Monday, January 23, 2006
Whose business?
Mark Oaten was a contender for the vacant position of leader of the British Liberal-Democratic Party. He pulled out of the contest last week stating that he did not have enough support to pursue his leadership bid. This weekend it has been suggested - and Mr Oaten has not denied - that he had a homosexual relationship with a young male prostitute. Mr Oaten is married with two daughters.
The lurid details can be found here [News of the World].
A question which arises from all this is where does Mr Oaten's obligation to explain to the public - and, if necessary, apologise for - his behaviour begin and where does it end? Where does what he's alleged to have done stop being private - which is where it starts - and start becoming public? To what extent should we be delving into and reporting the activities of his private life?
To compare: one of the objections to the government's attempts to ban smoking in pubs is that pubs are legal and smoking is legal. Therefore smoking in pubs - a cultural habit centuries old - should be legal. Banning a legal habit in a legal establishment seems a step too far.
One might apply similar reasoning to the Mark Oaten case. His activities, whatever else one might feel about them, are legal. To what extent is public outrage justifiable? Of course, one feels very sorry for Mr Oaten's wife and children who may suffer horribly at the hands of tabloids and other gossips and snipers but surely only their outrage is truly justifiable?
The problem with setting moral (for want of a better word) rules and standards - which, incidentally, I believe is essential for a properly functioning civil society - is that these rules and standards can encroach too much into the stuff of people's private lives. Conservatives generally do not support government interference in the day to day matters of family life. Further, these standards are set by people who, in the fullness of time, themselves may fall short of them - or similar ones. The resulting outcry then brings the standards themselves into disrepute.
One of the keys to morality is identifying where public and private spheres begin and end. In the public sphere government may involve itself in setting standards - as they already do. It is immoral to, for example, kill or steal or rape so we expect our government to punish, on our behalf, people who do these things.
But legal acts carried out with full consent are next to impossible to legislate for and the attempt should not be made. Humans, in all their imperfection, will do all sorts of things wrong but it is for them and their families to resolve the wrongdoing in their own way.
In a general sense, many of the exposes of celebrity wrongdoing - infidelity being the favourite - are presented not to outrage but to titillate. These goings on are, in the public sense, more harmful for being exposed since, over time, they create the impression that infidelity (or drug abuse or tax evasion or whatever the scandal of the moment is) is commonplace, ordinary and simply the subject of lighthearted entertainment. People reach maturity believing that, rather than fidelity, dishonesty in relationships and finances and elsewhere is the norm. The personal carnage, the individual tragedies and broken lives are impossible to convey in shock-horror tabloid stories.
If we are going to be morally outraged then aiming our fire at the misbehaviour of imperfect humans, while understandable, is to misdirect it. The damage to our society is not carried out by individuals but by those parts of the entertainment industry that thrive on it. There is no genuine public need-to-know when a politician/pop star/bloke down the street involves him/herself in some sordid affair. There may be public want-to-know but this is not the same thing. People who consume scandal sheets are complicit is the coarsening of society. Before professing outrage at others' behaviour they may wish to examine their own first.
The lurid details can be found here [News of the World].
A question which arises from all this is where does Mr Oaten's obligation to explain to the public - and, if necessary, apologise for - his behaviour begin and where does it end? Where does what he's alleged to have done stop being private - which is where it starts - and start becoming public? To what extent should we be delving into and reporting the activities of his private life?
To compare: one of the objections to the government's attempts to ban smoking in pubs is that pubs are legal and smoking is legal. Therefore smoking in pubs - a cultural habit centuries old - should be legal. Banning a legal habit in a legal establishment seems a step too far.
One might apply similar reasoning to the Mark Oaten case. His activities, whatever else one might feel about them, are legal. To what extent is public outrage justifiable? Of course, one feels very sorry for Mr Oaten's wife and children who may suffer horribly at the hands of tabloids and other gossips and snipers but surely only their outrage is truly justifiable?
The problem with setting moral (for want of a better word) rules and standards - which, incidentally, I believe is essential for a properly functioning civil society - is that these rules and standards can encroach too much into the stuff of people's private lives. Conservatives generally do not support government interference in the day to day matters of family life. Further, these standards are set by people who, in the fullness of time, themselves may fall short of them - or similar ones. The resulting outcry then brings the standards themselves into disrepute.
