A Ship at Sea

I heard two reports on the radio on my way into work today that caught my ear.  I read a bit more on one of those reports in the local newspaper.  Both deal primarily with the issue of ethical behavior, and both are concerned with members of the United States government.  Links to both reports are found below:

Charles Rangel Ethics Probe

Sexual Harassment Allegations

My intent here is not to speak specifically to the details of either of these pending issues and investigations, but rather to express some more general concern about ethics and ethical behavior.  By way of completeness, links are below to both the House and Senate committees on ethics:

House Ethics Committee

Senate Ethics Committee

Before lighting into a discussion, it is usually helpful to define the terms.
ethic - the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.
ethics - a system of moral principles.
ethical - pertaining to or dealing with or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

So, when we hear radio reports, or read news articles on ethical behavior or possible ethical violations or incidents being turned over for review to members of an ethics committee; what we need to ask ourselves is what set of moral principles are assumed to govern the particular group.  The importance here is absolutely critical.  How the deciding body, committee, group, or individual determines ethical behavior is based on the ethic that is espoused by the body, committee, group or individual.  Put another way, what moral principles are assumed as the basis upon which to confer a decision of ethical behavior.  We can further parse the question down to the most basic and fundamental question: What is the standard of morality assumed by the body, committee, group or individual?  One could also get at the same foundational assumptions by asking what worldview is adopted by the body, committee, group or individual.

This is the focus of my concern.  If an ethic is a body of moral principles or values, then what is the underlying concept of morality?  In this case, we are concerned with the United States government and what the underlying system of morality is used to make decisions regarding right and wrong conduct.  A detailed view of the current ethical system, and the moral basis for that system, begins with a look at the Ethics Manual for the Senate Special Committee (accessible by the Senate link above).  

Decisions are made not solely dependent on laws currently on the books.  The committe recognized that there could not be a law or provision included to stave off any and every conceivable breach of conduct.  It is worded thusly on page 12 in the Preface: "...the Federal statutes and Senate Rules to which most of this manual's discussion is devoted, are but a part of a wider body of ethical standards related to service in the Senate."  And is further described in Appendix E on page 433: "The phrase 'improper conduct' as used by S. Res. 338 can be given meaning by reference by generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules, and by reference to past cases where the Senate has disciplined its Members for conduct that was deemed improper, regardless of whether it violated any law or Senate rule or regulation." 

The following link gives a detailed development of the history and enforcement of ethical standards in congress:
Enforcement of Ethical Standards in Congress
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton are cited as forerunning founders speaking to the issue of Congress self-governing and internally policing its behavior and conduct.  Specifically, Federalist Paper No. 57 is referenced.  Let's look at Federalist Paper No. 57 in more detail.  James Madison (the so-called 'Father of the Constitution') authored this paper as one in a succession of 22 consecutive publications on the topic of how to combine "stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form."  Particularly he speaks in the essay at hand to the proposition that representatives will accurately reflect the will of the people.  Madison says, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?  I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit that actuates the people of America - a spirit that nourishes freedom, and in turn is nourished by it.  If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be able to tolerate anything but liberty."  What a telling statement.  Without a law that every person in the entire nation recognizes and is obliged to live by, then liberty is lost.  What is this law that is applicable to every citizen in America to which everyone is obliged to adhere?  What is this spirit that is vigilant and that nourishes freedom?  Let's look at what Madison believed and based these statements.

In his 'Memorial and Remonstrance', Madison says, "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governer of the Universe:  And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign."  In other words, before any man or woman can be bound by right conduct there must be allegiance pledged to a morality, a moral system, a moral law that is transcendent over himself/herself, the society and the government.  A moral system outside himself/herself but to which he/she is obliged to adhere.  A brief study of the life and history of James Madison makes clear he saw this Universal Sovereign as the God of the Bible, as revealed in the Old and New Testament.  In other words, God established an absolute moral order to which all are bound, and on which ethical decisions must be based that is transcendent over man.  That is the basis on which decisions on ethical behavior are to be based, and that is how this country was founded.

The fact that this nation was based on an understanding of a natural law that was established by God that every human being was obliged to follow is indisputable.  This does not mean that every citizen of America has to be Christian.  The founders were clear in their upholding the position of liberty and that each man must act in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.  However, the nation was founded and the government based on the understanding of a natural law established by God to which every person was obliged to adhere.  That is the moral system by which ethical standards in this nation are to be based.

Now, one might argue that those ideas are antiquated, out of date, and due to the advances in science and technology the United States has moved away from those principles, "evolved" if you will to a new understanding.  I might be inclined to agree that due to a secularization of American thought, a privatization of moral values and the onslought of the belief in the relativism of truth that seems to have pervaded our entire culture that a growing number of people, and perhaps even the majority of the leaders of this nation might not hold to the original concept of what binds ethical decisions.  If this is the case, however, our situation is dire.  If the non-theist, the naturalist, the materialist view of ethics is adopted then tyranny, not liberty is the inevitable result.  If we are all here by some cosmic accident, if there is no good reason why we are here as opposed to not being here, if there is no ultimate purpose or meaning in life, if there is nothing that transcends natural processes, if our thoughts, feelings, reasoning, and moral positions are nothing more than the product of DNA then all decisionsa are arbitrary and capricious and we are reduced to a system of might makes right.  If there is no absolute moral law to which all are obliged to adhere, then what is unethical consists entirely on what is currently socially acceptible or more broadly whatever anyone can get away with without being caught.  A Represenative or Senator, or citizen in this nation for that matter, would not be acting unethically to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, backstab, or use whatever means inside or outside any law to do whatever they wanted, their problem would be simply that they got caught doing something that those in charge had arbitrarily decided might harm someone else (using only their definition of harm, as others may not think that same action harmful).

C.S. Lewis wrote an illustration once of a ship at sea.  He said that there are three things the ship had to be concerned with: how to keep the ship from sinking, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and why it was out there in the first place.  Our country was founded by understanding why we are out here in the first place, then determining how to keep from sinking and finally moved on to how to keep from bumping into other ships.  They were right.  We are moving dangerously close to the untenable position of declaring there is no reason for us to out here, that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we sink or sail, and then attempt to come up with some legimate reasons and procedures for avoiding other ships.