Morality and Ethics in a Secular Setting.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

For anyone just back from a trip to Antarctica, a tremendous row has erupted in the UK which has forced Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul, to shut down one of his newspapers, the News of the World.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14081705
Some of the links on the links are also very informative - but hey, this is the BBC, not Fox News.

The basis of the story is that journalists working on Murdoch's paper have been arrested and charged with phone hacking. One Paper today ran with the banner headline - "Is this Britain's Watergate?"

Yesterday's edition of the London Evening Standard had a quote from David Cameron admitting that "everyone, including myself" shared some blame for what had happened. So how did the British Prime Minister get involved, some may ask.

David Cameron explained that successive Governments, both Labour and Tory, had built up a warm relationship with Mr. Murdoch, and were equally complicit in allowing the press in general, and him especially to operate in a very cavalier fashion, bending the rules and even breaking the law in pursuit of a story.

Not only had celebrities phones been hacked, but journalists had even hacked into the mobile phone account of a murdered teenager, as well as serving soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan - all in pursuit of an press exclusive or a new angle to follow.

Public reaction was outrage of course, but more tellingly, several large commercial interests have withdrawn advertisements from Murdoch's News of the Word, not wishing to be seen as being close to such a hated and odious figure in British public life.

The Newspaper itself had a colossal circulation well above that of it's nearest Rivals in the Sunday paper market. In circulation for well over 100 years, it was famous in the 1960s for well crafted and award winning Investigative Journalism. It also uncovered many scandals in recent times, including errant MPs and the case where the Duchess of York offered 'access' to her husband and the use of his influence in high places in return for cash payments. It must also be added that a lot of the papers appeal was that it went after people who generated a certain amount of resentment in the country, as well as the sex and sleaze often associated with divorce courts and the gossip columns.

Yet, the paper's reputation is now in ruins and the editor and his team face a police investigation on criminal charges. Murdoch's decision to close the paper down and print the last Edition tomorrow is widely seen as a cynical ploy to dump the toxic title and do some damage limitation . However, it may be too late - BSkyB has seen its shares tumble as confidence in Murdoch's takeover bid collapsed in the financial markets.

And yet this story raises another question in public life - what has happened to the ideas involving professional ethics and public morality in Britain today ?

Church going has declined over several decades, and Sunday is no longer a day when shops are closed and people stay home. Secular spokespeople like Richard Dawkins insists that 'you don't need to be religious to be moral'. I would agree, having met some very moral atheists in my time.

ButI have to admit that, generally speaking, corruption has crept into public life in Britain on a scale that seems unbelievable to the post war generation. Perhaps it was previously covered up and our leaders were more hypocritical once, but now standards have openly been dropped for the sake of expediency.

I don't know about Americans or anyone else- but it seems to me that we in Britain are not doing so well in our public affairs of late. it's as though no one knows what decency is any more.

Regulation of the Press will likely follow - but more regulation is surely needed on every side - from Government spending to MPs expanses. Private enterprise should not be allowed to put up the money for public officials, or be allowed to bankroll any political party over another - for once an election is over, the people who bankroll politicians are going to want to see some sort of legislation - a return on their investment. Nor should anyone who has taken public office be allowed to sit on board of directors for a certain period after leaving politics, in order to further reduce the incentives to vote for a corporation against the public interest.

Rupert Murdoch will doubtless launch a new paper with a new name and be up to his old tricks as soon as he can - but we need to be aware of the dangers of giving too much power into one person's hands. For power does tend to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

If you acknowledge that religion has little to do with morality, why bring up the decline in churchgoing?

I was raised in the American Bible Belt. Lots of religion there. Also a lot of racial violence, and if you were openly gay, you took your life in your hands. I knew more than one gay man who got put in the hospital by bashers -- who, of course, invoked a religious rationale for what they were doing. Sorry, but as an unbeliever, I've come to the conclusion that religion, when it does affect behavior, is all too often a detriment to morality.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Especially since a lot of the folks who are engaging in such immoral acts of corruption are among the most vocally religious of those in politics or the punditry. For all its supposed "liberal bias," you'll note that PBS has never been guilty of such corruption, whereas conservative media outlets seem to routinely run afoul of legal and ethical rules, including their own.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

If you acknowledge that religion has little to do with morality, why bring up the decline in churchgoing?

Because I am ambivalent about it, to be honest.
I went to school with rich kids who went to church on a Sunday morning , yet had little interest in religion other than as a means of getting a new camera or a swanky watch off their parents. I also saw a lot of hypocrisy among the general public back in the day - but then , I also recall that it was the Church that led the fight against slavery, that were behind CND, Greenpeace, MPH, War on Want, and is currently a prime mover with the Fair Trade Movement.

Just as Socialists can be proud of their history, the Free churches also have been a force for good in this land. I don't kno about anywhere else, but in Britain, certainly - although , as I am a member of the URC na d have been so for many years, you can certainly call me biased if you wish .

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

But then there are churches who are anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-condoms-in-AIDS-areas, pro-death penalty, anti-immigrant. There were churches that were pro-slavery back in the day, too. At least in the US, citing to the Bible was one of the more powerful arguments for slavery. And then there's the hierarchy of many religions protecting child abusers (the non-Catholic cases just get less press).

I'd argue that church-going does not make one moral. One is moral, or one is not. Generally you find a religion that agrees with you.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

One is moral, or one is not. Generally you find a religion that agrees with you.
I can go a long way toward agreeing on this.