One of the keys to morality is identifying where public and private spheres begin and end. In the public sphere government may involve itself in setting standards - as they already do. It is immoral to, for example, kill or steal or rape so we expect our government to punish, on our behalf, people who do these things.
But legal acts carried out with full consent are next to impossible to legislate for and the attempt should not be made. Humans, in all their imperfection, will do all sorts of things wrong but it is for them and their families to resolve the wrongdoing in their own way.
In a general sense, many of the exposes of celebrity wrongdoing - infidelity being the favourite - are presented not to outrage but to titillate. These goings on are, in the public sense, more harmful for being exposed since, over time, they create the impression that infidelity (or drug abuse or tax evasion or whatever the scandal of the moment is) is commonplace, ordinary and simply the subject of lighthearted entertainment. People reach maturity believing that, rather than fidelity, dishonesty in relationships and finances and elsewhere is the norm. The personal carnage, the individual tragedies and broken lives are impossible to convey in shock-horror tabloid stories.
If we are going to be morally outraged then aiming our fire at the misbehaviour of imperfect humans, while understandable, is to misdirect it. The damage to our society is not carried out by individuals but by those parts of the entertainment industry that thrive on it. There is no genuine public need-to-know when a politician/pop star/bloke down the street involves him/herself in some sordid affair. There may be public want-to-know but this is not the same thing. People who consume scandal sheets are complicit is the coarsening of society. Before professing outrage at others' behaviour they may wish to examine their own first.
# posted by Gary Monro : Monday, January 23, 2006
Comments:
<< Home
The revelations in the News of the World are indeed lurid - even if we forget about morality for a moment we still have to consider the impossibility of taking a politician seriously once this sort of information is out in the public domain. As leader of the Lib-Dems he would (theoretically) be standing as a potential Prime Minister at the next election - could we really be represented on the world stage by a man who indulged in a 3-in-a-bed sex romp with a couple of rent boys?
As it happens I do think the morality of this case is important and, anyway, your claim that nothing illegal took place would seem to be wide of the mark. Prostitution is still illegal in Britain - the law was obviously being broken somewhere (if not, perhaps, by Oaten himself).
As it happens I do think the morality of this case is important and, anyway, your claim that nothing illegal took place would seem to be wide of the mark. Prostitution is still illegal in Britain - the law was obviously being broken somewhere (if not, perhaps, by Oaten himself).
# posted by 
: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:58:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:58:00 AM
I couldn't disagree more on many levels.
One of the bits of the marriage vows I recall taking (although nowadays this may have gone by the board) is to be faithful. Clearly he regards marriage as a flexible and easily discarded convenience, can we expect him to regard promises and commitments made when canvassing for election to be equally disposable? But ther again, gaining power is the main thing, isn't it? As Tory Blair - I mean David Cameron - has realised, winning the next election and getting both trotters in the trough is the thing. Any concept of actually representing your constituents (you remember those, surely? The mugs you need to convince to vote you into a job?)has gone by the board. So severely annoying the mugs by behaving like a dog on heat isn't a good idea as the mugs tend to actually subscribe to the institutions such as marriage he is so cavalierly discarding.
There is the question of blackmail to consider. Athough you Politicians have enacted legislation which forces the vast majority of the population to "tolerate" homosexuality, the vast majority do not agree with their political "Masters" and behind closed doors,this majority despise this behaviour. Therefore IF he became prime minister, the potential for blackmail from this rent boy is very real.
As David H said, there was a crime committed. Prostitution may be legalised by legislation being rammed through Parliament but it is not yet legal. So he's a criminal.
As someone once remarked, fish rot from the head and much of the problems this country is experiencing comes from rotten leadership and politicians who represent themselves and regard themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the masses. Any attempt to run this country for the majority of thr population has been abandoned by our political "Masters" and this is a prime example of the chasm which lies between the Politicians and the feelings, sentiments and instincts of the vast majority of the people in this country.
But Trust him - he's a politician ....
