And now let me speak of the last implication I shall cover in this paper. What are the implications of this theory to the relationship of management to government and to the people at large. Unfortunately, according to this theory, second level ethics, the concept of right and wrong out of which this country became what it is, die hard. Second level ethics are powerful ethics. They drive people to accomplish a lot. And when people have little, and when survival is hard, it is good that man can come to live by the humanly ruthless principles of "Might is Right" ethics. But can we go on forever mired in the argument of whose might is right, the government’s, the industrialist’s, whose? Higher level ethics say the right of all, not one group’s view of what is right, is our goal. As Dr. Ludwig Erhard has said as he tried to explain the current West European economy is more variable than ours.

"We are conservatives but we are not in the least like your Republicans or even like many of your Democrats. We conceive the role of government as one of partnership with industry and labor in pursuit of a common goal, which is an expanding economy in which all can share fruitfully. Government intervention is natural and necessary and public spending and planning, within reasonable limits, are essential ingredients of that concept. Without them capitalism cannot long survive as a healthy way of life."

And I would go further and say: How long can man survive? Can he survive if as he reaches out for higher level ethical behavior he finds himself stretched to the breaking point because his feet are held back, encased in the hardened-against-humanness incrustations of second level ethics?

<< back  | 8 |  top ^^


Copyright 2001 NVC Consulting