Menanteau Serfontein

Menanteau Serfontein – 1 April 2022

Definition of Entitlement

In the context of this essay, “entitlement” is the belief that you are inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment without having to earn it.

General Observations

Countries and societies with an effective free-market system, provide great opportunities for individuals to earn an income by finding a job or to do well financially through entrepreneurship (starting your own business big or small), hard work, sacrifice, risk taking and perseverance.

A few decades ago, there was a common understanding and acceptance in many societies that everyone should take personal responsibility for their lives and for earning an appropriate income to sustain their chosen lifestyle. If your income was insufficient to sustain your lifestyle, then you had to curtail your expenses to ensure that you don’t spend more than you earn.

This principle still applies today, however there is a worrying evolving growth of an “entitlement mentality” in many parts of the world. The entitlement mentality rejects the principle of taking personal responsibility for your life, including your standard of living. People with this mindset believe that “you owe me”.  The “you” could be your parents, the government, people who you believe discriminated against you in the past (and which you might believe still do), etc.

Examples of an Entitlement Mentality – “You Owe Me”

• Rather remain unemployed than taking a job that you regard as “below your station” or not luxurious enough, e.g. unhappy with the nature of the work or the rate of pay. Able to provide for themselves, but choose not to.
• Has no shame in continuing to receive welfare benefits, even though they could find a job or start their own business if they wanted to.
• Staying with parents as an adult without paying rent, even though they are earning an income.
• Staying with parents with free board and lodging. They don’t work and do not make much effort to find a job or start their own business. They see this as a “right” (entitlement) and are not ashamed of it. These people grew up with the notion that it is their right “to be given much for little”.
• An expectation to be appointed to a position based on things like ethnicity, patronage and connections, instead of merit, i.e. their competence, proven track record of relevant experience and high level job performance.
• They squandered their income during their lifetime without making adequate provision for old age and then expect the government or others to provide for them when they exit the labour market.
• Children who demand their share of their inheritance before their parents have died, or children squabbling about the way in which the inheritance should be divided after the death of their parents. In other words, children are fighting over something that they have not worked for and that does not belong to them – their parents could just as well have spent all their savings during their lifetime. Inheritance should be seen as a privilege, not a right.
• Expecting to be admitted to a given course of study at university, e.g. medicine not based on merit such as academic results, but on preference based on things like ethnicity.
• Refugees who erroneously regard it as their right to be admitted into another country and once they are inside (as a result of the good-heartedness of the leaders of the country), they start demanding all sorts of things, instead of being grateful.
• Businesses or individuals demanding to be given contracts to provide services or goods to government or another business based on things like ethnicity and connections, instead of objective criteria such as price, quality, service and reliability.
• Parents of big families demanding special assistance to care for their children based on the fact that they have many kids – they should take personal responsibility for the fact that they have a big family.
• Some people keep blaming historical events for their current plight, decades after the events occurred. At some stage, people should realise that to keep putting the blame elsewhere rather than taking personal responsibility and doing something for themselves, do not render results. If you can’t find a job, then start your own business, or do odd jobs, but don’t just sit there with self-pity and a “poor me” attitude, expecting others to provide for you.

Dangers of an Entitlement Mentality

The danger of the entitlement mentality for parents, children and countries, is that it incentivizes dependency, laziness and an erroneous perception that “others are responsible for providing for me”. Parents who take care of their adult children end up suffering financially and are in fact doing a disservice to their children who grow up believing that it is the duty of parents to look after them and to fund their lifestyle.

The “you owe me” approach cultivates an entitlement mentality resulting in adults not being prepared to assume personal responsibility, because they don’t know what it means and/or do not have the interest and motivation to accept responsibility.

The entitlement mentality is being encouraged in countries where a “cradle-to-grave” welfare system is in place and serves as a disincentive to take personal responsibility for finding a job, or starting their own business to provide for themselves and their family. They believe that the state has a duty to take care of them throughout life, which means that there is no incentive to get ahead and to make adequate provision for the future and for old age. Most of the countries with a “cradle-to-grave” welfare system, run the risk of their welfare obligations eventually resulting in bankrupting the country.

How to Address the Evolving Entitlement Mentality

I strongly believe that the entitlement mentality should be resisted as much as possible. A culture should be promoted that acknowledges the reality of life throughout the ages, i.e. no-one should expect anyone else to provide for you and your family, irrespective of your circumstances. The moment that the entitlement mentality is adopted, you simultaneously also assume a victim (poor me) mentality resulting in you always blaming others, your circumstances, historical events, etc, instead of taking personal responsibility.

It is recognised however, that there are many people who, with the best will in the world, are unable to genuinely compete and succeed in the free-market system as a result of their lack of ability, disabilities or their significant disadvantaged circumstances compared to others through no fault of their own. In those instances, there should be an appropriate “safety net” to ensure that such people are provided with the means to get access to the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. This however, should be the exception, not the norm, and such a system must be designed and administered carefully to avoid abuse and to ensure that laziness and a mentality of dependency and entitlement are disincentivized.

Conclusion

Parents have a duty to teach their children appropriate values and virtues, including the principle that everyone must take personal responsibility for their lives, coupled with the principles of hard work, sacrifice, willpower, grit, perseverance, follow-through and resilience. In addition, schools, universities, religious organisations, government and society in general, should teach and model the desired values and principles.

NOTE: Some of the content of this essay has been obtained from an article entitled “You Owe Me: Examining a Generation of Entitlement” by  Kate S. Rourke 2011, VOL. 3 NO. 01 http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/362/you-owe-me-examining-a-generation-of-entitlement

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Bi-Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added every second week. 