One of the bits of the marriage vows I recall taking (although nowadays this may have gone by the board) is to be faithful. Clearly he regards marriage as a flexible and easily discarded convenience, can we expect him to regard promises and commitments made when canvassing for election to be equally disposable? But ther again, gaining power is the main thing, isn't it? As Tory Blair - I mean David Cameron - has realised, winning the next election and getting both trotters in the trough is the thing. Any concept of actually representing your constituents (you remember those, surely? The mugs you need to convince to vote you into a job?)has gone by the board. So severely annoying the mugs by behaving like a dog on heat isn't a good idea as the mugs tend to actually subscribe to the institutions such as marriage he is so cavalierly discarding.
There is the question of blackmail to consider. Athough you Politicians have enacted legislation which forces the vast majority of the population to "tolerate" homosexuality, the vast majority do not agree with their political "Masters" and behind closed doors,this majority despise this behaviour. Therefore IF he became prime minister, the potential for blackmail from this rent boy is very real.
As David H said, there was a crime committed. Prostitution may be legalised by legislation being rammed through Parliament but it is not yet legal. So he's a criminal.
As someone once remarked, fish rot from the head and much of the problems this country is experiencing comes from rotten leadership and politicians who represent themselves and regard themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the masses. Any attempt to run this country for the majority of thr population has been abandoned by our political "Masters" and this is a prime example of the chasm which lies between the Politicians and the feelings, sentiments and instincts of the vast majority of the people in this country.
But Trust him - he's a politician ....
David H,
Thanks for commenting.
Undoubtedly Mr Oaten's integrity is now ruined - hardly surprising, of course. And you're right - I couldn't take the man seriously after this. It's not just the human weakness - cast the first stone etc - but the stupidity of believing he could probably get away with this that makes him unfit to govern.
I'm unsure of the legality of prostitution - in this country it's hard to determine what's legal and what's illegal but allowed anyway. But I think you're right that something illegal took place.
PhilB,
Just for clarification purposes, I am not a politician. I would like to be, but I am not one.
I agree completely with much of what you say in your comment so let's clear up what I was saying - perhaps not too clearly - in my original post.
First, I wanted to suggest that there is a point at which private sin (for want of a better term), however sordid, should remain there - private. I am not sure many people would agree that all human fraility should be on show. Notwithstanding the additional damage done to the sinner's family it is precisely the risk of public exposure that makes a person susceptible to blackmail.
I am simply stating that a line should be drawn. Possibly we'd disagree over where the line should be drawn but surely not that it should be drawn?
Second, I regard the lurid tabloid stories that surround Mr Oaten and others' escapades to be a bigger social ill than the escapades themselves. I do not mean to diminish the effects of what he/they have done - especially on their families - but the greater wrong - in my opinion - is that we luxuriate in the tales of their misdeeds, exacerbating the suffering of their families and coarsening our culture in the meantime. Sin always happens. How we deal with it is something we have control over. We seem to enjoy it.
Your use of the term 'you politicians' seems to tarnish all with the same brush. With respect, politicians do come in all shapes and sizes and, if I am ever one, I would not easily fit into the PC, amoral, statist comfort of many of them.
And there are any number of Conservative Party members who are indeed 'conservative' enough to recognise that one of the government's primary roles is to support the institutions and traditions of the people - rather than create suchlike for them.
Regarding marriage vows: I chose my vows and I chose to state I would remain faithful to my wife. So professing one's fidelity is still an option these days.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Gary
Thanks for commenting.
Undoubtedly Mr Oaten's integrity is now ruined - hardly surprising, of course. And you're right - I couldn't take the man seriously after this. It's not just the human weakness - cast the first stone etc - but the stupidity of believing he could probably get away with this that makes him unfit to govern.
I'm unsure of the legality of prostitution - in this country it's hard to determine what's legal and what's illegal but allowed anyway. But I think you're right that something illegal took place.
PhilB,
Just for clarification purposes, I am not a politician. I would like to be, but I am not one.
I agree completely with much of what you say in your comment so let's clear up what I was saying - perhaps not too clearly - in my original post.
First, I wanted to suggest that there is a point at which private sin (for want of a better term), however sordid, should remain there - private. I am not sure many people would agree that all human fraility should be on show. Notwithstanding the additional damage done to the sinner's family it is precisely the risk of public exposure that makes a person susceptible to blackmail.
