Ethics Committees

With abuse of language and the refusal to define key terms close to universal, it should not surprise that would-be “ethics” committees have morphed into much their opposite. This is an embarrassment not least for a key plank of my proposals at “Responsibility with Class.” There I argue that ethics must be an ongoing endeavour, in need of dialogue especially with people from other walks of life. My key riposte to the hegemony of rules is “Comply or Explain,” with good character & judgement taking the upper hand over Compliance.

Structures are needed to encourage the cream rather than the scum to rise to the top. What we have witnessed in recent decades is the replacement in key positions of close-to-the-best by the worst.

I proposed different classes of professionals, each a check and balance on the others. For this there would need to be committees or their like to question the discretionary decisions of people with power and to determine if their character & judgement merited continued power.

To avoid misunderstanding and abstraction, let me give a concrete example that all can understand. We are well aware of manipulation (= misdirection) when we shop for everyday goods. There are “buy one, get a second half-price” offers. There are price reductions which arbitrarily only last until the end of the week. There are prices which end with “.99” instead of being round, easy-to-note figures and therefore suggesting that anything is one principal unit less than reality. These are “nudges.”

There are professionally-paid employees who implement this obfuscation and prevent the transparency which should govern a market economy.

Some critics propose laws, or codes of conduct, to prevent these manipulations. I reject this kind of solution, which quickly runs into a host of complications. Instead, I want those taking these decisions to face questioning about their reasoning. This applies to the many technical spheres which most of us are unfamiliar with. Sometimes there will be good reasons, enabling those doing the questioning themselves to learn the intricacies of management and professionalism. But there will also be occasions when the corporate appointee betrays a disregard for the consumers which borders on contempt; where the appointee has an eye only to their own corporate advancement or monetary rewards. Such individuals need to be removed from the corporate position, maybe only temporarily and therefore given a chance to learn. The removal or suspension has to be enacted by an authority quite separate to the corporation. It is here that I see a need for professional societies able to discipline their members. Such societies will therefore need to institute ethics committees —— by all means under a different title. I have added, importantly, the proviso that such committees must include experienced people drawn from outside professions. This is to avoid group-think and indeed the bullying which sometimes emerges among members of the same profession.

The context envisaged here is that the classification as a professional, with the benefits of a good salary, has to be dependent on membership of an appropriate professional society. There may several appropriate professional societies, and they should not require formal qualifications for membership. It is enough for take-up that a corporation has appointed someone to the kind of responsible position concerned.

The ethics committee would then be able to suspend or end membership of a disappointing appointee and thus their employment, independent of the wishes of the corporation. The ethics committee is hence a check on corporate power and the dominance of the profit motive.

To clarify: “Professional” means here working primarily with abstract knowledge and with administrative decision-making rather than being skilled at (and knowledgeable in) largely manual (= practical) tasks in the manner of a mechanic, fitter, plumber, electrician, et cetera.

It is the administrating professionals who have power: not least the power to usurp the checks & balances which were the hallmark of Enlightenment thinking. Some people in more humble lines of work, too, can be dishonest, manipulative, even evil, but the scope of the harm they can inflict is limited. Not so, among the upper echelons.

_____

Here I have not touched on the question of what ethics is, but elsewhere at length. I distinguish common morality from ethics, much as there is a difference between being able to play music with virtuosity and being able to compose original music. Morality is exhausted by obedience to the Common Law and the customs prevalent in the society one lives in. Ethics is more about finding one’s best place in society, given that perfection is out of reach and that we are necessarily different. No-one is responsible for everything, but everyone is responsible for something. Ethics involves discretionary judgements, i.e. discernment, and some higher Good on the horizon. It involves making mistakes and invoking regret.

Anyone in an ethics committee must affirm these guidelines and principles. Otherwise it is to be feared that they are “woke”: i.e. unquestioning conformists, puritans, or even devoted to evil itself.

____________

Having spelt this out, it is all the more distressing to ascertain wholesale corruption among those self-appointed to guard our morals and ethics. The most prominent among these traitors are to be found among the various conclaves overseeing the right to practise medicine. Honest and upright medical doctors have been de-barred and persecuted.