I welcome your comments and any questions about my article in the latest issue (84) of Living Ethics.

I haven't been here for a long time, about a year I think and have no idea where Living Ethics is.

Can you point me in the right direction?

It's the quarterly newsletter attached to the St James Ethics Centre and can be requested.

http://www.ethics.org.au/content/living ... newsletter

I'm not prepared to subscribe. Is the article posted anywhere that I can just read it?

You can read John Bevins' article - Hackings, sackings and so on - in full right here:
http://www.ethics.org.au/living-ethics/hackings-sackings-and-so

To answer your question, both the "evil" doers and the encouraging organisation all hold a significant amount of responsibility. The amount depends upon a whole range of factors and can never be agreed to by multiple people. Governments also have some responsibility for this due to inadequate business regulations; the shareholders of the companies share some culpability too. The media also for sensationalising the whole issue and attempting to profit by gaining increased market share by appearing holier than thou. The list can go on. We all have some responsibility.

But I am intrigued with and must ask you to explain how you reached the conclusion that "It’s this essential goodness that is our greatest resource, humankind’s salvation in the long run." "Essential?", essential to what? "Greatest?" by what measure?

The normal response to "evil" is sacrificing assorted lambs or even full grown sheep to make some people feel good, but that is not goodness, it is convenience and holier than thou smugness. (Is a penalty punishment or a deterrent or both and which is generally most effective in what kind of situation? That is another topic I guess.)

Faith? Sorry, I haven't seen much evidence that faith achieves much today in terms of goodness either. Faith does provide an ability to put up with less than desirable conditions but so do many drugs. Faith and goodness are not necessarily related in my book.

I see precious little evidence that humankind acts with goodness. I only see greed and selfishness whether it be a thinly disguised gimmicky fund raising activity which appears to do more for self promotion than goodness, or companies fighting tooth and nail over resources, profit or increasing the "worth" of a company. I have not seen "goodness" on any balance sheets.

I agree generally people avoid responsibility where ever possible.

This is not a good look, or ethical in my book.

People see what they expect to see and frequently they see a projection of themselves. Honest people are easily defrauded because they expect others to be honest. Crooks expect others to also be crooks. That's why crooks, pedophiles, Bernie Madoffs and whomever all say, "Everybody does it."

I'm still not clear on what, exactly hacking, sacking, and so on constitutes. If "hacking" refers to entering someone's computer surreptitiously and without legal authority, then no, it's wrong. If "hacking" refers to listening in to someone's cell phone without permission or legal authority, that's wrong, too.

I have idea what sacking is unless it's looting a small village you've conquered. I'd say that's wrong, too.

As for "son on"? Beats me.

Patrick,

'Sacking' in this case refers to having one's job terminated.
The worker (whatever) is 'given the sack' which refers to a custom, in days of yore, when a dismissed person was told to get his sack, or was given one, in which to put his possessions and told to go.

One would think that authors writing for a, presumeably, wide readership would avoid the local vernacular.

Thank you Christine O

I feel that on the whole the majority of people all over the world are decent and want the same things in life regardless of race or religion. Perhaps even in spite of race or religion.

It could come down to a simple, if it feels bad or I have to ask myself should I be doing this the answer is probably no.

"I see precious little evidence that humankind acts with goodness."
So said Airzone.
Years after world war two I heard from a Canadian man who had been in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. Here's an extract from his letter.
"We were on a starvation diet, most of the time and I became very sick. Ian saved my life, through his encouragement and positive outlook. I caught him several times taking food from his own bowl and putting it in mine, despite his own hunger. Ian has been an inspiration through my whole life, I only wish that I was half the man."
Well I'm proud to say Ian was my father and of course this was not an isolated incident, many human beings act with incredible goodness every day. If you expect people to be good you'll feel happier too. I guess that's "faith in goodness". It's contagious, like pessimism, the choice is ours, we can suck on a lemon or a lollipop.

Thanks for your questions, Airzone – How did I reach my conclusion that it's the essential goodness of people that is our greatest resource, humankind's salvation in the long run? What is "essential" essential to? And by what measure is it our "greatest" resource?

Perhaps it's more a hunch than a conclusion: That what will save future generations are social and organisational structures, better still social and organisational cultures, that tease out the good in people instead of (if we believe Milgram's findings) the bad.

You remind me of the ambiguity of "essential". If my hunch is valid both meanings apply – the essential/intrinsic good nature of humankind, and the essential/crucial nature of that goodness to humankind's survival. (That's one of the reasons St James Ethics Centre is so important – forgive the plug, I'm an ex adman.)

These essential things will lead to "salvation" on this planet – maybe salvation of it.