I am simply stating that a line should be drawn. Possibly we'd disagree over where the line should be drawn but surely not that it should be drawn?
Second, I regard the lurid tabloid stories that surround Mr Oaten and others' escapades to be a bigger social ill than the escapades themselves. I do not mean to diminish the effects of what he/they have done - especially on their families - but the greater wrong - in my opinion - is that we luxuriate in the tales of their misdeeds, exacerbating the suffering of their families and coarsening our culture in the meantime. Sin always happens. How we deal with it is something we have control over. We seem to enjoy it.
Your use of the term 'you politicians' seems to tarnish all with the same brush. With respect, politicians do come in all shapes and sizes and, if I am ever one, I would not easily fit into the PC, amoral, statist comfort of many of them.
And there are any number of Conservative Party members who are indeed 'conservative' enough to recognise that one of the government's primary roles is to support the institutions and traditions of the people - rather than create suchlike for them.
Regarding marriage vows: I chose my vows and I chose to state I would remain faithful to my wife. So professing one's fidelity is still an option these days.
I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
Gary
Just for the record Philb, I don't despise this behaviour and I don't know anybody that does. I do despise intolerance though. I will not put up with intolerant people, I just won't.
8-)
8-)
Gary,
A bit off-topic, but this argument doesn't really work:
Banning a legal habit in a legal establishment seems a step too far.
You can easily combine two legal things to get illegal things.
e.g.: having sex is legal, being in the street is legal...so it would be a step too far to ban having sex in the steet.
or: parking is legal, being in the fast lane of the motorway is legal, so it is a step too far to ban parking in the fast lane.
A bit off-topic, but this argument doesn't really work:
Banning a legal habit in a legal establishment seems a step too far.
You can easily combine two legal things to get illegal things.
e.g.: having sex is legal, being in the street is legal...so it would be a step too far to ban having sex in the steet.
or: parking is legal, being in the fast lane of the motorway is legal, so it is a step too far to ban parking in the fast lane.
Frank,
As ever, you're better than tackling a sudoku puzzle.
having sex is legal, being in the street is legal...so it would be a step too far to ban having sex in the steet.
Sex is an intimate and private matter and is actually restricted from taking place anywhere in public for that reason. It is a special case. I hear your scoffs even as I type.
parking is legal, being in the fast lane of the motorway is legal, so it is a step too far to ban parking in the fast lane
Parking is subject to its own restrictions - it isn't simply 'legal' to park. It's legal to park in designated areas. So your example doesn't take a habit that's legal everywhere then restrict it. It simply isn't legal everywhere in the first place.
The argument against banning smoking in pubs rests quite satisfactorily (for me) on the basis that it is an age-old cultural habit which combines two legal activities and which isn't being forced on people against their will.
And for the record, I loathe cigarette smoke.
As ever, you're better than tackling a sudoku puzzle.
having sex is legal, being in the street is legal...so it would be a step too far to ban having sex in the steet.
Sex is an intimate and private matter and is actually restricted from taking place anywhere in public for that reason. It is a special case. I hear your scoffs even as I type.
parking is legal, being in the fast lane of the motorway is legal, so it is a step too far to ban parking in the fast lane
Parking is subject to its own restrictions - it isn't simply 'legal' to park. It's legal to park in designated areas. So your example doesn't take a habit that's legal everywhere then restrict it. It simply isn't legal everywhere in the first place.
The argument against banning smoking in pubs rests quite satisfactorily (for me) on the basis that it is an age-old cultural habit which combines two legal activities and which isn't being forced on people against their will.
And for the record, I loathe cigarette smoke.
Gary,
I'm a smoker myself but I think the argument that workers in pubs etc are subjected to passive smoking has some merit. (Even though I think it is actually an excuse rather than the real reason for the proposed bans).
Of course if the workers were smokers themselves then in theory nobody is being forced (unless the worker later wants to quit maybe).
Post a Comment
I'm a smoker myself but I think the argument that workers in pubs etc are subjected to passive smoking has some merit. (Even though I think it is actually an excuse rather than the real reason for the proposed bans).
Of course if the workers were smokers themselves then in theory nobody is being forced (unless the worker later wants to quit maybe).
<< Home
