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.