When Ramiz Allawala, as management consultant,
talks about ethics being essential to our survival he supports this
by pointing out that the very scale of our systems, the scale of
our technology itself, is multiplying the importance of ethics in
brand-new ways. Whether the people making decisions are the decision-makers
at the top or the people who work for them, our increasing reliance
on technology almost guarantees that every worker will face many
more difficult challenges today than were faced in the past. And
what is going on in the consciences of those individuals directly
determines the use of that system.
Something significant has to change and while we know we need
to make some changes in our ethical behavior, Ramiz fears we are
not in good shape to make those changes.
Why? The definition of ethics he uses is "Ethics is enforcing
that which is unenforceable". What is enforceable by external
means becomes law. So by extension, if a law cannot be enforced
for any reason, then any illegal activity falling under that law
also becomes unethical. For example it is illegal to go through
a red light at a traffic intersection in any part of the world.
But in Pakistan, since traffic laws are not implemented this becomes
an ethical issue as well. So when ethics is enforced by external
means it become law. It is enforced from outside. Our responsibility
as citizens is then reduced simply to avoiding punishment. The
inherent message is its OK to do what you want just don't get
caught. A heavy reliance on law enforcement and punishment replaces
the concept of the individual enforcing what's unenforceable.
So what happens when we don't enforce our own ethics and we
don't self regulate? Simple, we get regulated by others. Ramiz
asserts that as our reliance on external regulation grows, our
primary habit becomes avoidance of punishment and our ability
to self-regulate, because of compassion or some other higher moral
reason, diminishes.
He believes that whereas our natural instincts are to serve
others, too many laws and their implementation move us away from
caring and alienate us from others.
So are we naturally caring and able to exercise ethical behavior
or are we lacking self-control and are inherently evil?
Ramiz believes that moral virtues are more important than following
laws and rules. He says that obeying rules may lead to virtuous
ends but a person's moral worth is derived from fulfillment of
moral and not legal requirements. For example a person performs
his obligations because it is an obligation but regrets and dislikes
the action. Such a person may not feel any love, or cherish others
and respects others only because obligation requires it. Is he
a virtuous person? It's like two people donating a kidney to their
brothers. One does it out of love and compassion and the other
because he has a contract to do so. In both cases the end is virtuous
but in the case of only one brother is the act itself virtuous.
The other brother's act is merely a legal obligation devoid of
virtue.
Ramiz argues that rather than using rules and government regulations
to protect people a more reliable protection is the presence of
a conscious, compassionate, responsible character. Character development
is more important than conformity to rules. A person who simply
follows rules and exhibits no moral character may not be trust
worthy.
So ultimately we find our selves in a circular trap. If we don't
regulate ourselves we get regulated by outside forces and if outside
forces regulate us we lose our willingness and ability for self-regulation.
In other words the less ethical we become, the more laws we will
face and the more laws we face makes us less ethical. And we unwittingly
become partners with forces that want to dominate and control
us. So if we want independence and freedom, we have to first become
free from our reliance on external controls, punishments and rewards.
