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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So why, Mirko, are you in Australia writing this article at your computer when according to your own beliefs you should be on the ground, spoon feeding starving children in Africa?

Why don't you abandon your children and book your plane ticket now? After all, social services would pick the kids up eventually and they'd still have a life a thousand times more privileged than those African kids. That would be the utilitarian thing to do.

It's a thought provoking article, but fatally undermined by the fact the author obviosuly doesn't believe in what he preaches.

I agree with the author about ditching the "doorstep phenonemon" and "acts only" concepts of morality. But brushing aside concepts of rights is going too far.
I believe basic human rights can be upheld in combination with greatest good consequence rationality. I don't see it as an "either or" dilemma.
Conditions in third world countries are about a lack of human rights and our failure to make sure they are upheld and to prevent their abuse.

As for the Hicks case, i think it is more symbolic than anything which is why it has garnered so much attention and importance. The situation represents the worry that we are taken for granted by our favourite ally, for all our loyalty and support and following them into battles, our one simple request - to give a man proper justice or send him home - is basically ignored.

I believe an avenue in which we can make a difference, which is not canvassed.
Some of the problems result from our indulging in war.
International law is reaching sufficient supporters as to become universal and override conflicting rules, jus cogens as Michael Byers in ‘War Laws’ has it.
But much is not so overriding under present agreements.
Recently there has been an intensification of effort to make even the laws so far ratified more flexible providing legal power to the mighty.
In this mind set pre-emptive interference in another country deemed to be a rogue state, the deeming by the one wanting to correct the state imposing democracy , should become legal. This despite the already existing provision that if there is a threat to peace a case can be made to the UN security Council and there argued, organs of the UN looking at such areas.
This type of approach, though engineered, for we were lied to and the media was supportive not informative, has been used in Iraq (some say in the Pacific Islands too). It has resulted in not only loss of life but destruction of infrastructure including farming. That is has produced need for aid which is in short supply.
Sure the occupying powers were meant to make good the damage but as several sites indicate the method became one of Neo Liberal dogma requiring alteration of Iraq laws (illegal-Geneva convention) and benefiting overseas industry, creating massive waste of resources, well, the resources went somewhere but few benefited Iraq.
At present Australia’s position is in favour and quite willing to use contrived explanations for actions which may well not stand legal challenge if brought.
So one thing to make the aid dollar go further is by supporting international law which might serve to curtail the activities of nations such as these. Sure many problems in getting universal agreement and means of enforcement, but the alternative incoming resource shortages (here already?) is not a happy one.
The realist school will say human nature will obviate effort.

AnthonyMarinac:

I was fascinated to see that your obedience to the rule of law excludes all laws that you personally consider immoral. You stated that people are entitled to disobey laws that they consider to be grossly immoral.

My problem is that I consider the income tax and GST laws to be totally immoral, and very damaging to my bank account. Does this mean that I am entitled to disobey them?

On a higher plane, where we once had a simple system of constitutions and laws made in accordance with them, which had been sanctioned by the people in referendums, now we are being assailed by so-called international law, which has no basis at all in the consent of the people. The people did not authorise either the federal or state governments to delegate any of their powers to the United Nations, which is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.

Any suggestion that a referendum giving the UN any power over Australia would have any chance of being approved by the people would simply have me rolling in the aisles with laughter. With India having the same voting power as Nauru, the UN would have to be one of the most undemocratic organisations ever invented, but democracy doesn't seem to have much of a place in the opinion of many modern lawyers.

As far as I am concerned the only important thing in life is the survival of DNA, which naturally leads each person to place a higher value on people closer to them genetically. All other attempts at ethics are simply meaningless vapourings.

At least we only have to suffer the presence of Kirby on the High Court for another two years, after which he will be removed by operation of Section 72 of the Constitution.

Like others, notably Anthony, I want more from the author on 'how to,,,' I could give all my income away, but then I would be a charge on other people. Australia could invite all the world's poor in as economic refugees, but they would still be poor, and so would we be. My own view is that the present system of foreign aid must be accompanied by advice and help in family planning. That is not being done at present. More, I don't believe that any great good can be done quickly: we are looking at changes that need to take place over a generation or two. If I am wrong, perhaps Mirko could advise me.

The biggest problem with development aid is the fickle nature of donations. Programmes with lifetimes of 10 years are instituted, funded maybe three years then scrapped when donor nations decide to change aid priorities. The ‘billions and billions’ in aid noted by Grey has been wasted funding projects that yield no benefit for anyone because they are NOT CARRIED THROUGH TO COMPLETION!

