The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21. 1937. COMMON HONESTY

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 22, 21 October 1937, Page 10

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21. 1937. COMMON HONESTY

A Wellington magistrate, Mr. Mosley, commenting on the number of sustenance frauds be had to deal with last Friday, w moved to conclude that “common honesty was not so well in this Dominion as one could have expected or hope! People see to think,” he added, “that the Unemployment Fund isthere to be robbed on every hand—robbed, I say, deliberately robbed. Ihis particular kind of dishonesty, of course, is the product of the system, and it thrives on its weaknesses. People are not born honest. Nor are they born dishones . Honesty is an inculcated virtue, inculcated by precept and example. An infant will help himself to everything within ’‘each, anddemonstrate with angry yells and tears his resentment at ben & P, of what he has seized. It is only through guidance and that he is taught to distinguished between what belongs to him a what belongs to other people. Thus he acquires a sense of property. He is also taught that he cannot be dishonest without being untruthful, because his only chance of escape from the consequences of a dishonest act is by successful lying. . , . . What Mr. Mosley means by common honesty is the eth.cai standard to which a community conforms without conscious effort. The standard seems to vary with times and conditions. When this country was much younger there was among the early pioneers an esbrit that was created largely by their own struggles and adversities, circumstances which drew them closer together in a community of ideals, conduct and service. They had to think not only of themselves, but of each other. A crime against their little community was more keenly felt as an offence against its individuals than it is to-day. Common honesty is a very comprehensive term. We usually associate dishonesty with offences against property, cheating in business, frauds on charities, and so on. But honesty is something more, than the antithesis of the kind of actions which when detected bring offenders before the courts. In the best sense it is an attribute of character which demands of those who would possess it the qualities of self-discipline and service, an acute sense of one’s personal obligations, and a determination to carry them out to the last letter. With this kind of honesty the word is as good as the bond. According to the degree to which it ennobles a community its standard of common honesty may be judged. „ .' , From this point of view the common honesty of the New Zealand community cannot be said to be very lofty. There is no doubt that the fibre of society as a whole has been weakened by the changes that have taken place throughout the civilised world since the war, by the growth of materialism, and by the softening effects of paternalism in government. Dishonesty in service is becoming increasingly prevalent. People do not pull their full weight on the job. That is one form of dishonesty. The idea seems to be to obtain as much as possible for as little as possible. That is another. The. glamour o wealth and material aspirations have sapped honesty in business dealings. Even contracts in writing have lost much of their force through misplaced sentiment. ■ Moral decadence in certain quarters shows that those who depart from ethical standards are not honest with themselves or with society. Their wrong-doing is a conscious and deliberate act, too often extenuated in their own consciences by the plea that many others are doing likewise. There is no other way of bringing our standard of common honesty to the level that was the pride of the Victorian age except by a process of moral introspection and systematic education of the young through ethical teaching. The pendulum has swung too far toward materialism, and there is a call now for a swing back to a point where human and ethical values will receive due recognition. The causes that make for the lowering of the standards of common honesty must be removed.