Menanteau Serfontein – 25 March 2022

Overview

Resilience is what gives people the psychological strength to cope with stress and hardship. It is the mental reservoir of strength that people are able to call on in times of need to carry them through, without falling apart. Psychologists believe that resilient individuals are better able to handle adversity and rebuild their lives after a struggle.

Dealing with change or loss is an inevitable part of life. At some point, everyone experiences varying degrees of setbacks. Some of these challenges might be relatively minor (not getting into a class you wanted to take, or being turned down for a promotion at work), while others are disastrous on a much larger scale (hurricanes, war, terrorist attacks).

How we deal with these problems can play a significant role, not only in the outcome, but also the long-term psychological consequences. The good news is that there are things you can do to become more resilient.

What Is Resilience?

People who remain calm in the face of disaster have what psychologists call resilience. Resilient people are able to utilize their skills and strengths to cope with and recover from problems and challenges. These problems may include, but are not limited to:

• Job loss
• Financial problems
• Illness
• Natural disasters
• Medical emergencies
• Divorce
• Death of a loved one

Instead of falling into despair or hiding from problems with unhealthy coping strategies, resilient people face life’s difficulties head-on.

This does not mean that they experience less distress, grief, or anxiety than other people do. It means that they use healthy coping skills to handle such difficulties in ways that foster strength and growth. In many cases, they may emerge even stronger than they were before.

Those who lack this resilience may instead become overwhelmed by such experiences. They may dwell on problems and use unhelpful coping mechanisms to deal with life’s challenges.

Disappointment or failure might drive them to unhealthy, destructive, or even dangerous behaviours. These individuals are slower to recover from setbacks and may experience more psychological distress as a result.

What Resilience Provides

Resilience does not eliminate stress or erase life’s difficulties. People who possess this quality don’t see life through rose-tinted lenses; they understand that setbacks happen and that sometimes, life is hard and painful. They still experience the negative emotions that come after a tragedy, but their mental outlook allows them to work through these emotions and recover.

Resilience gives people the strength to tackle problems head-on, overcome adversity, and move on with their lives.

Even in the face of events that seem utterly unimaginable, resilience allows people to marshal the strength to not just survive, but to prosper.

Who Is Resilient, and Why?

Some people acquire these abilities naturally, with personality traits that help them remain unflappable in the face of challenge. However, these behaviours are not just inborn traits found in a select few. Resilience is the result of a complex series of internal and external characteristics, including your genetics, physical fitness, mental health, and environment.

Social support is another critical variable that contributes to resilience. Mentally strong people tend to have the support of family and friends who help to bolster them in times of trouble.

Resilient people may also show characteristics like:

• Holding positive views of themselves and their abilities
• Possessing the capacity to make realistic plans and stick to them
• Having an internal locus of control, coupled with a willingness to take personal responsibility
• Being a good communicator
• Viewing themselves as fighters rather than victims
• Having high emotional intelligence (EQ) and managing emotions effectively

How to Build Resilience

Fortunately, resilience is something that you can build both in yourself and in your children. There are distinct steps that you can take to become more resilient:

1. Reframe Your Thoughts

Resilient people are able to look at negative situations realistically, but in a way that doesn’t centre on blame or brooding over what cannot be changed. Instead of viewing adversity as insurmountable, reframe your thoughts to look for small ways in which you can tackle the problem and make helpful changes where possible.

Focusing on the positive things that you can do can help get you out of a negative mindset.

You can also use this approach to help children learn how to cope better with challenges. Encourage them to think about challenges in more positive, hopeful ways. Instead of getting stuck in a loop of negative emotions, your child can learn to see these events as opportunities to challenge themselves and develop new skills.

2. Focus on What You Can Control

When faced with a crisis or problem, it can be easy to get overwhelmed by things that feel far beyond your control. Instead of wishing that there was some way you could go back in time or change things, try focusing only on the things that you can impact directly. Encourage your child to develop this skill by talking about their situation and helping them to plan how they can react.

Even when the situation seems dire, taking realistic steps can bring some improvement. No matter how small these steps may be, they can improve your or your child’s sense of control and resilience.

3. Manage Stress

Building healthy stress management habits is an effective way to increase your overall resilience. To learn more about this, read the article entitled “Managing Stress”.

4. Seek Support

Talking about the difficulties you are coping with doesn’t make them go away, but sharing with a supportive friend or loved one can make you feel that you have someone in your corner, which could help you to build your resilience. Discussing things with other people can also help you to gain insight or even get new ideas that might help you to improve the way you manage the challenges that you are facing.

To help your child develop a support network, try modelling good social skills, like sharing your feelings, being empathetic, cooperating with and helping others and expressing gratitude—and remember to reinforce your child’s good behaviour.

General Observation

With some practice, these skills can be learned and mastered by adults and children alike. Eventually, you or your child will feel prepared to face stressful situations and become resilient enough to bounce back quickly. If you need help to learn how to keep your stress levels under control, it is suggested that you consider consulting a councillor or a professional therapist such as a psychologist.

NOTE: Most of the content of this essay has been obtained from an article entitled “What is Resilience?” Authored by Kendra Cherry, Updated on April 24, 2021 and Medically Reviewed by David Susman, Phd https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-resilience-2795059

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week. 

Menanteau Serfontein – 4 March 2022

I grew up with the notion that loyalty is a good and important value to have. I was also taught that one should have respect for authority and position. To some extent loyalty and respect for authority and position go hand in hand.

I still believe that being loyal and having respect for authority and position is important, however I have discovered over the years that loyalty must have boundaries, because taken too far, “blind” loyalty coupled with respect for authority could lead to disastrous negative consequences.

Definition: Being “loyal” means being unswerving in allegiance, such as:

(a) faithful to a person to whom faithfulness is due, e.g. a loyal spouse.

