THERE are two terms that have been bandied about in this society for quite some time now without sufficient attempts at careful definition of either, and seemingly without realisation of certain implications arising from these terms.

The terms are ethics and integrity. And whether we are dealing with the old Parliamentary Integrity Commission or the later proposed Ethics Commission, or the very recent call for ethics in business, I maintain that more careful thought

is needed.

The rough reality that we do not often face is that ethics is basically a neutral term connoting the principles (wholesome or otherwise) underlying the conduct or operations of a life or an organisational entity

Integrity, as a term, is not as neutral as ethics and connotes the reality that exists when wholesome ethical principles inform the conduct or operations of a life or an organisational entity.

What we seem to be calling for in society when we clamour for ethics or for integrity is behaviour that always conforms to wholesome abiding principles.

I emphasise the notion of always and abiding, because they are critical to the kind of behaviour and principles that our society needs.

A person or an entity that evinces behaviour that conforms to wholesome principles only sometimes or occasionally, not always, would be a problem.

That is the awful reality in the business and personal world right now. Imagine (or come to grips with the reality) that your lover is faithful to you only sometimes, or your employees behave honestly with your company funds only occasionally. Mind-boggling and heart attack inducing-right?

So in our society and elsewhere people lie and cheat, businesses rip off clients, employees rob their bosses, and whole governments double-deal not because they are devoid of ethical principles or integrity, but because their ethical principles are situational, not abiding. Consequently their behaviour will rise no higher than occasional conformity to wholesome principles.

There are three ethical principles that have been informing behaviour generally in our society which years ago I summed up with the acronym RIP — pun intended.

The ethical principles are Relativism, Individualism and Pragmatism. Relativism rejects enduring wholesome principles and so anything goes in principle and practice. Individualism rejects concerns for neighbour and does anything that benefits the self, while Pragmatism will try anything that one can get away with; good or bad.

The RIP phenomenon has done grave damage to the moral fabric of our beloved nation and we now desperately need persons and organisational entities that reject these damaging principles and show commitment in principle and practice to behaviour that always conforms to wholesome abiding principles.

Otherwise, the ethical furore about the so-called ‘ills of our society’ would be indefensible chatter. University lecturers who ‘diss’ the notion of wholesome abiding principles in the lecture theatre must have the intellectual courage to defend their preferred ethical world view in the wider public, so we know who is really who.

We all had better choose our ethical principles wisely and very soon, lest ‘dawg nyam wi an wi suppa’.

clintchis@yahoo.com