That's what makes essential goodness (let's call it essgoo) our greatest resource, although I should have said "there's no greater resource". Water, for one, is no less great than essgoo.

Essgoo saving mankind is a faith-based conclusion/hunch, but that's a lowercase "f" on "faith". And yep, it's continuously tested. This morning's story from Damascus in the Sydney Morning Herald, headlined "Militiamen break cartoonist's hands in violent attack", is the latest test. But I go on believing however that people are essentially good. Call me an optimist.

The faith comes from observation, but not I hope through rose-coloured glasses. Also, from my own experience in commerce where I saw how cultures of advertising agencies can bring out the best or the worst in people. I tell students that I got into advertising in 1963 BC, and that the BC stands for Bryce Courtenay. Words of his from decades ago still ring in my ear. I'd told him of an new start-up agency I'd joined and how different it was to the one I'd left. "John, Bryce said forcefully, "there are good agencies and there are bad agencies. Ogilvy & Mather is a good agency, (name withheld) is a bad agency!". Ogilvy & Mather went on to be much more successful than (name withheld).

It also comes from stories like Christine O's above.

Maybe we need an advertising campaign to sell essgoo?

If humankind were not essentially 'good' then the cartoonist's neck and not his hands would have been broken; it's all a matter of degree.

I believe people are basically good and organizations are basically evil. In thirty years as a police officer I met perhaps a dozen evil people. Some were crooks, some were politicians. Most of the people I dealt with were honestly dumb as a turnip. A disturbing number had drug or alcohol problems significant in their lives. Many were perpetual adolescents who thought they really were the center of the universe. But, they weren't evil and could do better.

People have the ability to have a sense of decency, honestly, fairness, and a willingness to do things for others that don't directly benefit themselves.

Organizations don't. Organizations exist to grow in power and in wealth and nothing else matters to them. Anytime anyone says, "It's the for good of the organization," run like hell. Your being asked to do something bad. Something evil. Something obviously unethical.

That's why the U.S. Constitution was written specifically to empower the people and restrict the organization and that's why so many, such as our President, hate it.

Patrick,

The sackings referred to all those at News of the World who had lost their jobs in the phone hacking affair. I'm new to this, and had not realised the forum had such a wide readership! The "so on" is just a reference, albeit oblique, to the ongoing issues raised by the phone hacking scandal and the parliamentary enquiry into it. Thanks for your contributions.

Cheers,
John

Thank you, John, for your considerate response.

I think electronic eavesdropping is usually illegal and if it's business related it warrants firing. I'm retired but when I worked, for a municipal government, bugging rooms and meetings was, from time to time, common. In our case it was always from the top down.

I consider phone hacking as unethical as listening devices.

If the authorities have suspicions about a person's criminal plans and they get a court order to listen in that's Ok.

General spying because one person dislikes another, a business spying on competitors or a journalist just looking for dirt is not OK.

Hi MyView (and anyone else)

What do you think about a journalist hacking voicemail, illegally, to expose corruption or criminal activities?

John

Always unethical but probably justifiable if successful.
What is unethical is not necessarily immoral and the converse.

So, your question is, is it ethical to violate the law or do something unethical to catch people violating the law? The answer is, no. One could scarcely say that hacking Rupert Murdoch's phone to catch Rupert Murdock hacking other people's phones is ethical because Rupert Murdoch's hacking was illegal and unethical and he needs to be caught.

Not even if they're journalists who I have never noticed were a particularly ethical group of people. I have an unnamed but highly placed and irrefutable source that says 99% of the journalists are corrupt. That's called "sourcing".

Now, as to the sacking. The critical test for sacking journalists seems to be did they embarrass the news outlet or the profession in general. Lying, plagarizing, fabricating sources, and other ethical violations are not a problem unless they become public. Then there's sacking. Jason Blair, New York Times, was caught more than once by co-workers and kept moving up in the organization until his unethical behavior was made public. Then he got fired.

So, would a newspaper fire an employee who hacked cell phones, hacked computers, and so forth if it did not become a public relations issue? My guess is, most often, no.

It has never been the job of the journalists to expose crime and corruption in my view. If they run across it they are supposed to do what we should all do, report it to the proper authorities then report the facts of the case to the public.
They should not become prosecutor and judge.

For the past thirty years or so the journalists have only presented innuendo, supposition, exaggeration, rumours and plain lies. And repeat the same done by other journalists. In other words, gossip. Certainly not facts and often without even the slightest bit of truth anywhere.

It is the job of the journalist to compile information and present it as the news, not make it up.
Also not their job to present advertorials or personal opinions and pretend that opinion is truth.

I think the days of presenting facts and both sides of a story so people can make up their own minds has gone forever.