This is not the fault of the aid agencies. This is not the fault of the recipients. It is not ALL due to massive corruption (though some is undoubtedly lost that way) as many will argue. Instead it is more the fault of the donor nations and their lack of commitment to providing aid without strings attached.

Individual donations help but it is mainly used for point solutions- a well, a school, etc. They cannot, however, make a difference to a whole country. That is why individual donations don't necessarily count.

The Millennium Development Goals required the first world nations of to provide 0.7% GDP in development aid delivered to the UN for distribution to requesting nations. In return, the developing nations agreed to ensure the aid was well spent. Funding was at the UN’s discretion and was only for projects that were properly planned and would receive the suitable level of support from the local government. Ongoing projects would then be audited for the UN and donor nations.

Seems a fair deal, doesn’t it? In return for the cash we get a solid assurance that the aid will be used to real benefit, backed up by transparency.

191 nations (including Australia) signed on to do this. Our only requirement was that we pony up with the cash.

We don’t.

It is, apparently, better for Australia to continue to fund the countries that are of benefit to us rather than help everyone. And we are not alone.

Individually we don’t need to give up our pay packets to aid. The UN and the developing world aren’t asking for that. They are only asking for us to live up to our promises.

Not that much to ask is it?

Kirby should have been removed in accordance with s72 (ii) of OUR Constitution one day after he was appointed. As a matter of fact he should never have been appointed.

In the resume provided for this author it states; He is not connected with any political party or other interest group. How incorrect can this be when he belongs to an elite group of bottom feeders that believe they are above politics and the ordinary people and it is from this very group where the so called honourable Justice Kirby was selected from. Any body who has had their matter heard by this individual and been insulted and offended by his so called educated judicial comments knows that he should never have been selected for this appointment in the first place. It is obvious that MIRKO has never had a hearing before this individual and suffered at the hands of this radical. He is one Judge who took part in the Luton matter before the High Court which was basically about a persons RIGHTS to his or her property after they had been effected by the Registrar of the Child Support Agency who had done an assessment of one's income and deemed that your earning capacity was twice what you were earning. The conduct of the Child Support Registrar and the decision, manipulated by Kirby in the High Court, has resulted in hundreds of suicides of the non custodial parent and again on the 13/2/07 the High Court had to cover for their resident radical Judge when he was exposed for his dishonesty in Luton.
MIRKO can provide a reason for the two individuals, appointed as High Court judges, pretending to hear an application on the 13/02/07 when the originating process was not signed, sealed, filed or issued by the Registrar but they, along with all of the highly paid bottom feeders, pretended to conduct this sham hearing when they had no authority to defraud anybody of their RIGHTS, but that is how the members of legal profession treat ordinary people of this country and steal their money (property) and don’t honestly seek a remedy in our courts but set out to dishonestly defraud their clients of the hard earned property. Not connected with any other interest group my ass.

It is true but vacuous to say that "the interests of each person count equally". Axiomatic systems lead to paradoxes: do we count equally the interests of a person who doesn't count equally the interests of others? It is the human condition to care more about near ones.

"Maximising good consequences" is both simplistic and dangerous. Post-enlightenment history has many examples of such maxims leading to the oppression of minorities.

Let's not be so arrogant as to discount natural tendencies. Let's think harder, strive for an holistic ethical system that doesn't distinguish the whole from the individual.

Plerdsus,

I suspect you are winding me up, but I will take you at face value.

1. I did not say people are entitled to disobey laws that they consider grossly immoral. I said that disobedience of immoral laws can constitute ethical conduct. There is a difference.

2. I hope you do not truly consider income-tax and GST immoral. I for one like living in a country where single mothers and their children need not starve. I like the fact that we have good roads and drinkable water. I like the fact that children get educated and vaccinated. I am content to be taxed so that these things happen.

3. When was this idyllic time when we had a simple system of laws under the Constitution? Australia inherited English common law and statute law in the mid-19th century and our law has always been a complex mix of old and new case law, ancient principles and modern statute.

4. The Constitution does give the Commonwealth government the power to make treaties with overseas nations; by implication, the Constitution gives the government competence to legislate to meet those obligations. Its section 51(xxix). Read the Tasmanian dams case. In any event, those overseas treaties usually require ratification by the Commonwealth Parliament. If you don't like one of those treaties, you have plenty of chances to write to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Treaties and say so.

