Ethics Explainer: Authenticity
Is the universe friendly? Is it fundamentally good? Peaceful? Created with a purpose in mind?
Or is it distant and impersonal? Indifferent to what you want? A never ending meaningless space? We all have ideas of how the world truly is. Maybe that’s been influenced by your religion, your school, your government, or even the video games you played as a kid.
Whatever the case is, how we think about ourselves and what we consider a life well spent, has a lot to do with the relationship we have with the world. And that brings us to this month’s Ethics Explainer.
Authenticity
To behave authentically means to behave in a way that responds to the world as it truly is, and not how we’d like it to be. What does this mean?
Well, this question takes us to two different schools of thought in philosophy, with two very different ideas of the nature of the world we live in. The first one is essentialism. Now, essentialism is a belief that find its roots in Ancient Greece, and in the writings of Socrates and Plato.
They took it as a given that everything that exists has its own essence. That is, a certain set of core properties that are necessary, or essential, for it to be what it is. Take a knife. It doesn’t matter if it has a wooden handle or a metal one. But once you take the blade away, it becomes not-a-knife. The blade is its essential property because it gives the knife its defining function.
Plato and Aristotle believed that people had essences as well, and that these existed before they did. This essence, or telos, was only acquired and expressed properly through virtuous action, a process that formed the ideal human. According to the Greeks, to be authentic was to live according to your essence. And you did that by living ethically in the choices you make and the character you express.
By developing intellectual virtues like curiosity or critical thinking, and character virtues like courage, wisdom, and patience, it’d get easier to tell what you should or shouldn’t do. This was the standard view of the world until the early 19th century, and is still the case for many people today.
The rise of existentialism
But some thinkers began to wonder, what if that wasn’t true? What if the universe has no inherent purpose? What if we don’t have one either? What if we exist first, then create our own purpose?
This belief was called existentialism. Existentialists believe that neither us nor the universe has an actual, predetermined purpose. We need to create it for ourselves. Because of this, nothing we do or are is actually inherently meaningful. We were free to do whatever we wanted – a fate Jean Paul-Sartre, French existential philosopher, found quite awful.
Being authentic meant facing the full weight of this shocking freedom, and staying strong. To simply follow what your religious leader, parent, school, or boss told you to do would be to act in “bad faith”. It’s like burying your head in the sand and pretending that something out there has meaning. Meaning that doesn’t exist.
By accepting that any meaning in life has to be given by you, and that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are just a matter of perspective, your choices become all you have. And ensuring that they are chosen by the values you accept to live by, instead of any predetermined ones etched in stone, makes them authentic.
This extends beyond the individual. If the world is going to have any of the things most of us value, like justice and order, we’re going to have to put it there ourselves.
Otherwise, they won’t exist.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
How to break up with a friend
If your friendship is a battlefield, you’ve got to know when to wave the white flag. How do you break up with a friend – ethically?
It might’ve been a slow fade after leaving high school. A messy split over unpaid bills. Maybe it was an awkward part at the airport, or a text silence that lasted a few months longer than usual.
Though not as lamented as ending a romance, ending a friendship can be just as painful. Maybe even more. While some of that is because of the hurt and disappointment of any unfulfilling relationship, another part can be attributed to its ambiguity.
The due process owed to an ex (counselling, teary conversations, logical explanations to well-meaning buddies and family) doesn’t exist for the friendships in our lives. If we want to break up with a friend, how do we do it ethically?
If you’re keen to rip off the friendship band-aid, keep reading. Here are some questions our Ethi-call counsellors would ask to help you act in line with your morals and values.
1. What is the purpose of friendship?
Let’s get back to basics. Asking yourself what a good friendship looks like can help you see if there’s a disconnect between what you’d like it to be and what it really is.
A good friendship could be one where you:
- Love and accept each other
- Are role models for each other’s children
- Feel safe expressing your honest thoughts
- Feel grateful that you share each other’s lives
If any of these questions cause discomfort, maybe your friendship has crossed a line it shouldn’t have. What is your duty to yourself? Is it fair to expect these things?
2. How could you create the least harm and most benefit?
Owning that your needs aren’t being met is important. But equally as important are the needs your friend is owed in a reciprocal relationship.
- What are your obligations to your friend?
- Have you any part to play in this?
- What would a wise person suggest?
Every relationship takes effort. Part of loving someone, warts and all, is acknowledging the effort is worth it. But when that isn’t true, a breakup may not be the only way to deal with it. Consider if your actions are going to cause more benefit than harm – to all the people involved.
- What are the consequences (of a friendship breakup)?
- Is doing nothing an option? If so, what would be your tipping point?
- What will the lasting impact be?
A breakup isn’t the end of anyone’s story. People carry these formative experiences with them and may do so for the rest of their lives.
3. How can you preserve and prioritise dignity?
If you’ve considered all this and still think you need to end the friendship, remember to be kind. Considering why you were friends in the first place means this transition isn’t about kicking anyone when they’re down.
How will you break up? Does your friendship lend itself to a face-to-face conversation or is it better through email? Is one session or message enough or are more required?
Your friend might not agree with what you consider to be good and right, but handling such a delicate situation in a way that is in line with your moral character might be one of your greatest accomplishments.
Some positive outcomes might even eventuate, such as:
- Renewal of your friendship and commitment to each other
- Knowing that you both did your best
- Revelation in self-knowledge and commitment to personal growth
- Speaking well of each other to mutual friends (and meaning it)
- Shared sense of closure and grief
Friendships and relationships don’t exist in vacuums. Whether good or bad, a history of contact with each other comes with its own particular language, traditions and memories. None of us are the centre of the universe, and believing so runs counter to the reality of multiple subjective experiences. Continuing on that path can not only make it harder for you to be a friend, but for you to be fully human.
Even if it wasn’t love, you shared each other’s lives. And that’s always worth respecting.
If you or someone you know is at risk of harm or feeling suicidal, get help immediately. Call Lifeline 13 11 14 or 000 if life is in danger.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Aisyah Shah Idil
Aisyah Shah Idil is a writer with a background in experimental poetry. After completing an undergraduate degree in cultural studies, she travelled overseas to study human rights and theology. A former producer at The Ethics Centre, Aisyah is currently a digital content producer with the LMA.
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
Why your new year's resolution needs military ethics
Weight loss goals and the laws of armed conflict seem pretty far removed. But stick with us! Military ethics provide useful principles to test the worth of our new year’s resolutions.
The ethics of war are based on making sure the inevitable harm, pain and suffering caused by violence is minimised as much as possible. Most resolutions also involve some pain and suffering. After all, we don’t need resolve to do what’s easy! So let’s apply these principles of warfare to the hardships of our resolutions and check if they’re are morally justified.
Just war theory, the most common approach to the ethics of war, says war is justified only if it satisfies a set of conditions. These include:
Just cause
War is only just when it is fought in response to a serious violation of state or human rights (basically, because war causes death and destruction it has to be responding to a grievous offence).
Right intention
The declaration of war is not motivated by private, self-interested or vicious intentions but out of a desire to bring about a just outcome.
Legitimate authority
Only the leader or leaders of a political community have the right to declare war.
(Macro) proportionality
The peace the war aims to create has to be preferable to the way the world would be if no war was fought (a nuclear war will almost always be disproportionate).
Last resort
Are there less harmful measures than war which might bring about peace?
Probability of success
Do not undertake the pain and suffering of war if there is no chance of winning, otherwise lives are wasted in vain.
(Micro) proportionality
The benefits gained from a military operation must outweigh the harms it inflicts.
Discrimination
Only combatants may be targeted by military attacks. Civilians are off limits.
Good goal
An ethical resolution will aim to achieve something good (health, travel, education). Don’t aim to do something you know to be bad (“This year I resolve to make profits at any cost”).
Right intention
Is your resolution motivated by a genuine desire for self-improvement? Or is it motivated by shame, peer pressure, greed, vanity or fear? If the latter is true, it might be worth considering whether it’s really a resolution worth making.
Is your resolution motivated by a genuine desire for self-improvement? Or is it motivated by shame, peer pressure, greed, vanity or fear?
Accept your limits
You only have the ‘authority’ to make resolutions for things within your control. Don’t resolve to get a promotion at work. Instead, resolve to reinvigorate your attitude at work so your application for promotion has the best chance of success. But remember, getting the promotion is outside your control.
Holistic improvement
Make sure you will be a better person overall after succeeding in your resolution. You might be able to run a marathon, but make sure it isn’t so detrimental to your health, relationships, work or other interests that you’re worse-off overall.
Avoid drastic measures
Have you tried less intense measures to achieve your goals? Maybe before you sign up for a 10 day silent yoga retreat you could try signing up for a weekly class and see if it helps.
Probability of success
Set realistic goals you can actually achieve. If you and your partner aim to spend more time together after three date nights in the last year, resolving to have a weekend away once a fortnight might be a bit extreme. Be honest to avoid setting yourself up for failure and making the effort and sacrifices you make futile.
Cost/benefit analysis
Is the inconvenience, expense or pain of your resolution worth it for the goal you are trying to achieve? Trying to have a body like Chris Hemsworth might be more trouble than it’s worth.
Own your resolution
Your resolution is your resolution – everyone except you is an innocent bystander! If you’ve decided to go vegetarian, that’s fine. Insisting everyone in your share house skips on meat to suit your new diet isn’t.
So there you have it – your guide to an ethical new year’s resolution with help from military ethics. These steps won’t guarantee your resolution is successful but they will guarantee it’s a resolution worth making. For tips on how to form the resolve, perseverance and courage it takes to stick to your new commitment, you might want to talk to a soldier.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
Free markets must beware creeping breakdown in legitimacy
This article was written for, and first published on the Australian Financial Review.
This much we know: a blistering series of scandals has led to a profound loss of trust – not just in Australia but across the developed world. Consequently, the issue of trust has become a hot topic – a new staple item on meeting agendas of cabinets, boards, conferences, etc.
However, what if the spotlight being shone on the topic of trust is blinding us so that we fail to see a far greater risk lurking in the shadows – the potential loss of legitimacy?
Creating Transparency
The Ethics Centre has just published a paper that raises this possibility and sounds a warning that should be heeded by those of us who believe in the virtues of the market economy. We do not argue that trust is unimportant. Instead, we make the case that while individuals and institutions can (and do) survive a loss of trust, they rarely (if ever) survive a loss of legitimacy.
“We do not argue that trust is unimportant. Instead, we make the case that while individuals and institutions can (and do) survive a loss of trust, they rarely (if ever) survive a loss of legitimacy.”
At the core of our argument is a simple truth of economics. A reduction in trust can be compensated for by an increase in the “deadweight” costs of surveillance and enforcement. The classic case is the making of agreements. A high trust context can see agreements made on the basis of a low-cost handshake (or its equivalent). Low trust contexts are burdened with the high costs of detailed contracts, enforcement provisions, litigation, etc.
The Definition
Bearing this in mind, we distinguish between the concepts of trust and legitimacy according to the following definitions:
Legitimacy is a recognised and well-founded right to claim a certain status, role or function.
Trust is a belief that a person or institution will perform their role or function in accordance with its obligations or where not bound by duty, in a predictable manner – often in accordance with its interests.
The less formal distinction is as follows: where low trust can be compensated for by a higher degree of checks and balances (deadweight costs), a loss of legitimacy cannot be compensated for at any cost.
Making The Case
Now, if you accept our argument that there is a difference between trust and legitimacy and that a loss of the latter is usually fatal, it soon becomes clear that some of our institutions are at grave risk. We see the early signs in a number of areas. In politics, it is not only political parties and politicians that risk losing legitimacy – it is the system of representative liberal democracy that is being called into question.
As the Lowy Institute has reported, a growing number of younger Australians doubt the capacity of democracy to respond to the challenges of modern life. In economics, there is growing scepticism about the legitimacy of an international economic order. Especially when the focus shifts to free trade and the operation of free markets. We see both trends converging in movements (sometimes dismissed and derided as mere populism) that are reshaping the political and economic landscapes in Europe, North America, Central America and at home.
The great risk in this is that each and every part of the political and economic ecosystem becomes tarred by the same brush – with the spiral of decline sucking in all…the good, the bad and the indifferent…without distinction.
Our Role
For its part, The Ethics Centre has a long history of calling attention to the ethical underpinnings of the free market…recalling that Adam Smith championed markets as the means by which to bring prosperity to all (and not just a few). We (again) make the case for free markets in this latest paper – but go one step further by outlining some core principles that we think should be adopted by corporations if they are to help maintain the legitimacy of the system upon which they ultimately depend.
At one level, the headline principles are deceptively simple: respect people, do no harm, be responsible and be transparent and honest. However, rather than simply state self-evident pieties, we have tied these principles back to the underlying concept of free markets as tools for increasing the stock of common good. These tools and mechanisms can only function, as intended, if participants do not lie, cheat or use their power oppressively.
“Businesses are struggling to develop enabling connections with communities. Their efforts are embedded in conversations about trust, social licence, shared value and so on.”
Businesses are struggling to develop enabling connections with communities. Their efforts are embedded in conversations about trust, social licence, shared value and so on. There are major programs to increase transparency – often as an alternative to trust (which makes transparency unnecessary). We argue that the problem with all of these efforts is that they fail to address the larger problem of a system whose parts are progressively undermining the legitimacy of the whole.
The good news is that the unravelling is reversible and that some fairly straightforward measures can be applied, but only if we rediscover the purpose of the free market and the economic actors that it sustains – for the good of all.
Visit https://ethics.org.au/trust-and-legitimacy/ to download a copy of the Trust, Legitimacy and the Ethical Foundations of the Market Economy report.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Simon Longstaff
Simon Longstaff began his working life on Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory of Australia. He is proud of his kinship ties to the Anindilyakwa people. After a period studying law in Sydney and teaching in Tasmania, he pursued postgraduate studies as a Member of Magdalene College, Cambridge. In 1991, Simon commenced his work as the first Executive Director of The Ethics Centre. In 2013, he was made an officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “distinguished service to the community through the promotion of ethical standards in governance and business, to improving corporate responsibility, and to philosophy.” Simon is an Adjunct Professor of the Australian Graduate School of Management at UNSW, a Fellow of CPA Australia, the Royal Society of NSW and the Australian Risk Policy Institute.
How to help your kid flex their ethical muscle
Kids can be cruel. When they are arbitrarily mean to their own friends, ethical reflection can help. Victoria Whitaker talks us through building your child’s ethical muscle in testing times.
My daughter came home to me in tears last night. She shuddered, eyes wet, and a waterfall connected her nose to her mouth as she explained to me that her best friend had decided she didn’t like her anymore and she was no longer allowed to play in their small group of friends.
