If it's Legal, it's also Moral

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

"For most, what is legal is a guide to morality." This is from a letter to The West. It appears to me to be true. It is very unfortunate.

The point of the letter is prostitution: if prostitution is legal then it will be seen to be moral. Is that the case with every law?

Lawyers look for loopholes. If I want to do something -- or I have already done something -- then I can hire a lawyer to look for a loophole which allows my action. Did I murder someone? The law says that that's okay -- as long as I was drunk or insane at the time.

Does that make murder "moral"?

The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." (Wikipedia, 9 Nov 11)

If I am drunk, or insane, does that mean that killing a person is "good" or "right"? Perhaps it does. "For most, what is legal is a guide to morality."

Why does Western Australia have so many laws? It is to allow people to do things which would otherwise be considered to be, not moral.

We may think that we live in a moral state. We don't. We live in a legal state.

Creativity is More than Art

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Western Australia has a Thinker in Residence. The theme for the 2011 program is, Unlocking Creativity. As the website says,

the program "will turn the spotlight on the role of creativity, culture and education... The residency will build on work to date in the areas of arts, innovation and education as tools to foster the skills and potential of younger West Australians." (9 Nov 11)

All very good. All very positive. Perhaps a bit limited.

Jonathan Holloway has an even more limited view of "creativity".

Holloway is the artistic director of the Perth International Arts Festival. In an article in The West, Holloway discusses his views of and involvement with the 2011 Thinker in Residence program (It all adds up if young ones love to imagine, The West, 8 Nov 11).

Holloway is involved in "the arts". He is entitled to a view that creativity is solely found in "the arts". That is his view.

Creativity is, however, far more than the ability to create music, sculpture, paintings and so on. Wikipedia offers a very broad view of creativity. It also attempts a very brief definition:

Creativity refers to the phenomenon whereby a person creates something new (a product, a solution, a work of art, a novel, a joke, etc.) that has some kind of value. (Wikipedia, 9 Nov 11)

A new product -- an app on your iPhone, for example -- may be the result of creative thinking. The suggestion to decriminalise drugs may be a creative solution to problems of drug-related crime. Some very boring statistics may be the result of some very creative thinking.

A work of art is just one possible result of creativity...

Leadership, Management & Kipling

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

When you don't know the answer -- avoid the question. When you don't know the exact words -- invent some. That's one way to survive as a management guru.

One way. Not a good way.

The reality is that leaders are also managers and managers are also leaders. What is the difference...? ... not a hell of a lot. (Rudyard Kipling's six wise tips for leaders, by Daniel Kehoe in The West, 2 Nov 11)

Which just goes to show how little Kehoe knows.

What's the difference between management and leadership?

Despite Kehoe, there is a difference. Quite a significant difference.

Management ... is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively. Management comprises planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization ... or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. (Wikipedia, 7 Nov 11)

To put it another way: Your organisation gives you authority. You use that authority to plan, organise, direct and control allocated staff, in order to accomplish an organisationally-approved goal.

Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". (Chemers M. (1997) An integrative theory of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ISBN 9780805826791, quoted in Wikipedia, 7 Nov 11)

To put it another way: Leadership is the art of causing people to follow you.

Democracy Over-ruled

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

We live in a democracy. You know, "a form of government in which all the people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" (Wikipedia, 2 Nov 11). For the people, by the people, of the people... all that sort of nonsense.

Paul Murray lives somewhere else.

Of those polled, 73 per cent saw marine protection as very important, 75 per cent felt there was not enough marine protection in WA and almost 50 per cent called for protection to cover at least 30 per cent of the marine environment.

(a report quoted in, WA fisheries at mercy of US greenie charity, by Paul Murray, The West, 2 Nov 11)

Murray ignores the weakness of, "Of those polled"... He fails to ask, Who was polled? How many people were polled? How many responded? These are obvious weaknesses -- Murray is not interested.

Nor is he interested enough to wonder, how close to 50% is "almost 50%"?

Murray dismisses the entire report. Largely, it seems, on the grounds that it is sponsored by an American charity. Oh dearie me, American! How terrible!

Having dropped that enormous clanger, Murray goes on to attack the emotive tricks which are used by "these groups".

Let's just step back a bit.

Our "democracy" allows 51% of the voting population to over-ride the wishes of the other 49%. That's the Australian implementation of democracy. So... What do 51% of our voting population want?

According to a poll sponsored by an American charity, "75 per cent felt there was not enough marine protection in WA". For Murray's benefit I will point out that 75% is more than 51%. By our democratic rules -- the 75% should have their wishes implemented.

Now if the poll were done amongst committed greenies, with loaded questions... Fine, ignore the results. But -- in a democracy -- if it were a valid poll then the wishes of the majority should be implemented. There should be more marine protection in WA.

Democratic decisions are made by people. In Australia, the majority should set the rules. The majority may be emotional. They may be biased. They may be wrong... but they are the majority. And the majority should set the rules.

The majority of people not the majority of money.

What else is wrong?

Murray has dismissed the report because it was sponsored by Pew Environmental Group, an American charity. He states that, "Pew and its greenie mates have got away with blue murder for too long." And the greenies use emotive statements?!

Then he quotes -- without question -- seven points provided by Recfishwest executive director Frank Prokop. Without question!

"Australia will have more sanctuaries than the rest of the world combined." "More" as in more area? more in number? Will we have more very small sanctuaries? "More" as a percentage of our surrounding oceans? Or just "more" as an emotive statement...

"Pew's claim that the South West bioregion had up to 80 per cent unique species (a blatant piece of green marketing) was wrong." Is Murray not interested in evidence that this is "wrong"? Or is he happy to simply accept that blatant piece of Recfishwest marketing as being gospel truth...

"It's time some politicians grew a spine and started questioning their spin..."

And it's time some opinion writers grew a spine and stopped publishing unsubstantiated bias.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com

Hypocrite

Your problems? Solved. email nick leth at gmail dot com. No worries. Now.

Perth surgeon Michael Levitt is reported as saying that "the proposed changes [to superannuation fund rules] were preposterous, embarrassing, shameful and discriminatory" (Super rules paint collectors into corner, by Stephen Bevis, The West, 27 Oct 11).

The poor dear!

It seems that, from 1 July, personal super funds which collect art must collect it "as a genuine investment for retirement rather than as a way for members to indulge a hobby or gain a personal benefit from the items" (quoted from the article). The art investments must be documented, stored, insured against losses... not hung on the walls of the homes of family and friends. This rule has upset Levitt.

"Surely I am not the only person on the planet who thinks there is something wrong about being allowed to collect art but not look at it," he said.

Levitt wants to collect art. He wants to hang it on walls. He wants to admire it.

Levitt also wants to pay reduced tax on his investments, so he buys art through his own super fund.

Oh dear, he cries, if investment art cannot also be admired then the value of art will fall.

Oh my, he cries, what a great art lover I am!

Oh no, he cries, I'm certainly not going to buy art without a tax minimisation lurk. What sort of collector do you think I am?!

Oh crap, he cries, there's no way I'll buy art without a government subsidy through my super fund. What sort of pleb do you think I am?!

Hypocrite.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems. Agamedes Consulting: Support for your thought. email nick leth at gmail dot com