5. For your sake I truly hope that you see more to life than the preservation of DNA.

As for Kirby, we will not truly know the measure of his worth until we have another high court like the Mason High Court. Just watch how often they cite Kirby's dissenting judgements with authority then.

Anthony

“The human mind has evolved to become insensitive to the suffering of large numbers of people far from home, according to research. While people show much sympathy for the plight of individuals, and often respond by going to great lengths to help them, reports of death and distress on a large scale induce a ‘psychic numbing’ effect than can neutralise compassion.”
Experiments led by Professor Paul Slovic, of the University of Oregon, suggest this numbing can take hold even when people are asked to donate money to help two starving children instead of just one.”

The Australian, 17/02/07

I thought I'd added my two cents' worth. If we are so insensitive to the sufferings of large numbers, how was it that Australians gave $80+ million to the tsunami victims in two days? These issues don't resolve themselves into simple either/or statements.

I'm sorry but, I'm way to objective to subvert my best interest for the sake of some unknowns survival. Families that out breed their ability to feed, clothe, educate, or medicate their own are not my moral or ethical dependencies. People may have the right to procreation but, not on my dollar or at my expense. People who insist on living in geographical zones that suffer continuous destruction due to weather influences or where the ground is unfit for healthy food production may be exerting a right but, again not at my expense as part of that right.
Countries or people who are suffering from aids, those who are suffering from malnutrition, or starvation, or genocide, bad politics or any of the myriad human conditions, are not my moral or ethical responsibility.
That I choose to offer assistance or work with the underprivileged and disenfranchised isn't a matter of universal suffering or moral or ethical demands but, rather the importance I personally place on family, community and country.
I am more important than anyone else. And I'm especially more of value than someone I've never heard of.

@Grey,

The greedy Western Governments help to keep corrupt African leaders in power.

African countries were colonialised by Europe and then left on its own without any real structure.

Even to this day the West keeps Africa in debt.

"The vulture funds raise most of their money through legal actions in US courts. Those actions against foreign governments can be stayed by the word of the US President and that is where lobbying and political influence becomes important".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6362783.stm

AnthonyMarinac

In response to two of your points:

1. An excellent example of how things used to operate can be found on the 16th April 1944. The Sydney Daily Telegraph had been having a dispute with the Minister of Information about the censoring of news. The paper claimed the minister was using legitimate wartime censorship powers to restrict items politically damaging to the government. In particular the paper refused to fill in the blank spaces left when the minister censored an item. This resulted in commonwealth police, with drawn pistols, entering the offices of Consolidated Press to prevent the printing of the paper. The company immediately secured an injunction against the minister preventing him from continuing with this action, on the ground that the constitution did not give the commonwealth government power to control newspapers. Judging from the recent judgements of the High Court, it would today rule that the corporations power allows the commonwealth power to do anything it likes in relation to corporations.

2. As far as international law is concerned, you have agreed with me that it only applies when validated by national law. The UN, acting on its own, has no power over Australia, because there has been no consent.

It is interesting to note that almost all of the expansion in comonwealth power over the last 106 years has been due to judicial decisions, which often run contrary to the expressed will of the people at referendums. Time after time the people have voted referendums down, just to see the commonwealth acquire the power by other means. Do you call this ethical and democratic?

Plerdsus,

To take points in reverse order, I didn't verbal you, mate, so please don't try to verbal me. I don't think I made any comments about constitutional expansion - by referenda or judicial interpretation - at all. Overall though, I must say I am happy for the High Court to exercise the sort of interpretative powers that it does. However that doesn't mean I endorse every decision the court has made. You win some, you lose some. Bear in mind that I raised your ire by expressing admiration for one of the court's great dissenters.

On international law, since we both agree that the operative law is *Australian* law not international law, what's your point? Can you give any examples of where some form of international jurisdiction, not acceded to by Australia, has impacted on Australia in a way which compromises our legislative sovereignty?

Finally, on the events of 1944, if those events happened today, sanctioned by some sort of provision which essentially said "A corporation shall not publish material critical of the government" then the High Court would almost certainly find in favour of the publisher, upholding the implied right of free political communication (Australian Capital Television v Cth) and declaring the provision to be unconstitutional. I'm afraid this means you are hoist by your own petard, Plerd - the Commonwealth could be restrained by a High Court using those same interpretative powers you regard as unethical and antidemocractic. Ah well, like I said, you win some you lose some.

Anthony