“Mummy, I am so sad. Who am I going to play with? Why doesn’t she like me?”
It’s cruelty at its peak. Of course, there is no reason. It’s a power play that seems to happen far too early.
“I know”, she said. “Can I invite her over to play? Then she will like me again”.
What do I do? Maybe having her over will help. But who wants friends like that?
I want my daughter to know her worth. I wanted her to consider this dilemma through the different ethical lenses. We talked.
I asked her to think about the consequences of having who she considered her best friend over. Yes, you might reconnect. But she might also find out how to push you around. And is this how you want your friends to treat you? Will you let all your friends do this? These questions relate to consequentialism, a mode of ethical thought that considers outcomes and consequences.
I also asked her what rights she had in this friendship. What things could she expect in friendship? And what duties do we have to our friends – in all friendships, not just this one? These questions relate to deontology, an ethical theory that prioritises our promises, as well as codes and rules over considering outcomes.
I asked her about the types of relationships she wants. Which relationships were most important to her and why? These questions relate to an ethics of care.
I asked her what sort of friend she would like to be. She told me she liked to have fun, to explore and play together, and valued being kind and caring. This question relates to virtue ethics, a type of thinking that values character and the type of person we aspire to be.
I asked her about the purpose of friendship and why it existed. What things were important about friendship to her? These questions relate to teleology, an ethical theory that considers the purpose of things.
And then we discussed in reflection of all these questions, if her friend was actually the friend she wanted. We talked about whether this little girl had the qualities she wanted from friendship. And we talked about her other friends and which ones did have those qualities she wanted. We also discussed what type of friend my daughter wanted to be… what sort of person she wanted to be. You don’t need a degree in ethics to have to have these conversations with your kids. We are all more expert in this stuff than we give ourselves credit for – our children too.
Ethics isn’t just thinking and talking. It requires action. My daughter and I discussed what steps she could take next. She was still keen to be friends, but her view of the friendship had changed. Her view of herself had changed too. And as such the friendship would change – and we discussed how that was okay.
This morning as we packed her bag and got her ready for the walk to school, the world didn’t seem as heavy as it was last night. And she seemed to carry herself just a little bit taller.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Victoria Whitaker
Victoria has oversight of strategy, operations and business development for The Ethics Centre’s consulting and education services. She joined The Ethics Centre in 2010 and has a background in corporate responsibility and sustainability, working in Australia and the UK in the areas of strategy, governance, policy, research, education, monitoring and reporting.
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
Calling out for justice
It’s probably the biggest phenomenon of calling out we’ve ever seen. On 15 October last year, in the wake of Harvey Weinstein being accused of sexual harassment and rape, actress Alyssa Milano tweeted:
“If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote ‘Me too.’ as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”
The phrase and hashtag ‘Me too’ powerfully resonated with women across the globe and became one of the most viral occurrences in social media history. Not only did the campaign become a vehicle for women to share their stories of sexual abuse and harassment, it had real world consequences, leading to the firing and public humiliation of many prominent men.
One of the fall outs of the #MeToo movement has been a debate about “call out culture”, a phrase that refers to the practice of condemning sexist, racist, or otherwise problematic behaviour, particularly online.
While calling out has been praised by some as a mechanism to achieve social justice when traditional institutions fail to deliver it, others have criticised call outs as a form of digital mob rule, often meting out disproportionate and unregulated punishment.
Institutional justice or social justice
The debate around call out culture raises a question that goes to the core of how we think justice should be achieved. Is pursuing justice the role of institutions or is it the responsibility of individuals?
The notion that justice should be administered through institutions of power, particularly legal institutions, is an ancient one. In the Institutes of Justinian, a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, justice was defined as the impartial and consistent application of the rule of law by the judiciary.
A modern articulation of institutional justice comes from John Rawls, who in his 1971 treatise, A Theory of Justice, argues that for justice to be achieved within a large group of people like a nation state, there has to be well founded political, legal and economic institutions, and a collective agreement to cooperate within the limitations of those institutions.
Slightly diverging from this conception of institutional justice is the concept of social justice, which upholds equality – or the equitable distribution of power and privilege to all people – as a necessary pre-condition.
Institutional and social justice come into conflict when institutions do not uphold the ideal of equality. For instance, under the Institutes of Justinian, legal recourse was only available to male citizens of Rome, leaving out women, children, and slaves. Proponents of social justice would hold that these edicts, although bolstered by strong institutions, were inherently unjust, built on a platform of inequality.
Although, as Rawls argues, in an ideal society institutions of justice help ensure equality among its members, in reality social justice often comes into conflict with institutional power. This means that social justice has to sometimes be pursued by individuals outside of, or even directly in opposition to, institutions like the criminal justice system.
For this reason, social justice causes have often been associated with activism. Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s march in Montgomery, Alabama to protest unfair treatment of African American people in the courts was an example of a group of individuals calling out an unjust system, demanding justice when institutional avenues had failed them.