(b) faithful in allegiance to one’s lawful sovereign (king/queen) or government

(c) faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, religion, or product.

(d) a loyal person is reliable and dependable and can be trusted

(e) Even when someone that you are loyal to, behaves inappropriately, you will still be there for him/her without condoning the inappropriate behaviour.

(f) True loyalty means “acting in the best interest” of the person or entity.

In a marriage, loyalty and faithfulness towards your spouse is of special importance in view of the covenant that couples make when they get married and the fact that ideally, marriage is forever (until death do us part). Spouses should have more love, grace, acceptance and forgiveness for one another than in any other relationship.

Loyalty and faithfulness towards your parents, children and grandchildren also have a special place. This does not mean that one should always condone the values, behaviour and lifestyle of a relative who is wayward and on the wrong path. I believe that it is possible to remain loyal even if there are values, behaviour and lifestyle issues that you cannot go along with – in such a case, you can make your concerns known in a loving and respectful way.

“Blind” loyalty to an individual, a country or religion often leads to fanatical acts of violence, dishonesty, corruption and other forms of unethical behaviour.

Loyalty to family or friends could lead to nepotism and cronyism in government and business.

Loyalty to leaders or co-workers in an organisation often lead to cover-ups of financial dishonesty, theft, unethical dealings and other forms of corruption.

Many people become so loyal that when they become aware of unethical practices, they turn a blind eye and keep quiet about it.

Loyalty in isolation has a dark side, which causes people to make bad decisions, e.g. when people partake in unethical practices as a result of their “duty to loyalty” and respect for authority.  

If your sense of loyalty is too extreme, you could end up remaining blindly loyal to an individual or entity, without seeing or admitting the mistakes, shortcomings, inappropriate/unethical values, decisions, actions, utterances, lifestyle, etc.  In extreme cases, the loyal person could:

• Defend the person or entity that he is loyal to
• Deny what the person has done or said
• Pretend that “it wasn’t that bad”
• Put the blame on someone else
• Deny the authenticity of the inappropriate things that the person has said or done.

In this way, someone who is inherently honest with a high degree of integrity could end up defending the indefensible.

In a worst-case scenario, extreme loyalty to a person and/or a position, could result in people becoming complicit in unethical acts such as dishonesty and corruption, because they are “unable” to allow their sense of integrity to trump their sense of loyalty. An example of this is where a well-respected, persuasive and strong-willed boss convinces his loyal subordinate to willingly carry out unethical and dishonest acts. If the subordinate’s sense of integrity and honesty was stronger than his sense of loyalty and respect for authority, he would have resisted and refused to succumb to the boss’s pressure tactics, irrespective of the consequences.

One of the key characteristics of totalitarian leaders and regimes is a demand for unwavering loyalty to the leader and to the goals and values of the regime. Dissent and opposing views are not tolerated, even if the disagreement is legitimate, e.g. in the case of unethical policies, flagrant injustices, etc. A good example of this phenomenon was Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany when a large percentage of the German population allowed themselves to blindly follow Hitler who demanded complete loyalty to him as a person, his cause, position and authority. His followers “worshipped” him and honoured him with “Heil Hitler!” which was an acclamation of the supremacy of Hitler.

However, authoritarian leadership styles exist in many settings today, where the same types of dynamics apply, e.g. in politics, government, business, educational institutions, etc. Although it is sometimes possible to disagree with the senior leaders in such cultures, it is extremely difficult to do so, resulting in followers rather telling the leader “what he wants to hear”. In these instances where loyalty is not voluntary, but demanded and expected, it is extremely difficult to go against the grain.

People with a strong inherent belief that loyalty is a good value, coupled with a strong belief (value) that authority should be respected, find it particularly difficult to disagree and oppose the unethical and inappropriate views, values, utterances, policies and behaviour of the organisation and its leaders.

Unless someone has a particularly strong sense of integrity (knowing what is “right” and “wrong”) coupled with courage, it becomes almost impossible to take a stand, especially when the person to be confronted is the boss or someone else in a senior executive position who has a powerful influence on your career and remuneration.

The above scenarios are not merely references to experience and observation. Empirical research has proved that loyalty can be a good thing, but at the same time, loyalty often plays a role in corruption. Corporate scandals, political machinations, and sports cheating highlight how loyalty’s pernicious nature manifests in collusion, conspiracy, cronyism, nepotism, and other forms of cheating. It has been found that blind loyalty to a group could cause members of the group to engage in evil unethical acts/behaviour.

In order to counter the risk of blind loyalty to the leader(s) of an organisation, the values of the organisation should be clearly spelt out to ensure that loyalty becomes a source for good, not evil. This means that the values should make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances should organisational goals be met “at any cost” – which means that meeting a goal must never involve any form of unethical behaviour. In addition, it should be stressed that any form of unethical behaviour must be reported, even when it involves the boss or any other person in a senior position.

If loyalty is promoted as a good value, then other values such as integrity and fairness should also be promoted simultaneously.

Conclusion:

From personal experience and observation, I have concluded that loyalty and respect for authority and position has its place, but should not be a virtue in isolation – it cannot be separated from integrity, honesty and other sound values that distinguish clearly between what is “right” and what is “wrong”. Without these undergirding values, loyalty in isolation can lead to disastrous consequences.  

Note: Some of the content of this essay such as the reference to research findings has been extracted from:

“Is Loyalty A Force For Good Or Evil?” by Michael Blanding https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2016/01/11/is-loyalty-a-force-for-good-or-evil-research-reveals-it-can-be-both/?sh=3d202b05415e

and

“Blind Loyalty?: How Group Loyalty Makes Us See Evil or Engage in It” By John Angus D. Hildreth, Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman – January 2016  https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=49694

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week.

