The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The end justifies the means - but not only for whales > Comments

The end justifies the means - but not only for whales : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 18/1/2006

Mirko Bagaric argues we should be grateful to Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd for lifting us from a moral fog.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Mirko states "Ostensibly harmful acts are permissible if they are for the greater good". That proposition on the surface somewhat defends itself. On the other hand I feel the basis of such argument rests on the fact that X IS therefore Y OUGHT to occur. The philosopher Hume(born 1711)denounced the change from is to ought in moral systems. His argument that normative rules should not be derived from empirical facts is still sound. For example Spencer's Social Darwinism would argue that because patient A IS sick and frail they OUGHT to be allowed to die (a premise of is with a deplorable use of ought in it's conclusion). Mirko your argument also rests on the conversion of IS to ought and as such is not sound and in this case immoral.
Posted by Coraliz, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 8:59:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko Bagaric identifies Paul Watson and Greenpeace as "agitators" as the late Lionel Murphy once did in an important judgement. Protests regarding japanese whaling have been a feature for a long time and in the face of inaction from apathetic governments and authorities as well as self interest and timidity it is little wonder that they simply increase the vigour of their protests. A little look back over human history and you will find that many important social, religious, political and economic changes have come about only because interested people began to agitate for these changes. We still need agitators for if we were to become a race of apathetic souls not much would ever change.

Comparisons with Hitler seem a little unfair as the protestors aren't exactly rounding up the sailors in Gestapo fashion and shooting them.
Posted by crocodile, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 9:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, the end does not justify the means.....The actions of Greenpeace do not in any way constitute the end.They are actions intended to draw world attention to this flagrant, deceitful acts of cruelty to living mammals by the Japanese whose appetite for whalemeat is the motive force. Greenpeace are doing what our own Navy should be doing; Policing the Southern Ocean. They have done precicely that in regard to the 'illegal' harvesting of Patagonian Tooth Fish, they continue to arrest Indonesian Fishermen for fishing in 'our' territory why not protect the Whales that constitute a growing Tourist attraction along Australian Coasts ?
Greenpeace actions are confrontational and could be endangering their own lives but I applaud them for being active and continually exposing the hypocrisy of Governments who don't want to get offside with a major trading partner.
But no ,the end of the issue is nowhere in sight without firm, positive actions by the Australian Government supported by the world environment movement
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 10:19:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The shorter Mirko Bagaric:
It's OK to prevent whales from being slaughtered, and therefore it's OK to torture people, even the occasional innocent.

See: http://tinyurl.com/bbb28
Posted by Amanda, Thursday, 19 January 2006 4:16:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirco Bagaric should be congratulated for his perspicacity in pointing out that Greenpeace has violated two of it’s most fundamental guiding principles. It’s a bit rich for an organisation which never tires of wagging the finger at any state which does not keep to international agreements, to violate the Law of the Sea itself by engaging in a little eco terrorism.

Furthermore, if Greenpeace is passionate about world peace then it is hardly setting an example of non violence by resorting to violence themselves.

Evangelical “social progressives” are notorious for always presenting the morality of their crusading social causes as moral absolutes, to which shades of grey can not exist. But here they are defending their sacred whales using tactics which demonstrate that they have suddenly realised that upholding inviolate moral values can be a bit of an inconvenience.

As an anti Greenpeace activist, I would like to thank Greenpeace for giving me all the ammunition I need to point out their hypocracy when they once again pretend to be paragons of virtue. This of course, was entirely predictable. Pretending that you are a saint who is above reproach is a pose that nobody can keep up forever.

Perhaps we now might se a bit of maturity in the Greenpeace leadership, now that they are faced with a moral quandary? They could start by considering the propostion that Westerners have no more right to insist that Japanes do not eat whale meat, than Muslims or Hindu's have to insist that Westerners do not eat pigs or cows.
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 19 January 2006 7:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are misreading this column, redneck. Bargaric is agreeing with the premise that the end justifies the means, and believes that applies to the use of torture also.

"No action is intrinsically bad or good. No principle is absolute." Whatever it takes to acheive your goal, in other words. And apparently a society that abhors torture is not one of those goals, is it Mr Bagaric?
Posted by Amanda, Thursday, 19 January 2006 8:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy