Skip to main content

Maria Miller's lack of ethical compass

The Culture Secretary Maria Miller has resigned. She is yet another self inflicted wound. But how does it happen? Is there something wrong with the way of thinking that gets politicians trapped in this way?  I think the answer is yes. It is an inability to distinguish between what might be 'legal' and what might be ethical.

I didn't do anything wrong is the line taken by the former Culture Secretary. It was also the line taken by Mr Cameron. She didn't do anything 'wrong'. What he meant of course was that she 'followed the rules', and where she may have made a 'mistake' she has apologised. It is all a misunderstanding, and everything really is rosy in the garden, except for the lingering smell of rotting vegetation.

Sadly it indicates that they have no ethical compass. There is nothing in their thinking that asks whether something is ethical rather than simply 'following the rules'. There it is - the problem.

And what are these 'rules'. Essentially without an ethical compass, it is whatever they can get away with that doesn't constitute a breach of the law. As long as they feel that they can say 'I did nothing wrong' then they also conclude that what they do is right. Ethics isn't following rules - it is making some kind of judgement about the right course of action.

One golden rule on this is that you should be able to taste whether something isn't right. You wouldn't eat a stale banana. It would make you sick. And so it should be with expenses claims. If it doesn't taste good then it probably isn't. But in this case it won't just make Maria Miller sick, it will make the public sick - sick of the endless feeding from the trough without regard to ethics.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …