On Spigelman’s ‘Address To The Annual Opening Of Law Term Dinner Of The Law Society Of New South Wales’

“In the Western tradition, civility has long been accepted as a public virtue manifest in signs of respect to strangers in language, etiquette and in tempering the assertion of self-interest.

This public virtue assumes that there are broadly accepted rules for conduct: a system of public morality reflecting the core values of our society, particularly the respect for the freedom and personal autonomy of others …

There does, however, appear to be a growing concern with personal conduct in many areas of discourse: the emergence of road-rage; the behaviour of parents at school sporting events, referred to as the “ugly parent syndrome”; the prevalence of offensive language in many spheres of social interaction and popular culture; the sensationalism of a media driven by declining circulations and audiences; the indifference to the tranquillity of others by the infliction of noise, whether from boorish conduct or mobile phones; the vulgarity and rudeness of reality TV shows; the selfishness of littering; the virtual disappearance in common discourse of words such as “please”, “thank you” and “sorry”.

Criminal behaviour is not the only form of conduct to which a zero tolerance response may be appropriate.

In a complex society such as ours relationships of civility, tolerance and trust cannot be established or maintained only on the basis of interpersonal relationships. They must be institutionalised.”

The above extract is from an address made, on the 30th of January, by the Chief Justice of New South Wales. The ‘concern’ regarding the decline in ‘personal conduct’ has been picked up in the media, with a web-poll claiming a majority of respondents agreed that Australia is a “ruder, more vulgar society than 20 years ago”.

The questions I find myself asking is what constitutes ‘public virtue’, and whether it has the place that has been claimed for it?