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 ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,