Menanteau Serfontein – 18 February 2022

In a 1995 BBC opinion poll, “If“ by Rudyard Kipling was voted the United Kingdom’s favourite poem.

I have always liked the poem and I support the values, principles and virtues that are contained in it.

“If ” by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves (dishonest people) to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on”;

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Brief comments on the content of the poem:

“If”— is an inspirational poem that provides advice about the values and principles that one should live by. The poem provides various ways in which to rise above adversity that comes across everyone’s path.

The speaker of “If”— champions a morality built on moderation. In this poem, he advises his son to move through life with composure, and to always exercise self-control, integrity, and humility.

Even though the poem deals exclusively with “manhood”, I believe that the values and principles referred to in the poem, apply across the board to men as well as women.

No matter what happens, the speaker believes, it’s important that people keep their cool. He tells his son to “keep his head” even when everyone around him is losing their composure—not to respond with vitriol just because other people might “hate” him. Similarly, the speaker says that his son should calmly devote himself to rebuilding his life if it ever becomes a shambles, encouraging him to remain reasonable and diligent even when times are tough.

The speaker also insists that his son shouldn’t become smug about his own measured and virtuous way of navigating life: “Don’t look too good, nor talk too wise,” the speaker says, steering his son away from vanity (in the sense of merely wanting to look like a good guy) in favour of simple levelheadedness.

He warns against merely dreaming and thinking without action, i.e. the son should follow-up and follow-through with his dreams and thoughts.

The speaker sees “Triumph” and “Disaster” as equal imposters – triumph can go to one’s head and can easily cause a fall – disaster/defeat could cause doubt, fear and wanting to give up. Triumph and disaster should be treated equally – with humility and wisdom.

Composure and self-restraint, the speaker implies, make it possible to act with respect and dignity in all circumstances and to lead a respectable and virtuous life.

The poem also emphasises the idea that one should be resilient in the face of adversity. Those who neither succumb to vice nor vanity, are those who are capable of persevering through hardship – their “Will” always telling them to “Hold on!”

The idea, then, is that composure contributes to strength, integrity and respect: the speaker insists that his son will be “successful” if he practices self-discipline and self-restraint. These qualities will also turn the boy into a true “Man,” the speaker says, indicating that he thinks respectable men are defined by their ability to lead measured, dignified lives.

The son is told “if you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch”: in other words, he has to develop an inner security that makes him brave, centred, unflappable. Mingling with crowds or people in high places who have different views and morals, he should always remain true to his own values and beliefs.

The whole poem is structured around a set of goalposts, values, principles and standards of good behaviour that a boy should strive towards in order to become a “Man.”

Manhood, in this poem’s view, is its own reward, providing its possessors with an unshakeable sense of self.

The following articles which deal with some of the values and principles that are implied in the poem are contained on this website and are well worth reading:

• Self-control and Self-restraint
• “Who am I”? Knowing yourself and where you are going
• The Real Self vs the “Mask”
• The Man in the Glass – Poem by Peter Dale Wimbrow Sr.
• Integrity and Honesty
• Taking Personal Responsibility
• Respect, Honour and Dignity
• Humility vs the “BIG ME”
• Duty, Trustworthiness, Reliability, Dependability and Faithfulness
• Courage, Willpower, Perseverance and Follow-through
• The Need to Adhere to Traditional Universal (Absolute) Values and Principles
• Sacrifice Today for Something Better Tomorrow – Delayed Gratification
• Men Without Chests

NOTE: Some of the above comments were extracted from an analysis contained in LitCharts.  https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/rudyard-kipling/if#:~:text=The%20speaker%20of%20%22If%E2%80%94%22,bad%E2%80%94go%20to%20one’s%20head.

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week. 

Menanteau Serfontein – 11 February 2022

The citizens of most of the genuine democracies of the world, enjoy certain constitutionally enshrined freedoms and rights. Typical rights include, amongst others, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression (and speech), right to life, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, respect for your private and family life, freedom of thought, belief and religion and freedom of assembly and association. In most cases these rights and freedoms are not unlimited and not without boundaries and commensurate responsibilities.

Let’s look at the example of “freedom of expression” which gives you the right to hold your own beliefs and opinions and to express them freely (verbally and in writing). Although you have the right to freedom of expression, you also have a duty to behave responsibly and to respect other people’s rights. Public authorities may restrict this right (to freedom of expression) under certain circumstances, provided the restriction is necessary, lawful and proportionate.

A mandated authority has the right (and duty) to restrict your freedom of expression if, for example, you express views that encourage racial or religious hatred.

Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights states inter alia the following about Freedom of Expression: “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

It is a privilege to have rights of this nature that are constitutionally and/or legally protected. Compare this right to many authoritarian regimes where such rights do not exist and where the expression of opinions that deviate from what citizens are expected to believe, say and do, are ruthlessly suppressed.

Freedom of Expression

Regrettably, in some democracies, where liberal rights to freedom of expression exist, there is a growing number of instances of people exercising their rights inappropriately. Interactions seem to become increasingly polarised, not only in respect of moral and ethical issues, social justice and politics, but even with regard to normal daily issues of life. In many instances, restraint and decorum are abandoned and rights to freedom of expression are abused by using various platforms including speeches, interviews and various other media, especially social media, to maliciously bully, insult, humiliate, ridicule, defame, degrade, threaten and harm others in cruel, insensitive and inhumane ways that in many instances can be classified as a crime.

Sadly, there appears to be a growing trend where many people are dealing with others in ways that display a gross absence of respect and a lack of honouring the dignity of others. This happens not only amongst ordinary people, but also in business, sports and politics (to mention just a few), where people are openly referred to in humiliating and derogatory terms of the worst kind – the substance and merit of someone’s views on a given issue is underplayed and the individual is unfairly attacked and insulted as a person.

There is also a growing tendency to deliberately disseminate untruths, fake news and conspiracy theories about someone or something under the guise of freedom of expression which is unacceptable. (Read: “Conspiracy Theories and Fake News”).

Another noticeable trend is where an individual or an organisation aggressively promotes a particular viewpoint or cause (which they virtually regard as a virtue, even though it isn’t) in terms of their right to freedom of expression. However, if anyone dares to disagree with them, they would “label” the “offender” and do their utmost to besmirch the so-called offender’s name. Many of us are even aware of instances where people with an informed opinion on something based on objectively verifiable evidence, have received death threats, because their viewpoint contradicts the opinions of the person who issued the threat.

The reasons for these tendencies are complex. However, whatever the reasons might be to prompt someone to lower themselves to this level, I find it utterly unnecessary and unacceptable. Such behaviour does not belong in the modern era. We have advanced exponentially in terms of technology, but seem to have regressed to primeval/prehistoric times when it comes to the treatment of our fellow-men.

One of the possible factors that plays a role here could be the growing pre-occupation with “ME” and the erroneous impression that “the world revolves around ME”, because “I am so special”. Of course everyone is special in their own unique way, but don’t think that you are more special than the next person.

In my opinion, one of the core causes of this concerning state of affairs, is the fact that people in many societies no longer have a common/shared set of fundamental values, principles, norms and standards about morality and behaviour. In his Book “The Abolition of Man”, C.S. Lewis points out that certain traditional (universal) values (contained in what C.S. Lewis refers to as the “Tao”), have applied in various civilizations over the ages. Lewis rightly maintains that there are specific principles, standards of morality, values and a clear distinction between what is “good and bad” and “right and wrong”, that have universally existed across most religions, faith movements and societies. (Read: “Men Without Chests”.)

It appears that in various parts of the world, the extreme emphasis on individual liberties and rights is out of balance with the “common good” and the needs of society as a whole.  

I believe that a growing number of people either don’t know about the time-tested values, principles, norms and standards of traditional humanity, or perhaps they do know about such values and principles, but don’t agree with it.

Whatever the causes might be, I strongly believe that it is not necessary for us to accept the status quo. I believe that individuals and entities at all levels throughout society should be doing substantially more to inculcate sound values and principles across the board. This will help to ensure that people do not end up with world-class knowledge and skills about subject matter, but lacking the knowledge and skills to successfully manage their personal lives.

No wonder that so many brilliant academics, business people, sports stars, movie stars, etc who excel in their area of expertise, are stunted in their personal and spiritual lives, resulting in them often struggling to make the right ethical choices and applying appropriate wisdom in certain areas of their lives such as relationships, integrity, honesty, humility, self-control, finances, addictions,honouring commitments, taking personal responsibility, respect, honour and dignity, kindness, emotional intelligence (EQ), mental health, etc.

I agree with Theodore Roosevelt who said: “To educate a person in the mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”

All of us have a role to play to actively guard the essence and true meaning and purpose of the right to freedom of expression within the required boundaries/limits as well as the responsibilities associated with it.

I do realise that the ideal that is proposed here will be extremely difficult to achieve in a large society that is becoming increasingly diverse and heterogeneous, however the option of sitting back and doing nothing would be a dereliction of duty. 

It is suggested that you read the article on the Website entitled “Men Without Chests” which deals with the importance of educating people about time-tested values and principles.

You are also encouraged to read the article entitled “Respect, Honour and Dignity” which deals with the concern about the widespread disrespect and lack of dignity that exists in society and how to deal with it.

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week. 

Menanteau Serfontein – 4 February 2022

Please note that before this Essay is read, it would be beneficial to first read the Essay entitled “Things That Strengthen and Weaken Our Integrity – Small Choices Matter” – Part 1”. 

Dishonesty as a Social Contagion

In the process of exploring the nature and motivations for dishonesty, Dan Ariely, professor of psychology and behavioural economics and author, found himself wondering whether dishonesty might spread from person to person like a social contagion – an “immorality virus”. If people saw someone from their same social group cheating, would it make them more likely to cheat too?

What Ariely uncovered in his experiments, was the insidious social component of dishonesty and the way it can indeed spread like an infection. Ariely theorizes that “in many areas of life, we look to others to learn what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate.”

Ariely concluded that “dishonesty may very well be one of the cases where the social norms that define acceptable behaviour are not very clear, and the behaviour of others can shape our ideas about what’s right and wrong.” In other words, witnessing someone from our social group being dishonest, can potentially “recalibrate our internal moral compass.”

How to Inoculate Yourself Against the Virus of Moral Decay

Choose your friends and associates wisely. Every man likes to fancy himself as a completely independent lone wolf who is immune to peer pressure. Such autonomy may be a worthy ideal, but research on the subject has shown that – to one degree or another – we are all influenced by those with whom we are surrounded – they can even play a role in shifting the needle of our moral compass as well.

It is most definitely possible to spend your time with those who have far lower moral standards than you and still maintain your own. It’s just more difficult. Swimming upstream gets tiresome, and you run the risk of eventually being worn down and coming to accept the lower standards as your new normal. When you surround yourself with friends who share your high moral standards, however, staying on the straight and narrow becomes much easier.

Know and be firm in your personal moral code. While we all may be influenced by our friends to varying degrees, the firmer and clearer we are about our values, principles and standards, the less swayed we will be by the actions and examples of others.

Have you applied your mind and considered the following questions?

