If the negotiator
expects a bribe then we have to offer one or we lose the business to someone
with fewer scruples.
If their lot tell lies
then we have to be a little economical with the truth too. Otherwise we lose
the election to someone with fewer scruples.
If I don’t report this
story as received then my source may go to someone with fewer scruples.
If I don’t follow the
narrative then my superiors will sideline me in favour of someone with fewer
scruples.
If I don’t present the
data in this way then my superiors will sideline me in favour of someone with fewer
scruples.
If I am not more
enthusiastic about this absurd idea then my superior will promote someone with
fewer scruples.
If I don’t spread my share of the gossip
then my friends will stop listening and move on to people with fewer scruples.
Too often the good guys get nowhere, never did, never could.
When it comes to climbing greasy poles, the logic of corruption and moral
ambivalence are compelling. Environments select – it’s what they do. So an
environment where corruption and moral ambivalence are condoned will select
those who adapt to it. Rotten apples - it's a good metaphor.
We only seem to have two ways round this problem – legal and
moral. We sidled around Christian moral imperatives some time ago so that
leaves laws and regulations.
But without the invisible hand of moral imperatives, however
imperfect it may have been, laws and regulations have to be extremely detailed,
rigorously enforced and constantly revised as new evasive strategies emerge.
Not only that, but human behaviour has to be managed in minute detail. Good guys, bad guys, there is no distinction when it comes to the mass management of behaviour. How could there be?
What could possibly go wrong?
3 comments:
I've said this before: if the Creator and the Lawgiver are one, then there can be objective morality and the is/ought question is resolved; otherwise there are no moral imperatives.
This does not mean that because we wish there to be moral laws, we must believe in a deity; but it does suggest the depth of the dark pit towards (as you indicate) which we could be racing if we follow the logic of the alternative.
The Chief Rabbi made the same point last year in The Spectator (15 June):
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8932301/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/
Perhaps only irrationality, or lack of thinking, can save us.
Sackers - yes, we atheists don't seem to have any usefully simple answers to this problem.
Post a Comment