Ethics Part III.2 – But where did this moral degeneration come from?

“Life is filled with grey areas. Our principles, however, must always be black and white. Let’s apply black and white principles to the grey areas. We’ll be in trouble if we apply grey principles to grey areas.” My young brother uttered these words during one of our discussions and they were immediately etched in my mind. I often remember this quote when I think about the intended victims of oppressive systems mentioned in the previous article .

In that article, I appealed to all of us, especially the beneficiaries of the unfair systems to cultivate self-awareness. But does this self-awareness stop with the beneficiaries of the systems?

Before I answer this question, I’ll go back to the lessons learned from the Supervisor, published in Part II of this series. He advised intended victims to – “check [their] resentment.” Unchecked resentment, he says, will turn victims into even more vicious perpetrators of unfairness and injustice.

In Part II, I detailed how I remembered this lesson and applied it in my own life.  However, does it apply on a bigger scale? Does it apply in ways that lead victims to becoming even more vicious perpetrators of moral degeneration? Are there any grey areas that require black and white principles?

To demonstrate how important and credible this lesson is on a bigger scale, I will use one sensitive phenomenon. With this example I hope to clearly get the message across about the grave dangers (plural) of former victims’ unchecked resentment. I will then build up on this example.

From victims to perpetrators

It happens every year, especially in January when schools re-open in South Africa. The advent of social media has amplified it. Huge numbers of sad, desperate, despondent, defeated – mostly black women, young and old posting heart-breaking stories of how black fathers aren’t paying maintenance for the kids the two brought into this world. He is financially able, middle class, drives expensive cars. He goes to the best restaurants. He drinks expensive alcohol. He wears imported brands. He just won’t pay maintenance for his own children. It’s a strange phenomenon!

The posts are heart-breaking. The messages differ but the acute desperation and heartbreak remains. They start with a statement akin to, “I wouldn’t ask, you know I’d never ask. Our children / child need(s) money for uniform and school fees for just one term. I have done everything possible, and finally I have decided to ask you.”

The responses from the other parent are usually dismissive, downright cruel or sarcastic.  The money for the children / child’s basic need for education, food, medical care, and shelter never materialises. He intentionally and deliberately chooses to continue disinvesting in the capacity and capability of his children and would rather heavily invest in expensive consumable, perishable products. The mind boggles!

Why is this example important? To answer we need to rewind to South Africa’s history towards its black citizens and talk about apartheid.

The history of Apartheid (“Apartness”)

For many years, the majority of South Africans were the “intended victims” of the most unethical, violent, immoral and wicked system – apartheid. Until today, millions of these victims live with the dire consequences envisioned and executed by system’s strategists, designers and architects – The Takers.

The system was designed to take the country’s resources from the intended victims and give them to the Takers and secondary beneficiaries. The most severely affected intended victims – black South Africans – were to receive the crumbs of the resources and benefits. Mostly just to keep them above the destitution line. For the purposes of this article and for young people, I try and simplify the system’s workings. There is, however, a wealth of information available to understand the deep workings of this system.

From well documented evidence, my own lived personal experiences and observing the experiences of fellow victims, the strategy was very simple:

Aggressively disinvest in the intended victims’ capacity and capabilities. Infuse them with a sense of perpetual self-doubt. Preclude them from growing, developing, and earning. Contain them as much as possible in designated areas, within the country, so that they will forever believe that the sole purpose of their existence was to serve the Takers as lowly paid labourers.

This disinvestment took many forms, such as:

• An education system, called Bantu Education, designed to prepare black people for lives as lowly paid labourers. It is documented that the government of the times spent ten times more per white child on education than it did towards a black child.
• Segregation laws that meant black people mostly remained in designated grossly underdeveloped and under-serviced areas – villages and townships.
• Laws passed to manage daily lives of black citizens, which grossly impeded movement within South Africa and internationally. The result would be that black children would forever remain in the designated areas, uninformed, primitive and ignorant.
• Under-funded, overpopulated health care facilities for the black population.

I am sure you’re asking yourself – what’s this got to do with ethics in the profession? How does it link to the lessons learned from the Supervisor and the lessons learned on ethics?

Ethics and resentment

Over the years, as I realised how prevalent the above issue was, my CA training kicked in. I am, after all, trained to objectively look at systems, get to root causes and find solutions to fundamental questions. So, I was curious.

How could people who had first-hand experience and were former victims of an unethical system not want better for their children when they are finally able to provide a better life for them?

