It has been going on for too long that those who sit in judgement and authority consider themselves above the reaches of ethical codes of what is right and what is wrong. What is normatively acceptable for persons who occupy certain positions of judgement and government, should be accepted without personal dissent from these established codes of ethics.

We have had too many cases now both in the judiciary and in members of government, who have subjectively taken it upon themselves to openly dissent from these objective codes in a singularly subjective way. This is very unhealthy and dangerous not to say arrogant. One is not to say that ethical codes of conduct should not be discussed with an aim to change where necessary, but until they are changed one should abide by such codes if one wishes to enjoy the respect of the public. Events often show that in many cases of unethical behaviour, the ethical code in the end proves itself right. We have seen this take place several times in our country, but still personal pride is often shown to rule the roost and not give a damn about the norms of codes of ethics or rather the rest of us! This often complicates things and starts to erode public perceptions of justice and fairness as some are seen to be rather more equal than others.

Irrespective of intent, the recent judgement by the Speaker of the House on the cessation of a motion of impeachment against a sitting judge because Parliament had been dissolved and the member who moved the motion had since resigned, does not help to clear the air on these issues.

Does it not rather start to give the impression of a legalistic club of persons in high positions who seek to defend themselves by not so transparent alliances of a political nature or otherwise? Does it not convey the idea that something may be amiss even if complex political references are included as justification for judgement? Does not this issue in dealing with ethics in political circles in our country need to be tackled with urgency? Although rather complex codes of ethics may be promulgated, the effects of actions that are unethical and which are a travesty of basic human goods are generally evident even to the most unlearned persons and John Finnis points out that this is a general capacity available to all.

Justice is obviously one of the first casualties of unethical behaviour. However, it is the deficiency of Recta Ratio which manifests itself in a most singular fashion when ethics fail. Without a right reason, one of the most important basic goods, also termed by Kant as pure practical reason, and by Aristotle as practical reason, none of the other virtues such as temperance and fortitude, including justice itself, can ever be applied in their proper measure. Aristotle refers to this specifically as the doctrine of the mean. Meaning that lack of practical reason is complicit in lack of virtue and character! However, practical reason is more important than just a search engine for all the other virtues. In itself, being a paramount basic good, it forms the basis of natural law and of deontological ethics and without it, our objective ability to discern right from wrong, is a dead letter. It is Recta Ratio which corresponds exclusively to what is objectively right in a very particular situation, in the here-and-now constituted by the totality of circumstances.

What is becoming more clear as time passes in our dear country, is that this deficiency of Recta Ratio is becoming more repetitively manifest in activities in the higher circles of government including the judiciary. We ordinary folk do not like this and do not want to see any more of this. It is a manifest travesty of virtue, equality and justice. It robs us of the dignity of being seen to be all equal before the law and it mocks our perceptions of a practical reason which is accessible to all, even the uninitiated.

Whether what is happening is occurring by design or by chance, I will not be the judge, but the very fact that it is happening and frequently at that, is not sending the right tingle to all those of us with practical reason to spare and who believe we are not children of a lesser god. We all expect basic and equal fairness for all citizens from those in authority and those who sit in judgement. Is this expecting too much?

[email protected]