• Is your personal moral code vague and squishy, or is it crystal clear and set on a firm foundation?
• Have you taken the time to reflect on your values and principles?
• Do you know how and why you arrived at embracing them or are they unexamined beliefs that you have absorbed from your upbringing and culture?

Whether you are amongst like-minded people or far afield with those who do not share your values, your personal moral code will act as a constant source of direction so that you act as the same man wherever you go and with whomever you meet.

Stopping the Spread of Contagion in Society

Integrity is not simply a personal virtue, but a social one as well. In fact, there may be no other virtue in which an individual’s personal cultivation of it has such a large effect on society as a whole. The “social contagion theory” explains why.

When one individual decides to act in an unethical way, his example can influence someone else to do likewise, resulting in a domino effect that lowers the standards of an ever-widening group of people. Or as Dan Ariely puts it: “Passed from person to person, dishonesty has a slow, creeping, socially erosive effect. As the ‘virus’ mutates and spreads from one person to another, a new, less ethical code of conduct develops. And although it is subtle and gradual, the final outcome can be disastrous. This is the real cost of even minor instances of cheating and the reason we need to be more vigilant in our efforts to curb even small infractions.”

The virus of dishonesty is not an abstract idea. Think of the corruption that seems to run rampant in government as well as the private sector. It surely started with a few individuals who were willing to let things slide. Those around them saw that this was the new norm and began to adopt the same standards. When new guys came in, they adopted what had by then become the standard culture of the enterprise. Even the “doctors” who promise to come in and clean things up end up infected by the same disease they were supposed to cure. It doesn’t have to be on such a grand scale either.

Ariely further argues that the cheating and dishonesty of public figures has an outsized effect on the overall integrity level of society, as their odious examples get broadcasted to so many people.

What then can we do to throw a wrench in this cycle?

There seems to be an increased “blurring” of what is “right” vs “wrong” and “good” vs “bad” . It appears that the concept of Absolute Truths is no longer fashionable. Instead, relativism is gaining ground, i.e. everything is relative: “what is true for you is not true for me”. Everything is circumstantial – “I will do what is convenient, not what is right”.

I agree with C.S. Lewis (author, lay theologian and academic at both Oxford University and Cambridge University) who said a few decades ago, that the absence of absolute truths, would lead to the decay of morality and a lack of virtue within society. Without a belief in and the teaching of absolute truths inherent in the moral laws of traditional humanity, we fail to educate the heart and are left with intelligent men who behave upon impulse without restraint and filters, or as Lewis puts it, “Men without Chests”.

It could also be as a result of parents, educational institutions and even religious organizations not actively teaching children and adults about absolute truths – what it is, why it is important and how to apply it.

I believe that individuals and entities at all levels throughout society should be doing substantially more to inculcate sound values and principles. This will help to ensure that people do not end up with world-class knowledge and skills about subject matter, but lacking the knowledge and skills to successfully manage their personal lives within the boundaries of sound ethical and moral values and principles.

All of us have a responsibility to use our sphere of influence to persuade people to reject relativism and to embrace and inculcate timeless, absolute godly truths, values and principles in all spheres of society, so that we don’t become “men without chests”.       

We should publicize and champion stories of people who are doing the right thing. Ariely argues that giving good examples more attention is effective, because morality is contagious in the very same way that dishonesty is: “With more salient and vivid examples of commendable behaviour, we might be able to improve what society views as acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, and ultimately improve our actions.”

We’ve developed an attitude of “see no evil, hear no evil” — that we shouldn’t care what other people are doing and should look the other way, minding our own business. I agree that we should not be hyper-critical and judgemental, i.e. looking for the splinter in my brother’s eye without seeing the plank in my own eye. However, by taking the principle of non-judgementalism too far, we end up turning a blind eye to obvious gross instances of dishonesty and unethical behaviour whereby the spread of the “virus” of moral decay is fuelled even further. In fact, it could be argued that turning a blind eye could in some instances be regarded as aiding and abetting unethical behaviour and thereby playing a part in dishonesty becoming the new normal in society.

We’ve adopted a mindset of tolerance in the name of personal freedom and “non-judgementalism”. Yet the result has been the erection of liberty-reducing external controls in the form of rules and regulations designed to detect dishonesty in the absence of a culture of honour. Such rules and regulations may act as a last defense line of safeguards, but they aren’t truly effective; when people know that they aren’t being watched by others and have no fear of being called out and punished for their actions, they will try to game and take advantage of the system to the greatest extent possible, circumventing the rules whenever they can. Those who don’t cheat (yet) see this and worry that if they don’t start fudging things too, they will be left behind. Soon, more and more people feel that they should embrace a grey zone of morality to get ahead.

Conclusions

There is a popular viewpoint these days that ridicules the idea that one individual’s personal decisions and behaviour could possibly have an effect on the behaviour of others. But what the scientific research on the subject has established, is that each person’s actions have an ever-so-subtle ripple effect that influences others and the culture at large. We cannot see it with our eyes, or in real time, and of course no one is consciously aware of how these ripples are affecting them. No, it all happens at the level of the subconscious. This should surely give us reason to pause and cause us to reflect on our own behaviour. What signals are you and I sending out each day? Are you and I a person whose example is making the world better…or worse?

Note: A large amount of the content of this essay has been derived from an Article by Brett & Kate McKay • August 12, 2013 • Last updated: September 25, 2021 “What Strengthens and Weakens Our Integrity — Part III: How to Stop the Spread of Immorality” https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behaviour/what-strengthens-and-weakens-our-integrity-part-iii-how-to-stop-the-spread-of-the-immorality-virus/

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week.

