In his address upon receiving the honor, he surveyed the world situation and commented:"The development of panetics is one of many signs of hope, one which I feel is directly connected with Albert Schweitzer's reverence for life"…He went on to describe "the integrated study of the infliction of avoidable suffering, individually and institutionally... the measurement, the quantification of suffering inflicted. Its ultimate aim is the minimizing of this arbitrary suffering." As to the progress so far, "The International Society for Panetics, which publishes an impressive journal, has aroused the attention and participation of distinguished academicians, so that a reasonable body of relevant literature is growing fast. This includes articles in professional and public publications, courses, and graduate theses.

"I felt I had to draw attention to this serious and practical, integral concern with Reverence for Life," he concluded, adding "It might be of interest to Chapman University and its Albert Schweitzer Institute. It might even lead to another Ph.D. thesis right on this campus."

Most efforts to assess the consequences of corruption attempt to gauge the damage in terms of the economic cost or "tax" it imposes on the society. Comparatively little attention has focused upon the behavioral consequences—in particular, the "petty" corruption to which high level corruption induces a major part of the population to resort in order to survive financially. When engaged in by millions of people every day, such acts are far from "petty" in their consequences. Many of the "inflicted" become "inflictors" and the vast majority suffer from round after round of additional suffering as a direct result.

Can we use Panetic Analysis to help find ways to untangle this web of corruption?

In April 1997, a limited experiment was undertaken in the Republic of Georgia, a former constituent republic of the Soviet Union, to help explore possible answers to these questions. Despite its short duration and tentative nature, the experiment demonstrated just how challenging it will be to develop panetic analyses of highly complex national and international systems.

In that article, Regan argues the following:"A kind person acts from a certain kind of motive-compassion or concern, for example. And that is a virtue. But there is no guarantee that a kind act is a right act. If I am a generous racist, for example, I will be inclined to act kindly towards members of my own race, favoring their interests above those of others. My kindness would be real and, so far as it goes, good.

"But I trust it is too obvious to require argument that my kind acts may not be above moral reproach– may, in fact, be positively wrong because rooted in injustice. So kindness, notwithstanding its status as a virtue to be encouraged, simply will not carry the weight of a theory of right action."

Amerson provides a philosophical critique of Regan's assertion. He concludes: "All moral agents who are capable of understanding their own right to a life free from humanly inflicted suffering also understand that they have a duty to alleviate the human suffering of others who make claims against us. At all times, each moral agent must follow the principle of Least Inflicted Suffering. Since this obligation arises in all cases of suffering, the duty is universal and is sufficient to meet Regan's complaint that the duty to be kind is not complete and therefore inadequate as a foundation for a theory of right action."

Is there something about the way people get educated in our culture (or in other cultures for that matter) that overlooks an important component of self-knowledge which, if made explicit, would change the outcome for the better?

Are there other things about education that exacerbate the likelihood of suffering? Are some people educated to be its victims? And finally how do all these issues affect us, the majority we let off the hook at the beginning as not being part of the problem—do we after all need to take another look at ourselves?

He suggests a three-part approach to education to address some of these issues.

Written in 1992, the author applies a hypothetical panetic analysis to a political decision by Vice President Dan Quayle. As chairman of the Committee on Competitiveness, Quayle conceded a stretch-out to the aircraft industry in the time a law on engine noise abatement was to take effect. The author argues that in decisions of this sort little account is taken of the suffering the general population might experience as a consequence of a decuision to benefit one sector.

Tyler recounts numerous first hand experiences with the "tunnel vision" that results from a narrow view of life and society and the inflictions of suffering that ensue as a consequence. He concludes that ISP should begin a series of seminars or symposia aimed at this limitation in all of us.

In many ways, this concept is akin to The Great Books seminars and to the Aspen seminars. One difference: the enterprise would revolve around the fundamental mission of the ISP--making life a bit less painful for homo sapiens.

This article was adapted by Dr. Gruen from his book "Der Fremde in Uns" translated by Hildegarde and Hunter Hannum.

We must proceed from the assumption that all those who grow up in our culture have experienced a certain degree of alienation from their inner self. It can therefore happen to all of us that we sometimes disown our own nature/our true nature.Genocide, torture, the daily demeaning of children by their parents -- all these examples of violence and hatred have one thing in common: the feeling of aversion toward the other, the "foreigner." The victimizers classify themselves as "human beings" but deny their victims this designation. "The other" is degraded to a nonhuman status. found in childhood. This could not be more clearly formulated than in Hitler’s words addressed to the National Socialist Women’s Organization in 1934, "Every child is a battle" (Chamberlain, 1997).

In 1997, President Eduard Shevardnadze of the Republic of Georgia announced that would be the year he would do something about corruption in his country. {See a description of tghis problem under "Ethics and Values" or "Government and Politics" on this site.} Alas nothing came of that promise.

In 1999, Mr. Shevardnadze was reelected, but the economy has declined since 1997 and corruption is still rampant. The people of Georgia have grown cynical about their government and their President. Some even say that "we have no President." Much of the high level of corruption in the country they attribute to the "family" of the President himself. He is now considered part of the problem rather than part of the solution by the populace at large.

Just as Dr. Glenn Geelhoed has suggested that the experience of pain is integral to a healthy life, so this article by Dr. Nechayev suggests that there is a constructive as well as destructive side to conflict. Indeed, without conflict, our lives would not be whole. What follows is a summary of a paper prepared by Dr. Nechayev for a collection of papers by himself and students in the Department of Psychology at Samara State University entitled "On the Way Toward Applied Psychology: Multi-Disciplinary Research" published by the Samara State University Press in 1999. We thank Guinaz Sharafutdinova and Dr. Irene Siu for the translation from which this summary has been drawn.]

David Jones is a British Chartered Public Finance Accountant and a Chartered Certified Accountant formerly with the World Bank and now an international consultant helping nations in transition to set up transparewnt and accountable financial systems.

He wrote this first "That's Not Right!" essay in response to a fine levied against the firm of Arthur Andersen. It is especially fitting that this should be the first such "That's Not Right!" essay since it was David who first proposed that this become a regular feature of the Panetics journal.