Ethics in Today’s World
Two traditional forms of discourse are the parable, as told by Jesus and the dialogue, used by Socrates as recorded by Plato. In this litigious world the parable remains a useful means of raising current issues without exposing oneself to the risk of libel, or being arraigned for discussing matters sub judice.

It is through parable and the probing nature of dialogue that I wish to stir public awareness and provoke debate on a range of every day matters.

More importantly, I want to recall that the parable was an ‘every day story for every day folk’ and that the Socratic dialogues were not for scholars but for the average citizen, as were the matters debated. Somehow, in enfranchising all over 18, our educational system has failed to provide the sense of personal accountability that makes such enfranchisement meaningful, in the practical realities of government which should be the instinctive concern of the collective electorate: not just some members, some of the time, on some things.

We have not maintained the expectation that the average citizen should debate ‘matters of state’, ethical conduct, or appropriate social behaviour as a matter of course. I exclude the mere exchange of personal opinions behind glasses of beer provoked by that day’s opinionated newspapers.

Hence my page 'Simply Ethics', raising ‘Matters of Moment’ from the everyday world. I hope you will debate with me. My e-mail address is: petersuch@hazeltree.screaming.net. Or petersuch@classicfm.net, since screaming net's server seems increasingly unreliable.

The conduct of the legal profession
The solicitor who:
declares 'contempt of court is merely another means of levering in a dispute'! Are not solicitors, technically speaking, 'officers of the court'? Wherein, then, lies any authority in law?

The solicitor who:
sustains his client's contempt and refusal to carry through agreements entered into in court, thereby challenging the plaintiff to go back to court at their expense to re-agree what has already been agreed! Would not ethical conduct demand that the solicitor refuse to accept the client as a client until their contempt has been purged? Presumably receipt of the fee is more economically and professionally important than the ethical consideration of personal accountability?

As at 10/10/99 it would appear, through latest developments brought to my knowledge, that by implication the Law Society is supportive of the two attitudes exemplified above!

The solicitor who:
protests no knowledge of a conspiracy to defame, bear false witness, or bear false witness with malice of forethought because he 'hadn't been told it was so, and chose not to ask if it was so'. Is this unethical conduct, or merely a professional 'technicality'?

The solicitor who:
proclaims 'the civil rights of the convicted felon' might well be compromised by naming and shaming policies. Does the solicitor not understand that civil rights only exist in a civilised society and that the civil rights of the law-abiding come before those of the felon who has over-ridden them?

Divorce
How wise it is, and so sensible, that when two people are in contention, the law considers that the best way to help them resolve their conflict is to place them in an adversarial cockpit to score points off each other, as they tear each other's eyes out. Wholly logical, of course! Would not a tribunal approach be more appropriate, perhaps aided by a 'licensed counsellor' approach, similar to the United States, so that people can deal at a lower level of litigation and expense and simply seek court approval for the pre-agreement arrived at?

According to press reports at 10/10/99 David Lock (parliamentary secretary for family policy and law reform) is to launch a new scheme at Westminster introduced by the Solicitors Family Law Association to 'take confrontation' out of family court proceedings. No mention of a tribunal approach though. My experience of taking 'confrontation' out of the proceedings is 'to agree with the opposing side's view'. When the other side is an intransigent drunk manipulated by self-interested 'business' pals, forget it!

Alcoholism
The best of friends is he who denies his friend is an alcoholic. No?
The best of friends is he who encourages his friend to recognise his alcoholism and offers him a helping hand, despite his friend's abuse. Yes?
But at what stage should Jo Public, as a concerned individual, over-ride the self-interest of an alcoholic to destroy himself and his relationships, so deliberately condemn the innocent child to continued mental suffering through his drinking; his ruination of the mother's health, sanity, quiet of home and peace of mind, and economic livelihood? In that, are we not all accountable? Is not our first responsibility to the child's needs and the mother's sanctity?

Parental Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities
How do we get across to would-be parents that the moment they decide they wish to have children, the next twenty years of their lives are immediately altered to meet the needs of that child?

Is not the desire for the 'ideal' family the cause of unwanted children, because the pressures of society force relationships to be productive, and conventional, encouraging the child to be regarded as 'necessary baggage' to the marriage, rather than as a wholesome joy in themselves alone, despite the responsibilities they bring?

Whether Creationist or Evolutionist, exactly whose world is this? And whose life?

Do we own our bodies? Do we own anything? Are we not privileged guardians? Is it not amazing how all business contracts absolutely disown consequential liability?

Yet we are the creators by our very being. We interact with our fellow man and woman in the home, in leisure and the work environment. We produce or provide a service. That product or service is bought and is used. Are we not individually accountable at every turn to the final wearing out and disposal of the worn out item?

Are we not, in principle, in the same mould as the generous supporter of animal rights, who earns his handsome salary that enables such generosity from a firm that must experiment on animals, because international law requires such tests before the product is released for use, perhaps even for the benefit of animals as well as humans?

We need to live and have aspirations way beyond our basic need to subsist. Yet we 'flog ourselves to death', literally some of us, for that is the actuarial basis of our pensions, for coinage to convert to something to enjoy when we have 'retired'. We rush through life, preoccupied with the goal of those 'few years' which are solely noted for the rapid onset of ever-waning abilities with which to enjoy our accumulated resource.

Time for John Donne: 'Meditation XVII'
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main. . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Space for developing matters relating to: local government and national government. Green Belt policies and housing need. Economics of housing need and 'good' design. Does 'good' design really cost more? Social engineering. The rush to the south. Why not economic encouragement to move north instead of encroaching on Green Belt? Integration and further distancing of government from the people, or devolution/subsidiarity, bringing effective power back to the local people, the towns!

Berkhamsted School, Graham Greene Birthplace Trust, Great Berkhamsted Town, Local Government, The Rex Arts Centre, Pendley Open-Air Shakespeare Festival.