Menanteau Serfontein – 28 January 2022

Please note that before this Essay is read, you should ideally first read the previous Essay (Part 1) entitled “Things That Strengthen and Weaken Our Integrity – Small Choices Matter” – Part 1

In this Essay (Part 2), we will explore one of the most salient factors that increases our ability to rationalize a dishonest act, and how we can combat this force in order to maintain our integrity.

The Psychological Distance Between the Deed and the Consequence

A key factor that significantly influences our ability to rationalize a dishonest act is the psychological distance between the act and its consequences. The more steps removed we are from how an immoral decision affects others and from having to think about the reality of what we’re doing, the easier it is to make the choice without feeling bad about it.

Research conducted by Israeli-American professor of psychology and behavioural economics and author, Dan Ariely found that many people wouldn’t think twice about taking a ream of paper from work, but wouldn’t dream of grabbing $3.50 from the office’s petty cash box, even though the value of the cash is roughly the same as the value of the paper.

How to Counteract the Psychological Distance and Strengthen Your Integrity

The greater the psychological distance between our dishonest actions and their consequences, the easier those actions become to rationalize as morally and ethically acceptable. And the more our ability to rationalize increases, the more our fudge factor margin widens. Thus, in order to strengthen and preserve our integrity, it’s important to remove the steps – if only in our minds – between our actions and the reality of what we’re doing and how it affects others.

Cultivating this awareness really comes down to cognitively stripping away the layers between something and its value or effect on other people, for example, if you’re about to take some printer ink from work, imagine yourself instead taking $30 from your boss’s desk drawer. If you can’t see yourself pilfering the cash, realize that swiping the ink is really no different.

The essence of integrity is that an action is wrong regardless of its magnitude – stealing ten dollars from a rich man isn’t more okay than stealing ten dollars from a poor man. It doesn’t matter that the former wouldn’t “feel” it like the latter. Stealing is stealing.

Conclusion

We should always remember that we’re all experts in creating rationalizations for dishonest behaviour when that behaviour serves our own interests. And the greater the distance there is between an immoral act and its consequences, the easier it becomes to generate these rationalizations.

Thus, living with integrity requires frank and sincere self-examination and self-awareness.

• What are your true motivations and intentions?
• What are the consequences of your actions and whom will they affect?
• Strengthening your mental game and building this kind of awareness isn’t easy. It involves tuning into that nagging voice in your mind, conscience and spirit that says, “Hold on a minute, this isn’t quite right”.

Winning the mental battle is the first step in being a person with impeccable integrity.

Note: A large amount of the content of this essay has been derived from an article by Brett & Kate McKay • August 7, 2013 • Last updated: September 25, 2021 “What Strengthens and Weakens Our Integrity – Part II: Closing the Gap Between Our Actions and Their Consequences” https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behavior/what-strengthens-and-weakens-our-integrity-part-ii-closing-the-gap-between-our-actions-and-their-consquences/

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week.

Menanteau Serfontein – 21 January 2022

This is Part 1 of a Two-Part Series about some of the practical challenges we face in maintaining our Integrity/Moral Principles.

Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that one consistently lives by, i.e. steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. 

A key part of Integrity is “doing what is right, even when no-one is watching” and is characterized by doing one’s duty, keeping one’s word, being upright, trustworthy, incorruptible, faithful and reliable. The Afrikaans author and poet, C.J. Langenhoven, said: “Doen wat reg is wanneer die regter weg is.” Directly translated it means: “Do what is right when the judge is away.” (Read: “Integrity and Honesty” and “Dedication to Truth – Tool/Technique 3 – M. Scott Peck”)

While the foundation of integrity is having a firm moral code of right and wrong, it can also be enormously helpful, even crucial, to understand the psychological and environmental factors that can tempt us to stray from that code.

• What’s at the root of our decision to sometimes compromise our moral principles?
• What kinds of things lead us to be less honest and what kinds of things help us to be more upright?
• What are some practical ways we can check our temptations to be immoral or unethical?
• How can we strengthen not only our own integrity, but the integrity of society as well?

Why Do We Compromise Our Integrity?

Every day we are faced with “little” decisions that reflect on the strength of our integrity.

• When tempted to engage in unethical behaviour, do you weigh up the possible advantages of the behaviour against the chances of getting caught and the resulting embarrassment and even the punishment that you might have to endure?
• If so, are you prepared to “take a chance” if you perceive that the reward (often financial, material and fame) are worth the risk?

I would like to believe that most people, when they conduct honest self-examination, prefer to feel good about their sense of integrity, however for psychological reasons people would sometimes rationalise their unethical behaviour by arguing that “it wasn’t that bad” or “everyone else is doing it”.

Through research, the Israeli-American professor of psychology and behavioural economics and author, Dan Ariely, discovered that people’s true motivations for cheating and being dishonest are not merely based on the basis of risk vs. reward, but that it is also greatly influenced by the degree to which the behaviour affects our ability to still see ourselves in a positive light. Ariely explains these two opposing drives:

On one hand, we want to view ourselves as honest, honourable people. We want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about ourselves (psychologists call this ego motivation). On the other hand, we want to benefit from cheating, e.g. in respect of money. Clearly, these two motivations are in conflict. How can we secure the benefits of cheating and at the same time still view ourselves as honest, wonderful people?

This is where our cognitive flexibility comes into play. Thanks to this human skill, as long as we cheat by only a little bit, we can benefit from cheating, and still view ourselves as marvellous human beings. This balancing act is the process of rationalization (explaining away), and it is the basis of what we’ll call the “fudge factor theory.”

The “fudge factor theory” explains how we decide where to draw the line between “okay,” and “not okay,” between decisions that make us feel guilty and those we find a way to confidently justify. The more we’re able to rationalize our decisions as morally acceptable, the wider this fudge factor margin becomes. And most of us are highly adept at it: ‘Everyone else is doing it’. ‘This just levels the playing field’. ‘They’re such a huge company that this won’t affect them at all’. ‘They don’t pay me enough anyway’. ‘He owes me this’. ‘She cheated on me once too’. ‘If I don’t, my future will be ruined’.