Even so, the fact is that I belong to AI, Traidcraft, WDM, and several other initiatives - in fact I'm a leading figure in my local Green party, even . But where do I get most of my leads, who promoted most of the organisations I mentioed already?

My Trade Union, my political party, another secular group I belong to?
No - the answer is 'My Church'.

Ok, it is not anti gay, anti immigrant and pro death penalty-but, as you sid, people join churches they agree with. My churches role in bringing people in broad agreement on the issues together and spreading the word among people already aligned should not be downplayed.

The Church of England...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... has had the advantage of being severed from Rome for a while now. However, they still have difficulty dealing with their own schism over ordaining openly gay bishops.

Yes, when it is at its best, religion can promote good. However, like patriotism, it is more often the foil of scoundrels.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It was also the Southern Baptist Convention and Southern Episcopals who were more or less the state churches of the Confederacy, while the Papacy negotiated Concordats with Nappy, Benny the Mouse and the Illegal Immigrant Corporal. The Church since the Theodosians has been a source of good and bad. Any time it's not declawed it's a positive evil.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Any time it's not declawed it's a positive evil

I think that any time it takes up powers vested in it by the State to persecute and harass people, it has gone badly.

Any time it has taken on the role of speaking up for the persecuted, it has not only done the right thing , but done well out of it for itself. I think there is a lesson here.

It needs to be more focussed on speaking out for the poor and the cause of social justice, less focussed on acquiring political power and influence.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Religion can be a good or bad thing as far as morality goes. It might depend on what one means by "religion" and what role it plays in one's life.

It's hard for me to imagine where exactly morality comes from if not from God. But I disagree of many of the actions various churches have taken in the name of God, and I think they run afoul of His doctrine of love.

[paft.livejournal.com]

r: It's hard for me to imagine where exactly morality comes from if not from God.

You don't think morality has anything to do with human consequences?

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"You don't think morality has anything to do with human consequences?"

I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean tbh.

"It's hard for me to imagine where exactly morality comes from if not from God"

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

It comes from aeons of human trial and error.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How about the ability to live in peace without death squads shooting anyone they don't like? Presto morality.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

And as an aside, as horrible as the acts of Murdoch's gang have been, what I love about those otherwise detestable acts is that they were stupid enough to fuck with the families of soldiers in the process, which makes it damned near impossible for their own conservative support base to defend them in Britain, unless they want to engage in the same naked hypocrisy as any number of American conservative politicians and pundits see no problem with engaging in (during the first Gulf War, several of my fellow liberals used the phrase "against the war, but for the troops" to describe their position, whereas now, any number of elected officials and talking heads in America are FOR the war, but AGAINST the troops).

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

How is this different from what Julian Assange does?

[404.livejournal.com]

It's the evil mastermind Rupert Murdoch being a part of it.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Well, he does twirl his mustache and cackle maniacally while biting babies on the face and stealing orphan's inheritances, so I can see the point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Assange is a lightning rod for an organization without corporate backing. Murdoch oozes money. This would be akin to George Soros manipulating media coverage in trials and in favor of Obama. But hey, it's only dictatorial when GovernmentTM is the one using propaganda and tapping into things it shouldn't, right?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

This would be akin to George Soros manipulating media coverage in trials and in favor of Obama.

That was spit-take worthy.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The difference is Wikileaks publishs material GIVEN to them. Wikileaks may even be in reciept of stolen property, but they never stole materials themselves, or otherwise commited illegal acts to obtain.

But Murdoch pays, bribes, and commits illegal acts and publishes the results. It's illegal start to finish.

But results may be comparable. Publishing ill-gotten goods are the domain of a free society.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Oh, well that makes it OK. Next time I receive stolen goods, I'll be sure to let the police know I never committed an illegal act to obtain them.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

You don't see a difference in revealing the secrets of governments, versus those of private individuals?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Is this the same newspaper that in 1993 bugged Prince Charles phoneline and revealed that famous line... "I want to be reincarnated as your tampon"?

It is fact that wiretapping by media in UK has been an issue before. I'm wondering why it's suddenly THE ISSUE. What is British Parliament distracting you from? What secret do they not want Murdoch's minions to reveal?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-522508/Charles-Camillas-lovenest-bugged-Diana-inquest-told.html

It was not the paper that bugged the royal mobile phone - but ran the story along with every other tabloid. Who planted the bug ? we may never know . Murdoch's name is not out of the frame , as far as I know ...

It has become The Issue , because a it is not just a Royal or a film star who got bugged. Ok, such people are fair game in the eyes of the public, nobody leapt to Charles or Cammilla#s defence.

but when a murdered teen gets her phone hacked and some calls deleted to make way for more in case of an new incoming - well, we are tampering with a piece of evidence here. Milly Dowler's phone log could have been presented in court, or comprised as evidence.

Also, her parents were given false hope that because her phone log was changing , that Milly herself was still alive somewhere.

The fact that they hacked into the phones of serving soldiers who were killed in action, doing it not for investigation of corruption or any higher aim than just getting a good story, was also a factor in making this totally unacceptable in the public's eyes.

I would also not put it past the government to turn a blind eye in return for some hacking done against an anti govt target...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The morality of societies has fuck-all to do with the religious or irreligious basis of such societies. To claim it does falls flat on the face of what too often occurs in reality. I might note that Murdoch's actions in this regard are quite typical of a man who's best buds with the Saudi Dynasty, who would be the picture in the dictionary by "nasty sonsobitches."