UAN CONSULTANCY SERVICES (PTY) LTD | YOUR EXCELLENT ACCOUNTANT

ETHICS, THE STATE, AND ACCOUNTANTS

Written By Nicolaas van Wyk, CEO of the Chartered Institute for Business Accountants (CIBA) NPC | Board Member at SACCI & ICFOA, MBA

We speak often, almost ritualistically, about the “ethical duties” of accountants. We speak of integrity, objectivity, professionalism. We speak of doing what is right.

But the older I get, and the deeper I move into economics, cycles of history, and the reality of power, the more I begin to question a foundational assumption buried in our profession: who gets to define what “right” actually is?

This question is not new. Aristotle held that ethics begins with truth and human flourishing, not with the state. The state, in his view, is a derivative of people, not the author of morality.

Recent events have forced this question back into the foreground for me. State capture, corrupt officials, endless commissions, and the ease with which “strong men” bend rules to suit themselves expose an uncomfortable reality: when power shifts, so too does the definition of what is deemed ethical.

It is in that context that I have begun to doubt whether the ethical framework we teach accountants is truly moral in a universal sense, or whether it is simply ethical by decree of the state.

Who gave the state the right to define what is ethical?

We speak about ethics as if it exists in a pure, universal form.

Yet in practice, most of what our profession calls “ethical” is simply what the state has chosen to legalise, reward, or enforce. We inherit our moral framework from government structures without ever examining its foundations.

This becomes especially clear when we look at taxation.

Before anyone gets uncomfortable with what follows, let me explain a simple truth recognised by economists, philosophers, and jurists for centuries:

• Almost every functioning state ultimately rests on a monopoly of force.

Not because the people are bad or society is violent.

But because no complex system can exist without a central power capable of enforcing rules.

Seen in this light, taxation is not “violence” in the physical sense.

It is violence in the technical sense: the use or threat of force by one party to compel an action by another.

Tax is the only area of society where one party (the state) may legally take from another party (the citizen) under threat of penalty or imprisonment. There is no negotiation. No equal footing. No consent in the contractual sense. It is an act backed by the state’s exclusive power to compel.

And yet, the accountant’s ethical duty is to help strengthen, organise, and administer the very mechanism through which this violence is executed.

We help people calculate, comply, and pay. And we call it “ethics”. Not because it is inherently moral, but simply because the state said so.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD THAT TROUBLES ME

Let me offer a practical example:

In South Africa, it is reported that many townships and informal economies have been captured by extortion groups, local mafias demanding “protection money” before a business may operate. Similar media reports have disclosed the construction mafia, and many others.

Everyone condemns this as unethical, violent, wrong.

But pause the emotion for a moment and compare the principle:

• A group claims territorial authority.
• They demand a mandatory payment.
• They enforce compliance with the threat of violence.

Morally, how is this different from a state enforcing tax collection?

The standard answer is predictable:

“Because the state needs the money to provide public goods.”

An answer that sounds noble, until we recognise what it really reveals:

Our moral distinction between the mafia and the state is not based on principle; it is based on who gets the money.

If the mafia’s activity deprives the state of tax revenue, we call it immoral. If the state deprives the citizen of revenue, we call it ethical.

This is the exact point that unsettles me.

Our profession’s moral architecture is anchored not in universal principles, but in state-approved ones. Ethics becomes a product of central authority, nothing more.

THE ACCOUNTANT’S PARADOX

Every accountant feels this tension at some point in their career:

We are trained to believe we stand for truth. For accuracy. For fairness. For integrity.

But we practise in a system where:

• Murder is immoral unless the state does it in a war.
• Surveillance is immoral unless the state authorises it for security.
• Taking property is immoral unless Parliament approves it as taxation.
• Monopolies are harmful unless the state grants itself a monopoly on force.

We live in a world where private coercion is evil, but public coercion is virtue.

And the accountant sits right at the centre of that contradiction.

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR OUR PROFESSION

The danger is this:

If ethics is defined only by the state, then ethics becomes nothing more than compliance. Mechanical. Narrow. Shallow.

But accountants do not serve the state. We serve society. We serve economic life itself. We serve the people trying to build something in the face of uncertainty and scarcity.

And therefore, the role of ethics in our profession must be rooted in something deeper than state instruction.

TOWARDS A NEW MORAL ANCHOR FOR ACCOUNTANTS

Here is where I arrive after many years of reflection:

1. Ethics must be grounded in human flourishing, not state revenue.

The question is not “Did the state receive its tax?” The question is “Does this action improve the economic and human wellbeing of the community?”

2. Coercion remains coercion, whether public or private.

We may accept taxation as part of modern civilisation. But we must never pretend it is voluntary or morally pure. Honesty about the nature of power is the first step towards real ethics.

3. The accountant is not a servant of the state.

The accountant is a steward of economic truth.

Our duty is not obedience. Our duty is clarity, transparency, and the protection of the individual, the business, and the economy from predation, whether that predation comes from gangs, corporations, or governments.

4. Real ethics begins where the law ends.

Compliance tells you what is legal. Ethics tells you what is right. And what is right cannot be outsourced to the State.

SO WHY DO ACCOUNTANTS STILL HELP PEOPLE PAY TAX?

Because civilisation still needs infrastructure, courts, police, health systems, and roads. We recognise the practical necessity, even if the moral framing is messy.

But we should do it eyes open, not under the illusion that taxation is inherently virtuous. It is a negotiated compromise between freedom and order, one that requires constant scrutiny, not blind loyalty.

MY CONCLUSION: ETHICS CANNOT REMAIN A STATE MONOPOLY

If ethics collapses into “whatever the state says”, then we have abandoned philosophy entirely.

We become technicians, not thinkers. Administrators, not moral agents. Rule-followers, not professionals.

A profession must be grounded in something deeper: human dignity, economic empowerment, and truth.

And perhaps, as accountants, our greatest ethical duty is to do what we have always done:

Follow the numbers and let the truth, not the authority, guide us.