As professor Ariely puts it: “Essentially, we cheat up to the level that allows us to retain our self-image as reasonably honest individuals.”

The more you’re able to justify your immoral actions, the greyer the line between what you deem right and wrong gets, and the wider your “fudge factor margin” becomes, the more immoral behaviour you can commit without feeling guilty.

Where you draw the line and how wide you allow your “fudge factor margin” to become, is influenced by a variety of external and internal conditions, however the most important pitfall is “taking your first, however small, dishonest step”.

“Catch for us the foxes, the little foxes that ruin the vineyards, our vineyards that are in bloom.” (Song of Songs 2:15)

Have you ever watched as the gross corruption of a once admired public figure was revealed and wondered how he ever fell so far from grace?

In most cases, the celebrity concerned wasn’t involved in just one corrupt act – in fact, his journey to the dark side almost assuredly began with a seemingly small decision, something that appeared fairly inconsequential at the time, like fudging just a number or two on one of his accounts. But once the toes of his foot were in the door of dishonesty, his crimes very slowly got bigger and bigger.

Research findings have proved that a single decision can greatly alter the path we take and the strength of our integrity. By taking just a small first step down a dishonest path can set off a cycle of rationalization and further dishonest behaviour, which can lead you away from your values and principles and into more serious misdeeds.

When you make a mistake or a choice that’s out of line with your values, a gap opens up between your actual behaviour and your self-image as a good, honest, competent person. Because of this gap, you experience cognitive dissonance – which is a kind of mental anxiety or discomfort caused by having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes about behavioural decisions.

Since humans don’t like this feeling of discomfort, our brains quickly work to bridge the divide between how we acted and our positive self-image by rationalising (explaining away) the behaviour as really not so bad after all, e.g. a student who decided to cheat in an exam will soothe his conscience by telling himself things like, “I did know the answer, I just couldn’t think of it at the time,” or “Most of the other students cheated too,” or “The test wasn’t fair in the first place – the professor never said that subject was going to be covered.” He’ll find ways to frame his decision as no big deal.

A student who didn’t cheat in the exam and achieved a lower grade than the one who cheated, might still wonder whether he had made the right choice. Feeling uncertain about a decision can cause some dissonance too, so this student will also seek to buttress the confidence he feels in his choice by reflecting on the wrongness of cheating and how good it feels to have a clear conscience.

As each student reflects on and justifies his choice, his attitude about cheating and his self-perception will subtly change. The student who cheated will loosen his stance about when cheating is okay, and feel that there’s nothing wrong with being the kind of person who does it a little for a good reason; his ability to rationalize dishonest choices will go up and so will his fudge factor margin.

The student who maintained his integrity, will feel more strongly than before that cheating is never acceptable, and his ability to rationalize dishonesty will go down, along with his personal fudge factor margin as well.

To further decrease the ambiguity and increase the certainty each student feels about their divergent decisions, they will thereafter each make more choices in line with their respective new stances.

 A single decision is all it took to put them on very different paths. As we can see, taking just one dishonest step can begin “a process of entrapment—action, justification, further action—that increases our intensity and commitment, and may end up taking us far from our original intentions, values and principles.”

Ah, What the Hell?

A person who makes a series of dishonest decisions, will ultimately reach the “what-the-hell” point.

What professor Ariely found is that participants who just cheated here and there at the start of the experiment would eventually reach an “honesty threshold,” the point where they would think: “What the hell, as long as I’m a cheater, I might as well get the most out of it.” They would then begin cheating at nearly every opportunity. The first decision to cheat led to another, until their fudge factor margin stretched from a sliver into a yawning chasm, and concerns about integrity fell right off the cliff.

Conclusions

Once you commit one dishonest act, your moral standards loosen, your self-perception as an honest person gets a little hazier, your ability to rationalize goes up, and your fudge factor margin increases. Where you draw the line between ethical and unethical, honest and dishonest, moves outward.

From his research, Ariely has found that committing a dishonest act in one area of your life not only leads to more dishonesty in that one area, but ends up corrupting other areas of your life as well. “A single act of dishonesty,” he argues, “can change a person’s behaviour from that point onward.”

What this means is that if you want to maintain your integrity, the best thing you can do is to never take that first dishonest step. No matter how small and inconsequential a choice may seem at the time, it may start you down a path that tarnishes your moral compass, leads you to commit more serious misdeeds, and causes you to compromise your fundamental principles.

An important reality is that not everyone who makes one bad choice ends up morally depraved and utterly crooked. All of us have made bad choices/mistakes and most of us got back on track again. But why take the risk of decreasing your chances of turning yourself around once you start down an unethical road?  

The good news is that no matter where you are on the continuum of the “fudge factor margin”, we always have an opportunity to take responsibility, apologise, change direction and get back onto the right path. Also, from a Biblical perspective, the following scriptures apply:

“You will never succeed in life if you try to hide your sins. Confess them and give them up; then God will show mercy to you.” – Proverbs 28:13

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” – 1 John 1:9

Note: A large amount of the content of this Essay was derived from An Article entitled “What Strengthens and Weakens Our Integrity – Why Small Choices Count” by Brett & Kate McKay who are the Founders of “Art of Manliness” August 5, 2013 • Last updated: September 25, 2021   https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/behavior/what-strengthens-and-weakens-our-integrity-part-i-why-small-choices-count/

You are encouraged to Subscribe free of charge to receive our Weekly Digest which informs you of the new material that has been added for the week.