Greg Crawford wrote:
I'm not sure I agree. The corporate world a) doesn't claim the moral high ground, and b) doesn't believe in their god-given duty to care for others. So even if their moral responsibility is no less, their failure to take issue on social justice matters is surely far less hypocritical.
One of the points made by a journalist was that the corporate sector employ public relations officers in far greater numbers than any newspaper employs journalists to present their company in a good moral light. Further, they attempt to intimidate any journalist who is critical of their moral behaviour with threats of legal action. This strongly suggests that an appearance of high moral ground is important to them, probably because of consumer reaction.
An appearance of moral rectitude is important to them for the sake of public opinion, yes, but that's not the same as claiming the moral high ground. Claiming the moral high ground is about asserting that they hold the basis on which morals are built. Businesses don't do that, churches do.
(And while we're on the subject of PROs, both the Anglican and Catholic churches in Australia have spent more money on public relations firms than they have on clergy abuse victim payouts, and both have also threatened legal action to people who speak out against them. So businesses and churches are quits on that, except that if churches were acting morally they shouldn't need spin doctors to convince the public! But that's a whole other argument)
Additionally, I don't think it's good practice for *any* organisation to seek to avoid blame by blaming some other organisation, and that goes for the churches too.
But that wasn't the issue on this show, which was concerned with the behaviour of the corporate sector. It was rather that the corporate sector was trying to avoid any criticism by attacking the critic, rather than defending their own behaviour. Harry's retort put the focus right back on them. Of course, it is a typical strategy for individuals whose behaviour is under scrutiny to attempt to deflect that criticism by changing the focus to someone else's behaviour. Harry's retort foiled that game.
That's *exactly* my point. The business cast blame on the church, and the church blamed back. That said, I know and like Harry, and would normally be supportive of his approach. I just don't think this time he was as wise in his retort as you do, that's all.
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