Calling out
The tension between institutional and social justice has been highlighted in debates about “call out culture”.
For many, calling out offends the principles of institutional justice as it aims to achieve justice at a direct and individual level without systematic regulation and procedure. As such, some have compared calling out campaigns like #MeToo to a type of “mob justice”. Giles Coren, a columnist for The Times of London, argues the accusations of harassment should be handled only by the criminal justice system and that “Without any cross-examination of the stories, the man is finished. No trials or second chances.”
But others see calling out sexist and racist behaviour online as a powerful instrument of social justice activism, giving disempowered individuals the capacity to be heard when institutions of power are otherwise deaf to their complaints. As Olivia Goldhill wrote in relation to #MeToo for Quartz:
“Where inept courts and HR departments have failed, a new tactic has succeeded: women talking publicly about harassment on social media, fuelling the public condemnation that’s forced men from their jobs and destroyed their reputations.”
Hearing voices
In his 2009 book, The Idea of Justice, economist Amartya Sen argues a just society is judged not just by the institutions that formally exist within it, but by the “extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard”.
Activist movements like #MeToo use calling out as a mechanism for wronged individuals to be heard. Writer Shaun Scott argues that beyond the #MeToo movement, calling out has become an avenue for minority groups to speak out against centuries of oppression, adding the backlash against “call out” culture is a mechanism to stop social change in its tracks. “Oppressed groups once lived with the destruction of keeping quiet”, he writes. “We’ve decided that the collateral damage of speaking up – and calling out – is more than worth it.”
While there may be instances of collateral damage, even people innocently accused, a more pressing problem to address is how and why institutions we are supposed to trust are deaf to many of the problems facing women and minority groups.
Dr Oscar Schwartz is an Australian writer and researcher based in New York with expertise in tech, philosophy, and literature. Follow him on Twitter: @scarschwartz
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Oscar Schwartz
Oscar Schwartz is a freelance writer and researcher based in New York. He is interested in how technology interacts with identity formation. Previously, he was a doctoral researcher at Monash University, where he earned a PhD for a thesis about the history of machines that write literature.
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
Big Thinker: Shulamith Firestone
Women’s oppression comes down to biological differences – so get rid of them. If you can put a man on the moon, you make a mechanical womb and gestate a baby without a woman.
These were the arguments of Shulamith Firestone (1945—2012), writer, artist and feminist, whose book, The Dialectic of Sex, argued the structure of the biological family was primarily to blame for the oppression of women.
With a radical and uncompromising vision, she advocated for the development of reproductive technologies that would free women from the responsibilities of childrearing, dismantle the hierarchy of family life, and set the foundations for a truly egalitarian society.
The girlhood of a radical thinker
Firestone was born to an Orthodox Jewish family in Ottawa, Canada in 1945. Her mother was a Holocaust survivor that came from a lineage of rabbis and scholars, and her father was a travelling salesmen.
Firestone possessed a fierce intelligence and strong will from a young age and regularly came into conflict with the stringent gender norms that her religious father imposed. When she questioned why she had to make her brother’s bed in the morning, her father replied, “because you’re a girl.”
In the late 1960s, Firestone left home to study art in Chicago and then New York, where she joined left wing political movements and came of age intellectually. While she was free from her father’ tyranny, she saw the same sexism that had controlled her life at home across all areas of society. It was a time when women held almost no major elected positions, abortion was illegal, rape a stigma to be borne alone, and home making seen as a woman’s highest calling.
As a response to this, Firestone began studying history and feminist literature, hoping to understand the root cause of women’s oppression, which resulted in the publication of The Dialectic of Sex in 1970.
The Dialectic of Sex
While other feminist writers and philosophers proposed that the cause of women’s oppression was, at root, political and cultural, Firestone made a radical departure, positing that the inequality between men and women stemmed from fundamental biological differences – most notably that women had to carry, give birth to, and nurse babies.
This biological reality, Firestone argued, created an “unequal power distribution” within families. Because women were responsible for a child’s care, they became dependant on men to provide for them while they were unable to leave the home. This in turn gave rise to a hierarchy within the family in which babies were dependant on mothers, mothers on their husbands, and husbands on no one.
Firestone argued that over the course of human history, society itself had come to mirror the structure of the biological family and was the source from which all other inequalities developed.
Women were expected to stay at home and care for children, which held them back from becoming financially independent and achieving political agency.
If the feminist movement was to overcome male domination, it had to reckon with the fundamental biological reality that underpinned it.
“The end goal of feminist revolution must be… not just the elimination of male privilege, but of the sex distinction itself.”
While questioning the fundamental biological conditions was not conceivable in previous centuries, Firestone said the great advancements that had accrued in science and technology in the 20th century made it possible to imagine a future in which the reproductive role of women was outsourced to “cybernetic machines”. She believed if the same energy and resources were put into developing reproductive technologies as had been put into other projects, like sending a human to the moon, then it could be achieved in decades.
What held this research back, Firestone suggested, was institutional resistance from men in positions of power who did not want to disrupt the existing hierarchy.
