Hello

Well, unless you have been deep sea diving in the ocean on one of Saturn’s moons, you have probably heard the B word mentioned. That blend of Britain and exit. Brexit. I’m really sorry to have mentioned it. I’m sorry in so many ways!

Whether your perspective is that of a Remainer, or a Brexiteer, or even if you don’t give a Frexit. I suspect that most people would be able to agree that the ability of politicians to totally disagree, and to spectacularly fail to work together to produce a solution to which the epithet Le petit dejeuner du chien, would be far too much of a compliment. 

So many individuals have demonstrated a startling lack of leadership. Of course, who knows what forces are at play behind the scenes. The vast majority of the population have not been privy to the convoluted Machiavellian machinations of parliament, or indeed the EU.

However, what appears to have been demonstrated spectacularly well by many (but not all) is a distinct talent for self-aggrandising, and the ability to provide textbook examples of classic narcissism. Where has the ethical compass been pointing amidst all the posturing? 

The theory which gives rise to Deontological ethics suggests that as long as the action taken has followed a predefined set of rules, then all is well, all is ethical, irrespective of the consequences of the action taken. 

And I think that many politicians have been following a deontological approach to doing the right thing, deliberately hiding in the matrix of their own party’s or clique’s ideology. Some of the behaviours witnessed do leave the bitter taste of, ‘I was only following orders’. Under present circumstances, that is about as useful as practicing the yoga pose where one’s head is stuffed forcefully into a bucket of sand. It doesn’t look good, and it’s ultimately self-destructive.

Unlike the theory of Deontological ethics, Consequentialism, is a suggested ethical approach which holds that it is the potential consequences of our actions against which me must consider their rightness or wrongness. 

Jonathan Haidt, amongst others, posits that ethics are shaped by culture. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to suggest that a rigid ideology creates a rigid culture. Adopting a deontological approach to an action or ‘stance’, rather than consequential one, can allow certain individuals to claim that they are being ethical, working within expected parameters, when in fact they may actually be behaving in a self-serving way. 

Any structure which is too rigid will be destroyed in a storm. We are in the centre of a major storm right now. Instead of witnessing intelligent movement and flex, we are observing a clash of cultures, ideologies, and egos, with certain individuals demonstrating short term, self-centred, point scoring behaviours. 

Hello! Consequences?!

If all these disparate forces and opinions are to in any way tessellate in a consequentially ethical way, the real leaders need to step up to the plate. We need need those decent and often self-effacing individuals to be bold and courageous and to do the right thing. 

The solution could be found by those leaders (irrespective of party) working together openly, honestly and transparently. However, the rather depressing question is, are there enough of those types of individuals around within the crucible of high political intrigue with its two way mirrors, revolving doors, and escape slides? 

On the other hand, as an incentive we could perhaps offer everyone in parliament a one thousand percent pay rise and a guaranteed peerage, if they work together to intelligently solve this national puzzle. That way we’d probably have everything sorted out the day after tomorrow. However, that’s probably an exceptionally cynical thought. I do hope so.

Best wishes 

Mike