I began writing this a few weeks ago, when I awoke with my head brimful of ideas in the middle of the night and writing them down let me go back to sleep. I have refined it a little since, but the idea remains the same, which is to provide an answer to the question as to the ethic that underpins this blog:
Each of us is of worth, but of no more or less worth than any other person.
We have a duty to care.
It is our responsibility to treat all others as we would wish to be treated.
We should provide for others as best we are able, expecting in return that they will do the same for us.
The needs of all should be satisfied before wants are met.
We should learn from the past, live for today and respect that which is to come.
Where there is doubt we should exercise caution.
It is our individual and collective responsibility to leave the planet on which we live as bounteous for those to come as it has been for us.
Within our commitment to others is the freedom to be ourselves.
All life has the potential to be joyful. It is our task to realise that potential.
It should be our aim that each person can partake as best they are able.
We should seek to ensure that all can live with freedom from fear.
We cannot presume consent: it must be actively given by another able to grant it.
We should expect the best.
We should be, and expect others to be, honest.
We should be aware that people can hold differing opinion in good faith. We should differentiate those doing so from others who hold opinion for personal gain.
To fail is to be human. We should forgive those who err, but hold to account those who do so deliberately.
We must live in the hope that sufficient people will endeavour to make sure that the common good prevails.
The common good should be ours to share, in community.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thank you, Richard, for this–worth being woken up for, not least for us to understand what moves you! A thought about “We should provide for others as best we are able, expecting in return that they will do the same for us.” You’ve prompted me to reflect on the unconditionality of love, and the nature of the dividend that love may or may not be able to bring.
My statement is unconditional: I presume that the obligation continues even if the return is not made
After a fair bit of serious consideration because I am aware I’m yet again going to be stirring a hornet’s nest, I want to draw attention to the other big news story of the weekend – The Grand National, and how, to my mind anyway, it is relevant to this blog.
Nearly 40 years ago, when I was doing my Student Nurse training, I supplanted my income by becoming a Bookies Clerk, initially for a friend who was a local ‘on course’ bookmaker and later, as details of my ability (false modesty does not become me) were shared among the ‘bookie fraternity’, for a fair few others. The joint passion for working with figures and the friendships I developed in the horseracing community never really left me. Even after qualifying, I tried to schedule my days off and much of my holiday time travelling to and working at numerous race courses
Believe it or believe it not, a ‘Bookies Clerk’ pre computers was one of the
most underrated jobs going. You had to calculate bets and maintain a running balance at breakneck speed while advising the boss on price adjustment etc. Any mistake earned a rather severe ‘lashing of the tongue’.
I so nearly relinquished my plans for a future career in the public sector before that damned common sense took over.
One quick story before I return to the crux of the matter honest.
Our team of 4 arrived to ‘pitch up’ at Epsom Racecourse on Derby Day at 5am coincidentally at the same time as the caravan belonging to Gypsy Rose Lea or similar – the local fortune teller. We exchanged greetings and, I thought, went our separate ways only for Rose to appear at our stall wanting to place our first bet of the day. As luck would have it the gaffer had taken a ‘toilet and breakfast break’ leaving yours truly in charge and facing a quandary. Would it be against the rules to refuse a bet from a professional soothsayer?. I eventually agreed expecting a 20p each way on the favourite only for her to flourish a £20 note. All to win on a 16/1 horse.
To try and cut the story short, I suffered the tongue lashing from ‘the boss’, only for her selection to be withdrawn early following ‘Veterinary Advice’.
So what has all this to do with the subject matter?
Years later, I ended up working with homeless teenagers at a Residential Project. Word had reached me through the horse racing fraternity that there were vacancies for would be apprentice jockeys at a nearby training yard. I had organised the interviews only to be told by the Area Manager to cancel them. In effect she would rather deny 2 young care leavers a job and potential career to bolster her own politically correct attitudes.
I would hope the warmth, modesty,courtesy and self efficacy portrayed by two decent and lovely individuals in Henry de Bromhead and Rachel Blackmore might just ease the attitudes of the hard line ‘left wing’ zealots and make them realise the real left wing scroungers these days are McDonalds and Virgin begging for government handouts.
This is not a zero sum game
Even if Macdonalds and Virgin are scoundrels that does not mean horse racing is not, the abuse of animals for private gain is OK, and the problems of gambling should be imposed on society
That reads as the fundamental basis for a “Preamble” of a democratic written Constitution.
Jim, what a brilliant idea. I had thought of it as Richard’s Credo – at a level few have put into words (though it needs a lot more work). You are right, if the UK is ever to have a formal Constitution (and exist long enough to need one) it will need an overarching statement of principles and there are some good ideas here.
I recognise it needs more work
I was hoping some polish might be offered…..
If only this could be the guidelines for us all to
live by, and underpin our society’s moral code. I think many of us already try to live this way. Glad you woke to write this down 🙂
Thanks
Hi,
Thank you for your list. If only we could all behave that way.
Just a thought about “treat(ing) others the way we would expect to be treated”. I was taken to task once when discussing this issue by someone who pointed out that some people might not want to be treated as I wanted. Fair enough.
I think “treat others with the respect with which we would wish to be treated” works better.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks
Richard
Congratulations on composing what must be the ultimate desideratum for a decent society.
I recently had a message from my MP justifying the government’s position on NHS pay. I want to reply as below but only if my comments are justifiable:
“Dear Nadhim (Zahawi)
Thank you for your reply justifying a 1% pay rise for NHS workers.
Regarding the issue of affordability, you say: ‘the pandemic has had an extremely detrimental effect on public finances which any responsible government cannot ignore’. This commonly repeated reason for unwillingness to provide funding, as I suspect Rishi Sunak, Andrew Bailey. Boris Johnson et al, know full well, is a carefully nurtured fallacy.
The so-called ‘National Debt’ is simply the amount of sterling that has been put into the economy by governments over the years and that has grown simply because the economy has grown. It is not a ‘debt’ as generally understood at all. A growing economy, as ours is, needs a money supply to sustain it. Only if rampant inflation results, as there was in 1940’s Germany, is this a problem. That is certainly not a problem now or for the forseeable future.
So long as government spending only makes the economy grow, as most government spending does, there is no detrimental effect on public finances. This should be obvious from the fact that the ‘National Debt’ has grown almost exponentially since the war with no detrimental effect on the economy. And why? Because it is the money supply which the ‘National Debt’ represents that has actually funded the economic growth. That’s why the ‘National Debt’ has never been paid off, nor need ever be paid off and why the ‘burden on future generations’ claim is nonsense, part of the fallacy.
What is sadly also obvious is that this fallacy enables government to falsely claim unaffordability when a purely political decision is made to deny certain funding (e.g to NHS and defense budgets), whilst at the same time being able to make funding freely available when politically approved.(for furloughing, HS2 , Heathrow extension).
It would be nice to know that you recognise this fallacy and that, along with your collegues, you are prepared to resist peddling this enormous lie to the public.
Yours sincerely”
Richard, would you be kind enough to tell me if my response is justified?
It’s good
Send it
Sent it. The words water and duck’s back come to mind but let’s hope. Thank you so much for taking the trouble to read it. Andrew