“The problem becomes political … when one realises that, though man is increasingly capable of freeing himself from the biological conditions that created his tyranny over women and children, he has little reason to want to give this tyranny up.”
The true feminist cause, then, was to demand reproductive technology that could free women from what had previously been a biological destiny. Firestone believed if this was achieved, and reproduction was no longer the sole responsibility of women and their bodies, the family would undergo a radical restructuring, a flattening of the patriarchal hierarchy, which would then be mirrored in a more egalitarian society itself.
Brilliant and preposterous
The Dialectic of Sex caused a stir from the moment it was published. It was hard for critics to deny Firestone’s prodigious intellect, but they wrote off her ideas as too radical, too utopian, and too ridiculous to warrant serious engagement. Her theory of gender inequality was called “brilliant” and “preposterous” in the same review by one New York Times critic.
The book’s publication caused a greater rift between Firestone and her family, and her staunch line on biological inequality alienated her from some feminist groups. By the 1980s, when the backlash against radical feminism had taken hold of mainstream American culture, Firestone retreated to a small apartment in Manhattan where she spent her days painting in isolation. She was found dead in August 2012 at the age of 67.
In the 50+ years since Firestone published The Dialectic of Sex, we have seen enormous and rapid technological developments in many areas, and yet reproductive technologies like artificial wombs are still seen as an unlikely and unwanted science from a dystopian sci-fi future. Our culture, for the most part, still associates artificial wombs with the 1932 novel Brave New World, in which Aldous Huxley imagined a future where foetuses are grown in “bottles” in vast state incubators. For Huxley, the idea of severing the biological tie between mother and child was the centrepiece of his dystopian vision, the essential metaphor of a society that had become ethically set adrift.
Reading Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex – a brilliant, passionate and uncompromising book – forces us to confront that the way technology progresses is informed by political motivations, and that science is not neutral, but can be used to reinforce and perpetuate unequal distributions of power.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
How to pick a good friend
Fed up with fair weather friends? A bit of ethical reflection will help you figure out which friends to pick – and keep.
It takes very little to make a “friend”.
A bit of spark, some solid banter. A vulnerable confession or two. Sharing the same floor, class, or gym helps lower the stakes even more. This happy conversation: “You’re getting a coffee now? Me too!” Spells the chorus cheer of a budding friendship. Any more than that and phew – let’s not force something that’s meant to be easy!
But is that true? Is effort really the death knell? Stick around in any friendship, and you will find the coveted ease ebbing away. Illness, death, divorce, bankruptcy… Mother Time has a funny way of revealing the friends who will stick by you no matter what, and the friends who will leave at first pinch.
In a 2016 survey conducted by Lifeline with over 3100 respondents, 60 percent of Australians confessed to feeling lonely on a regular basis. A large portion of these people live with a spouse or partner. The stats show its quality we need, not quantity.
Shasta Nelson, author of Frientimacy, argues the loneliness many of us feel isn’t because we don’t know enough people. Instead, it’s because we don’t feel known, supported, and loved by the right few.
How do we find this right few? Ethical reflection can help.
Friendship values
When do you feel loved? And how do you show love?
These questions can help reveal our friendship ‘values’. Knowing which of these we prioritise is key to discerning which of our friendships are valuable and worth investing effort in. Do you feel most loved when you’re accepted unconditionally? When you’re having a good laugh? What about when your achievements are celebrated and encouraged? Or when your ideas are challenged in a lively debate? None of these are mutually exclusive but being clear about what you value makes it easier to decide if this friendship is one to prioritise.
You may think the second question redundant but knowing how we express love can help bring out the subconscious values that drive our behaviour. We each have patterns of love or dependency that are formed in childhood. Knowing what they are helps you be more aware of the ones you naturally tend to lean into, and if those are ones you want to cultivate. As much as we like to believe we naturally gravitate to what’s good for us, we might be more likely to gravitate to what’s familiar.
You might show love by being financially generous, hospitable, or a shoulder for someone to cry on. You might value having shared interests and vibrant conversations or being their emergency contact in a crisis. Maybe you show your love and comfort around someone by letting your hair down and complaining a lot. Hey, it happens.
How to create deeper friendships
Choosing the right types of people as friends can help us cultivate relationships based on shared values and character, not circumstance. And when we have them, let’s treat them well. Nelson’s three principles for deepening an already existing friendship are:
- Positivity: helping each other feel good. Think smiles, laughter, empathy, and validation.
- Consistency: a bank of expected behaviour that builds trust; the opposite of walking on eggshells around someone.
- Vulnerability: sharing the bad and the good.
A friend is one with whom we are willing to share, without fear of judgement, our truest self. It’s worth being picky about.
Next month, we’ll be talking about how to end a friendship – ethically. If you can’t wait that long, Ethi-call can help, our free helpline for life’s ethical struggles. Book your appointment here.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Aisyah Shah Idil
Aisyah Shah Idil is a writer with a background in experimental poetry. After completing an undergraduate degree in cultural studies, she travelled overseas to study human rights and theology. A former producer at The Ethics Centre, Aisyah is currently a digital content producer with the LMA.
