Haphazard forms of social ethics

The maintenance of basic order depends in large measure on establishing an informal consensus on the appropriate forms of individual behaviour which allows community sanctions to be invoked when necessary. It is becoming obvious that effective development depends upon a relatively stable basis of order being present in any particular community. Yet, in many socially mixed rural communities, such a consensus is lacking, and a haphazard assortment of patterns of behaviour is considered normal, with the result that social occasions often end in disorder. Furthermore, individuals tend to assume that a personal effort towards maintaining order would be comparatively fruitless. Residents are unwilling to hold one another accountable to social norms. For example, although many people may express concern over alcoholism and vandalism, individuals or groups rarely take the initiative to deal with such disruptions. The wisdom of older people is rarely called upon and they are unable to impose effective sanctions. Individual communities may have no official police force, and even where there are some means of law enforcement, violations of the law ranging from deliberate shootings to dangerous driving may be ignored. The education of children is left largely to teachers. Young people are confronted with conflicting expectations of appropriate roles and are given few opportunities to organize social events or to take responsibility for community facilities; vandalism and property damage are the result. All these things contribute to a sense of disruption which pervades everyday life. Until more orderly forms of social ethics are established at the community level, the climate of community life will continue to discourage residents from participation.

1. The state must abandon the anaesthetizing political discourse that plays down problems and adopt policies that deal effectively with the growing disintegration of social values and the issues of multiculturalism and clash of values.

2. There is a tendency to focus a level of ethics on other individuals and groups which one does not always apply to oneself or to one's own social group. This is especially noticeable among political muckrakers.

1. Value erosion
2. Socio-cultural environment degradation
3. Lack of meaningful personal and social paradigms
4. Ethical vacuum
5. Collapse

1. Situationism
2. Retarded socialization
3. Displacement of ethics by aesthetics
4. Applied double standards

1. Victimless crime
2. Unethical practices
3. Undervaluation of education by parents
4. Social unaccountability
5. Social fragmentation
6. Social disaffection of the young
7. Scapegoats
8. Same-sex marriage
9. Moral offences
10. Moral hedonism
11. Limited social guidance by older generations
12. Intimidation in educational institutions
13. Intersex people
14. Inadequate community policing
15. Impropriety
16. Fear of vandalism
17. Denial of right to liberty
18. Conflicting interpretations of universal human rights
19. Conflict of duties
20. Collapse of common values
21. Artificial insemination

1. Unrealistic policies
2. Uncontrolled use of virtual reality equipment
3. Substitution of fantasy for reality
4. Misconduct in elected public office
5. Minimal church-school involvement
6. Lack of education on human rights
7. Fragmented social responsibility
8. Consumption of alcohol
9. Absence of images of social responsibility

1. Restrictive social policies

1. Film and cinema censorship

1. Using selective ethics
2. Suppressing moral liberty
3. Exhausting moral resources
4. Developing code of conduct
5. Demanding fundamental social values be honoured
6. Cultivating moral capacity
7. Constructing social morality
8. Altruism

1. Unsociable
2. Undefined
3. Suppression
4. Selective
5. Morality
6. Liberty
7. Immorality
8. Haphazardness
9. Breakdown