Replying to LO24022 --
I have to admit I find the slant of this text very disturbing and counter
to my experiences, and the way things work with real people in real
situations.
On 22 Feb 00, at 12:47, AM de Lange wrote:
> Mark Feenstra <mark@strategiclearning.co.nz> writes:
>
> >Without an honest acknowledgement of this difficulty I find
> >it hard to believe that most codes of conduct, corporate or
> >otherwise, will ever be anything other than largely meaningless
> >gestures that only serve to re-inforce peoples view that they
> >are often wading through a sea of bull****.
>
> Greetings Mark,
>
> Humane conduct is something which can only emerge from within a human. It
> can be codified so that others can recognise it. But it can never be
> transfered.
I find this tremendously scary. First ALL societies rely to a great degree
on codification in law, and many of those lays relate to what is
considered humane conduct. Second, the "codes" if you will have a profound
effect on transfering the norms of the society with respect to humane
conduct. I'll stretch the notion of humane conduct to include avoiding
conduct that is dangerous or damaging to others. And quite frankly, I
don't give a hot damn if the drunk person who CHOOSES NOT to drive and
kill someone, makes that choice because it "emerged" from inside, or to
avoid the consequences of being caught in a "code" violation. Third, a
number of "inhumane behaviors" have been significantly reduced through
codification (drunk driving, sexual harrassment, and so on).
If we are to believe that codification is not part of transfering (or
creating norms for humane treatment, then we'd have to turf out every
major religion, crack the tablet with the ten commandments, etc.
> Codifying humane conduct so as to transfer it is a foolish
> practice which dehumanise people.
Are the ten commandments dehumanizing?
The Bible
The Torah
Laws against murder?
> Hence the worst bluff is to use a code
> of conduct to signal one's own humane conduct. The authenticiy of humane
> conduct is in its doing and not its codifying.
Most of us have heard the expression "walk the talk". That has
TWO parts. Walking (DOING) and talking (codifying).
Why is that do you think?
Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.