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
Metaphysical myth busting: The cowardice of ‘post-truth’
One of the more disturbing trends to emerge in public discourse recently has been the idea that we live in a ‘post-truth’ era.
While the phrase has most often been used in reference to President Trump’s frequent and shameless self-contradictions, it is also reflected in other debates. The anti-vaccination movement’s rejection of medical science, increasing distrust of the media, the success of political nihilism, as pioneered by 4-Chan, and the Flat-Earth theorists.
All of these movements reflect a growing idea: truth is simply a matter of opinion. The field of philosophy that deals with such foundational questions is metaphysics. It holds the honour of being both the most important, and most utterly infuriating pursuit one can engage in. On the one hand, metaphysics provides the foundation for all subsequent philosophy and ethics. On the other, it posits questions that are impossible to answer without being an omniscient deity.
But just because metaphysics cannot provide certainty, doesn’t mean it cannot provide conclusions. And in an age where “Well, that’s just your opinion” is considered a legitimate rebuttal, I feel that now is a good time to review a few popular myths of metaphysics:
Nihilism means I can do what I want
It should come as no surprise that post-truth enthusiasts have taken to the concept of Nihilism – or at least a simplified form of it. They argue that since life has no demonstrable ‘purpose’ everything we do is pointless. Ergo, if there’s no grand point to life, our actions are meaningless and we can all do whatever we want.
Nihilism is a serious philosophical theory worthy of deep consideration. It is also fairly easily debunked by slapping its proponents across the face. Life may or may not have a ‘purpose’, but the idea that such a vacuum would single-handedly annihilate the value of ethics blatantly ignores the very tangible existence of consequences.
All rules are constructs, therefore all rules are false
Any thorough analysis of a deontological system of ethics will quickly find exceptions. Since the value of a rule-based approach depends on our ability to rely on those rules, it is both intuitive and compelling to suggest that since all rules are social constructs, none hold inherent meaning.
But the conclusion that follows from this argument would agree that science is wholly void because it doesn’t yet offer us a perfect understanding of the universe. While rules-based approaches will inevitably be flawed to some degree, their ability to provide external accountability makes them invaluable ethical tools. They should be judged according to their merit, not their nature.
A lack of definitive proof makes your position false
Metaphysics is uncertain by nature. Questions like the nature of reality, for instance, cannot be answered while we are simultaneously immersed in it. As such, nearly every ontological theory very well could be true. We could be living in a simulation, we could be programs in a hyper-advanced computer, and it could even be possible that all things cease to exist when you’re not looking at them.
But while such uncertainty cannot be eliminated, we do have tools for managing it. Think of the scientific method, which demands objective evidence before conclusions are drawn. Thus far we have myriad proofs that reality is objective, even if our understanding of it is very much subjective. It is indeed possible that reality can be changed by our perception of it, a la The Secret and it’s ‘law of attraction’, but thus far lacking any evidence whatsoever to support such a theory, we can happily discard it.
My opinion is valid, because it is my opinion
Perhaps the most common post-truther stance is the argument that every opinion is valid, simply because someone holds it. You may believe racial segregation is a destructive force in society, but they believe it is better for all communities. You are entitled to your opinion and they are entitled to theirs – so the correct course of action is to vote and see which idea wins ‘on its merits’.
This argument plays strongly into the popular ideal of ‘freedom of speech’. It also happily bypasses the idea that opinions should be held accountable against available evidence. Apply such a standard, and the argument “I’m entitled to my opinion” quickly gains a qualification: You are not entitled to be wrong.
Who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Finally, we reach what in many ways is the foundation of the post-truth trend: who are you to tell me that something is wrong or right? These are my beliefs. How dare you attack something so important to me?
The practical answer to this question is quite simple: I have a right to challenge your opinion to ensure that factually invalid ideas do not lead to harmful conduct. But the psychological implications are far broader. It’s one thing to demonstrate your opinion is better supported by evidence than another person’s, but that isn’t the goal, is it? We can’t just point out another person’s error and expect them to immediately change their mind. In fact, cognitive biases such as the Backfire Effect, demonstrate that we are likely to get the opposite result.
The question of how best to engage with those that disagree with us is an important topic. But if the purpose of ethics is to help us decide what is right, then efforts to undermine ideas by appealing to uncertainty, relativism, and personal opinion must be seen for what they are: pure intellectual cowardice.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
BY Gordon Young
Gordon Young is a lecturer on professional ethics at RMIT University and principal at Ethilogical Consulting.
BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
So your boss installed CCTV cameras
Meet Sophie. As the Head of Human Resources in her organisation, she begins to doubt the integrity of her management team when CCTV cameras are installed throughout her workplace with little warning. Sophie has made an appointment to speak with an Ethi-call counsellor.
