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 > Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial > Comments

Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/2/2007

There is no logical or normative basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A thought provoking article.

The difficulty is, even if I wholeheartedly adopted the author's view, what do I do about it? As he says, resources are finite. As an individual, the money, political power, etc which I can bring to bear on any issue are finite. The suffering in the world, however, is in effect infinite.

The logical outcome of this is that I must apply my finite resources to something less than ALL of the suffering. This in turn means I *must* select which sufferings I wish to try to bring my resources to bear upon. It is simply beyond my, our anyone's capacity to universalise our desire to help.

So, given that the choice is necessary, how does one make it? Some will want to support the poorest of the poor (my sponsored child is in Malawi so I guess I made this choice). Some will want to support those who have been the victims of the greatest unfairness. Some will want to support the most vulnerable. Some will want to support those who are not seen as morally blameworthy for their own suffering. Some will want to support those who share their own values. Some will want to support those closest to home. Some will want to support whatever has the most poignant TV ad. Some will want to bring resources to bear in areas where they themselves have values to protect (hence Hicks and habeas corpus). Some will choose based on values of nationalism.

All of these are valid ways for a philanthropic person to seek to do good. They are all valid ways to apply finite resources to a manageable portion of infinite suffering.

I would be genuinely interested to hear the author's view about what he considers to be the most ethically pure way of making this choice. I for one cannot work it out. If I have ten dollars, do I contribute to a starving child, an endangered species, aboriginal education, prostate cancer, HIV, universal literacy, rights for gay people, solar research or what? Which among these is self evidently most deserving?

Anthony
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 9:08:58 AM
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
This article seems to take a long time to come to the simple biblical truth that we are all selfish and sinful by nature. We as Australians are probably no more or no less selfish than those of any other nation. Many who have come from other nations demand that Australia help the place where they have come from. Of course they were not prepared to stay and help their own people. Better start looking for some good in people because their sure is plenty of evil if you focus to hard. Thank God for sending the selfless One who is able to change hearts and forgive sin.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 10:23:56 AM
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 has written about extremely important matters, important and vastly overwhelming. However, his thoughts come across as a moral "motherhood" statement.
Anthony talks of his feeling of "what can I do?"
My response is "whatever you can".
Often this means making decisions about the best way to act and involves making value judgements about needs priorities.
A billion little positive acts will produce better results than one huge feeling of desperation, futility, thus inaction.
We aren't smart enought to be able to see the effects we will cause, but does that mean we should just give up?
If our help is well intentioned, then the outcome will be good.
Posted by Ponder, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 10:41:56 AM
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
Justice Kirby, moral priorities, ethical discourse, ethical theories, moral discourse……….what strange bedfellows. Surely they are all strangers, one to the other. Would a person driven by ethics occupy a seat on the High Court of Australia if that person offended the NSW Crimes Act for 13 continuous years?

On the subject of AIDS has its spread in Africa got anything to do with lifestyle and culture? Muammar Gaddafi told us in July 2003 that AIDS was a peaceful virus. He said that AIDS and malaria were “God’s forces defending Africa” from recolonisation.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 10:51:42 AM
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
Ah what a crock. Australia gives .68% of GDP when you take into account private donations. For some reason people like Mirko always ignore the private donations. Government is not the solution to all our problems. Forced charity is not a moral act.

So we give .68% of our GDP. Sounds okay, pity it is all pointless. The problem with Africa is not AID. Billions of billions of dollars have only seen the country fall further into poverty.

The problem with Africa is corrupt governments and an economy with crippled primary industries, thanks largely to all the AID. When you bring in free food, the people in the country doing the hard work of farming have no more incentive to do so. (FYI, this is why the UN had 2005 as the year of micro-finance) When you provide governments with food and money and they use it to prop up themselves and their regime the poor are not helped.

No amount of AID will help until the governments are changed. Is Mirko saying we should invade to change the regimes? That seems to be the recipe for maximising 'good' consequences....

Mirko seems to think that rights have no foundation and are nonsense, but provides no better for his own views. Who gets to decide what the 'good' consequences and why is it important to maximise others 'good' consequences....the foundation of Mirko's ethics is empty. Worse, ethical theories like utilitarianism are inherently flawed. They seem to argue that since we all desire good consequences for ourselves we should act to maximise everyone else's as well. It essentially says that since we are all selfish, we should all be selfless. Like many things, it sounds warm and fuzzy until you investigate it and find it is irrational.
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 11:25:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get over it, Sage. Michael Kirby has made one of the most outstanding contributions to Australian legal jurisprudence of anyone since Griffith.

Saying he "offended the Crimes Act for 13 years" is no more than a coded way of saying you do not like gay people. But I will meet you on the ground of your choosing.

Sometimes breaching immoral laws is justified. Where the law is sufficiently immoral, it should be breached. In my view, and in the view of I daresay most Australians, laws criminalising homosexual behaviour were immoral transgressions on the freedoms which gay people should have, and should always have had, to live decent and happy lives, the way the rest of us do. Kirby loses no moral status by disobeying such an unjust law.

What contribution to Australia have YOU made, Sage? I'll bet you Rome to a brick that Kirby's contribution to the law in Australia makes both your and my accomplishments pale into insignificance. I am in awe of his work, and the fact that he is gay and I am straight matters not one whit.

So there.
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 11:34:28 AM
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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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