Further conversation on morality, from a fellow atheist
Link
Morality, Manners And The Law
Kim du Toit
July 26, 2004
Albert Jay Nock, as always, defined the situation nicely in one of his essays.
Human behavior is governed best by observing the three behavioral codes in the hierarchy -- religion, manners, and the law -- in that specific order.
But Kim, you ask, you're a devout atheist. How can you preach religion as a code of behavior? And doesn't observance of religious behavior lead to a theocracy?
The answers to both are quite simple, and I'll address them as part of a larger explanation.
1. Religion. I don't care whether you are a Catholic or a Buddhist, most religions have at their core a set of behavioral restrictions that are remarkably similar to the Jewish Ten Commandments (which were themselves predated by Hammurabi's Code, incidentally). These restrictions make good sense: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't be envious of others, respect your elders, don't fuck someone else's wife or husband. If you think about it, these are the lubricants of a well-ordered society. It is impossible for society to exist without trust and respect for others' persons or property. Suspicion, theft and envy are the hallmarks of a society which will ultimately fail. Obedience to these restrictions is paramount, and the definitions are broad, by design. "Don't lie" means just that-- there's no wiggle room for definitions of "is" and other such weasel tactics.
2. Manners. This is yet another layer of lubricant on societal interaction, and provides a little more definition, a larger penumbra if you will, on the basic principles. It's rude not to treat someone else with courtesy (an extension of not stealing their property or their wife). It's bad manners to offend people with selfish behavior, such as playing loud music at 3am "just because I want to". Manners imply respect for other people, for their opinions and for their lives.
3. The law. The law is the final resort-- what you employ when religion and manners have failed, and only then. This is why law is so precise-- it covers very specific transgressions, and lays out very specific procedures and penalties to deal with them. The law assumes that religion and manners have taken care of most of the problems, and what's left is very specific.
When religious adherence is taken too far, to its extreme if you will, is what causes a theocracy. The Muslim Sha'ria is a prime example of this. But the basic tenets of religious precept are critical to the proper functioning of society-- it's why I as an atheist send my son to a parochial private school, and why the two homeschooled kids are held to rigorous standards of behavior. Children have to be drilled in the basic concepts of behavioral restriction-- theft is wrong, killing is wrong, etc.-- and the instruction is easier to do with religion, but not impossible without it.
Ditto manners. Our kids are all constantly drilled on manners and need for such. Rudeness and other such manifestations of poor behavior are punished on the spot. This doesn't mean that our kids are shrinking violets [pause for derisive laughter], but it does mean that they get on extremely well with almost everybody, and are popular both with other kids and with their parents.
Where we have screwed up as a society, is in the lapse of both religious precept and manners -- which results in ever-expanding laws to deal with all the exigencies which were once covered by religious and mannered proscription -- and which is also why more lawyers graduate from college each year than the year before.
My own consultant's contract, for instance, is one of the shortest in the industry, and I prefer to work on the basis of a handshake -- and when I'm asked why, my reply is simple: "There's no small print in a handshake."
Of course I won't divulge a client's secrets; you don't need to threaten me with legal injunctions. Of course I won't bill for time not spent working on their project; of course I won't break the law when I work on their behalf; and of course the work I do on their behalf belongs to them. To do otherwise in all the above would be a profound breach of trust. Yes, it's true that my business would be impossible to conduct if I were to breach the trust, but that's not why I won't do it.
Which brings me, finally, to Enron (and to all the others who have been caught playing accounting reindeer games).
The whole problem with the senior executives of these companies is that they used the letter of the law in their business and accounting practices instead of using fundamental concepts of right and wrong, not to say manners.
It might be legal to book an entire contract's worth of revenue in the quarter in which the sales contract was signed, but it's wrong in principle and basically dishonest to do so. Book the revenue when it's billed or when it's paid, not when it's committed. Companies seldom book projected expenses that way (unless to incur a loss for tax purposes-- another morally-questionable act), so why do it for revenue?
It might be legal to book certain expenses as capital expenditure, but it's inherently dishonest to do so when you know that they aren't really that.
And so on. The penalty for all these shenanigans is going to be evermore-burdensome and restrictive laws, which will try to micro-manage behavior in a way which was hitherto managed quite adequately by manners. This means that everyone in business is going to suffer. But there is a better way.
I might just be a voice crying out in the wilderness, but I have this piece of advice for all senior executives: the next time your accountants or lawyers tell you something is technically legal, but you feel it's wrong, go with your feeling. (And if you don't have any uncomfortable feelings about it, you should go to jail when you're discovered, you amoral bastard.) GWB had it right, and nailed it perfectly. It's about trust; and trust is not something found in legal definitions or accounting rules, it's to be found in behavior which resonates with common decency and manners.
And if you're a shareholder in a company, demand that the company start acting with common decency. Demand that it do what's right, even at the occasional loss of dividends. And if you don't do that, you deserve to lose all your money when the stock eventually plummets, you greedy toads.
Don't hide behind the law: that's Clintonian, and it's so 1999. Let's try to bring back some religious social precepts and common decency into both our commerce and our daily social interactions -- it's been absent for too long, and it's time we changed all that.
Religion and manners, properly observed, have served our society well over the centuries, and it's wrong to toss out everything on the basis that when employed to their extreme, they cause harm.
And yes, I know that it's going to be difficult to change the way business is currently conducted. That's no excuse for not doing the right thing.