In what follows, a highly trained counsellor responds to a fictional yet typical dilemma faced by callers who use The Ethics Centre’s free helpline, Ethi-call. Please note, this is not a substitute for an Ethi-call counselling session. It will give you an idea of what to expect if you ever need to use the service.
The counselling session
Sophie: I’ve never come across a situation like this in my 20 years as a HR professional. We are on the edge of a culture crisis and I’m not sure who I can trust.
Recently, a staff member was verbally assaulted by a trespasser on business premises outside of business hours. The victim felt it wasn’t serious enough to warrant legal intervention but he agreed with our workplace it wasn’t harmless enough to shrug off. Wishing to be seen as responsive to the event, management responded without my consultation by installing CCTV cameras inside and outside the office. Their reaction was quick and they did not have a specific policy to guide the decision. Staff arrived at work on Monday to find cameras on the premises without any explanation.
Ethi-call: As head of HR, how does your role fit within your organisation?
I look after the people in the organisation by implementing the HR policies of the business under the direction of general management. I’m a go to person for employees with workplace issues, advocating for staff in situations where they’ve been taken advantage of. I’m trusted by my peers. I’m the messenger for management, but most decisions I share are not mine and at times I even disagree with them. I’ve worked hard to build a culture of transparency and an environment where all staff can speak up.
Ethi-call: What’s the purpose and values of your organisation?
We exist for our customers and shareholders. We value honesty, safety, innovation, and recognition. But I feel the management team has traded honesty for safety in their latest decision.
Ethi-call: In your industry and HR, are there professional standards or a professional body that might be of relevance to this situation?
Yes, there is the Australian HR Institute, which has a professional code of ethics and professional conduct, plus my organisation also has a national peak body. I’ve phoned because it states I should lead others by modelling competent and ethical behaviour but in this situation I’m not sure what that is.
Ethi-call: What obligations do organisations have in relation to employee safety and privacy and where does your organisation fit?
Our privacy policy meets accepted industry standards. People know we can access their emails at any time and activity on our network isn’t private. People are aware about some privacy compromises. That being said, it’s certainly not an expressed part of company policy that we can film and monitor staff in the office.
As for safety, we have a duty of care to our employees and follow required WHS measures. It’s our responsibility to provide a safe workplace.
Ethi-call: Are you aware of any other organisations who have installed CCTV cameras in this way? What did they do?
This is part of the problem. I’m not sure of any business in this industry who has installed cameras in this way. It’s not like we’re a retail or security focused business. I need to seek advice from industry representatives. Maybe even a lawyer….
I want to believe the management team have our best interests at heart but now I’m not sure. Usually when there are big changes in our organisation, we consult with our staff and bring them on the journey with us.
To make matters worse, recent discussions about staff redundancies in the new financial year have leaked through the organisation.
Ethi-call: How would you describe your relationships with staff?
Staff trust me and I’m glad they do. I value the people around me, because without them the organisation would not exist. But I don’t feel comfortable being the mouthpiece for a management team whose motives in installing the cameras may be more sinister.
Ethi-call: What do you normally do when you don’t agree with the decisions of the management team?
Sometimes I speak up and sometimes I don’t. I draw on my HR expertise and my position in the organisation which helps me facilitate open conversations.
I thought we had a culture of transparency and consultation so I’m shocked I wasn’t consulted before this decision was made. Clearly this has implications on staff and my role as a leader in their HR team, given its potential to negatively impact the organisation and our culture. Maybe they thought they were doing the right thing, but it feels like they might be using the assault as an excuse to monitor employees disingenuously.
Ethi-call: You’ve said staff rumours are fearing the cameras will be used for more than security. Do you know for a fact if the cameras will be used for the staff review?
I don’t know this for sure. I completely understand everyone’s concerns though. My gut tells me they might be right. A while back, some employees had their emails audited to support the termination of their contracts. So, while I’m making assumptions at this point, I can’t help but think management has a history of using data in a way that undermines fairness in the workplace. But it’s just not clear yet if a lack of transparency in this instance mean questionable or bad intentions.
Ethi-call: So, what do you think is the purpose of security camera’s in an organisation?
I’ve been told the purpose is to protect the assets of the business, be it staff or equipment. This is a good thing, clearly, but there should be a clear privacy policy around access and use of recordings. It’s also very important the company be transparent when introducing new security measures – like cameras – into the workplace.
So what did Sophie take away from the call?
The conversation with the Ethi-call counsellor made me better understand my professional identity and what values I want to uphold – both within the organisation and in my profession. I have promised to engage and support the staff, but I feel I need to do a little bit more research on this and seek the advice of a trusted advisor before I act.
I feel strongly that if I want to maintain my professional integrity and the trust of my colleagues I can’t sit back and do nothing. I also expect the management team to live the values of the organisation as well and I should be courageous enough to have this conversation with them too.
Ethi-call is a free national helpline available to everyone. Operating for over 25 year, and delivered by highly trained counsellors, Ethi-callis the only service of its kind in the world. Book your appointment here.
Follow The Ethics Centre on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