Over seven years or so I’ve analysed comments from posts on social media platforms. Also, I have a similar experience. This gave me access to various experts – family, education and law. I’ve come to have a sample of some of the conversations, reasons given by these middle class, financially able, parents. These are some of the prevailing responses:

• On why they are not bothered with the quality of education their children will get:  I received Bantu Education and my Mother paid ZAR 50 for the whole year, and look at me, I turned out fine. Why should these kids be in a private school?
• On refusing to co-sign travel documents for their children’s international trips. Trips they weren’t even going to contribute to – After all, they were already not paying basic maintenance. There were experiences where the law, acting in the best interest of the child, would force them to sign the documents. But these parents would then go to the airport to try and revoke their consent. The nerve! They would reason: “I don’t care, I never travelled growing up, and I turned out fine. These kids won’t miss out on anything. I only started travelling internationally in my 30s with my own money, having worked hard already.”
• On their children, not being able to afford transport to school: “We used to walk ten / twenty kilometres to school every day, nothing happened to us. They will be fine.”
• On their children not being able to afford reliable and safe health care – I went to public hospitals. Sure, the hospitals were overcrowded, and I stood in line with my mother for hours before we got help.  But I turned out fine.

If you were an objective observer, analysing these responses, what would you say the key driver of this neglect is? Wouldn’t you conclude that these are deeply resentful people?

The people who were first-hand victims of apartheid brand the architects as unethical and immoral. Rightly so. The architects designed a system which actively precluded a large portion of the population in various ways. It didn’t allow them to grow, self-actualise, learn and earn a decent living. But how would you rate the conduct of the people who were first-hand victims of such a system towards their own offspring? Precluding their own offspring from growing, self-actualising, learning and significantly impairing their future earning capacity? Wouldn’t you say their conduct is unethical and immoral? Wouldn’t it be worse than that of the architects of apartheid?

We use abstract words for these parents such as, deadbeat parents. We make excuses. These parents are in the minority, we say. We know deep down, however, that this is not the prevailing narrative. We do it to feel comfortable with ourselves. We do it because we don’t want to face the truth. We pretend not to see.

The ugly truth is – being former intended victims of a highly unethical system, we have raised millions of black people who are resentful, more vicious, but are keen students and imitators of an oppressive system. They seem to have taken over from the original architects and are actively perpetuating the principles of that system.

Do women fall into the same trap? Yes. Here’s why:

• They’re the intended victims of oppressive systems because of their gender. But what happens when some women make it? Some are resentful, vicious, precluding the learning, growing and earning capacity of other women. So prevalent is the phenomenon that it has a syndrome named after it – the Queen Bee Syndrome.
• They’re victims because of race. And yet when they’re corporate leaders and executives, some are resentful, vicious, soul crushing. They preclude people of the same race and gender from learning, developing and growing. Why should they have it easy? As the first / only / youngest executive of whatever race, I worked so hard to get here, and they think they will just waltz in? They ask.

With this in mind let’s return to moral degeneration.

Where did this moral degeneration come from?

I feel that moral degeneration originates from the unfair systems. However due to the unethical base and immorality of these systems, these systems get challenged and questioned and therefore their longevity threatened. Sometimes the system is overthrown. Then, the former intended victims, take over. They’re resentful. They prop up, sustain and anchor the strategy formulated by the Takers. For the Takers, the systems work as intended, longevity is restored. The system has a new face, but functions exactly as intended.

Former intended victims – Be vigilant, watch your resentment

In conclusion, I want to appeal to former intended victims of the unfair systems by using the quote at the beginning of this article. As a former victim, you will navigate a lot of grey areas.

Be vigilant, your principles should be black and white on the dangers of your resentment. If there seems to be grey areas, apply black and white principles in those grey areas. The principles adopted by the Takers don’t suddenly become ethical and moral just because they’re now applied by former victims. Reversing the moral degeneration of these systems requires active effort and vigilance.

As a child, there was a saying that, ‘remember as you point fingers at other people (rightly so), the other three fingers are also pointing at you.’ So, before we look at outside forces to reverse the impact of these unfair systems and bring about change and transformation, we also need to start with the “man in the mirror.” We need to transform.  

In the previous article I also appealed to the beneficiaries to be self-aware. I appealed to them to be generous, just and fair.

But, is this the only motivation they need? Maybe not, but it’s a start. Regarding our profession, we need to undergo the same self-examination to deal with the issues around ethics or we will always give vague and abstract answers about moral degeneration. Or is it possible that we ask the same people, mainly takers and secondary beneficiaries, to address our ethics challenges in the profession? Is it time to have a different view, one that might offer solutions for the future? Perhaps young CAs? The next article will talk to young CAs about the dangers of pretending not to see.