest capo board room must surely be more realistic. One cannot learn life and its game from a book, let alone when (as Perc says vying to pass exams) or in a slanted lefty enviroment such as a uni.

Pericles wrote, "Unfortunately every thread seems to be flooded with your own contributions, which of course makes them impossible to contribute to."

That is not what other contributors find. Besides a number in Australia we have active contributors from Canada, the US, Qatar and New Zealand.

"Is capitalism an ethical concept in itself?"

No.

Ethical, compared with what? Today's regulated capitalism embraces a range of economic frameworks within which some players are ethical and some are not.

What are the alternatives? Anarchy; feudalism; socialism; communism; libertarian "capitalism" in which the government capitulates and lets businesses do what they like (as in Russia since the fall of the USSR)?

Modern capitalism is often justified by its unique ability to generate prosperity. How prosperous do we need to be to enjoy quality of life and achieve Maslow's final stage of self-actualisation?

Do chief executives need to be paid 7 or 8 figure salaries to perform their jobs?

There is an ethical issue in terms of our using up and exhausting the planet's resources. There is another in terms of, if prosperity is generated, how should it be shared amongst stakeholders: shareholders, executives, employees, customers, and those affected by externalities of the resources that it consumes and the waste that it creates? There is another again in how to discourage greedy executives from lying, and cheating everyone else.

Mike M

Acts chapter 2, start to finish :)

specially v 42 to end...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=31

cheers

The more I look at this, the more I am starting to agree with meredith.

C'mon MikeM, is capitalism ethical or not? What's with the "compared to what" malarkey? If the only reinforcement you can provide for the ethics of the system that underpins our economy and government is a series of guessing games, your 2,200+ contributions to ethics.org.au have been pretty much a waste of effort, have they not?

Admit it, your perception of ethics is of a perpetual debating society, with a do-gooder hat on. Or as meredith puts it, just another agenda.

A starving African villager will have a significantly different view of the ethics of GM food than a latte-sipping first-world townie. A peasant in the rainforests of South America will have a significantly different view of the ethics of the deforestation of the Amazon basin than a professor at ANU - subsistence agriculture is the second largest cause, by the way, after cattle-farming.

If I am religious, I will have the ethical agenda propounded by the leaders of my faith. And so on.

Thanks meredith.

no worries Pericles,

and may the best (not most social fad like) mans agenda win.