*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Unfair dodging is dragging us down

17 October 2014

Paul Vallely participates in a debate on ethics in public life

THE alphabet did us a favour. It meant that the order in which we addressed the seminar was: Paul Bew, me, and then Rowan Williams. It also gave, fortuitously, a logic to the argument.

A year-long series of seminars on ethical standards in public life was launched at the Von Hügel Institute in Cambridge last week. They set out to address the question: "Is there a collapse of ethical standards in so many public institutions, or have we suffered from just a few bad apples?"

Lord Bew, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life, set out its lofty brief to defend the seven Nolan Principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. In practical terms, his latest initiative is to try to persuade the Prime Minister to set up an ethical induction course for MPs.

But there is a paradox here. In practice, the ethical standards now set for our parliamentarians are among the highest in the world. And yet, Professor Bew said, members of the British public are 20 per cent more likely than the Dutch to say that our political system is corrupt - even though, empirically, corruption in both places is very similar - and very low.

How can that be? My contribution offered two suggestions. First, that the declining ethical standards of our public institutions merely reflects a decline in behaviour throughout society. We live in a more dishonest country than we did a decade ago. A survey in 2010 by the Centre for the Study of Integrity at the University of Essex showed that British people are more likely now than they were in 2000 to lie on an application form, buy something that they know is stolen, or drive under the influence of alcohol.

Expense-fiddling MPs, greedy bankers, paedophile priests, backhander-accepting policemen, and dodgy journalists are just the public equivalents of the rest of us dodging fares, keeping money we find in the street, or failing to leave a note after damaging a parked car.

The second factor is that, when society responds to this by tightening rules and regulations, it merely increases levels of suspicion and mistrust. What is needed is a return to trust built on the assumption of good character. But how, when society increasingly rejects the perspectives of religion?

Lord Williams offered some ideas: by abandoning the toxic assumption that other people are out to defraud us most of the time; by dropping society's cynical reluctance ever to acknowledge and praise what is positively good; by asking ourselves what is the sort of person we want to become; and by remembering that we have responsibilities that we have not chosen or invented but in which we have been immersed from the word go.

So, we might conclude, society needs both virtue ethics and a consequentialist calculus. The army needs rules but also honour. The judiciary needs case law but also a sense of natural justice. And the Church needs precise and aspirational theology but also a sense of mercy and compassion.

The seminars, run in conjunction with St Mary's University, Twickenham, continue through the academic year.

Paul Vallely is Visiting Professor in Public Ethics at the University of Chester.

Letters to the editor

Letters for publication should be sent to letters@churchtimes.co.uk.

Letters should be exclusive to the Church Times, and include a full postal address. Your name and address will appear alongside your letter.

The Church Times Podcast

Interviews and news analysis from the Church Times team. Listen to this week’s episode online

Welcome to the Church Times

​To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)