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
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.