I think the problem with the conversations around topics of ethical or moral question such as gay rights and refugees is that all opinions are given relatively equal voice regardless of the evidence or lack of that is behind the argument.

For example on Gay rights either we as a society have decided that it is wrong to discriminate against a minority or it isnt. I personally believe we as a society have decided that discrimination against minorities is wrong and therefore refusing the rights of homosexual couples to marry is out of step with one of our core beliefs. Do you think we could get away with saying that Jewish, black, or to paraphrase a recent marketing campaign left handed people were not allowed to get married. I agree with you Rhian when you said "Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue." However i do not believe this is applicable to issues of ethical or moral standing. Or else would you respect with sincerity the integrity of someone who thought it was ok to go around killing people. I think not, as murder has been ethically and morally determined to be wrong in our society.

On refugees, it is definitely more complicated, however if we look at the issue with regards to our core values. Do we believe all humans are equal? Do we believe we should show compassion and mateship to other human beings? Furthermore community detention is far cheaper then offshore processing and the money saved could be better spent persecuting the people smugglers who are the real criminals and establishing more legitimate points of entry within these transit countries. The reason the majority of Australians support offshore processing is that they have been spoon fed propaganda about a refugee and Islamic invasion that is apparently taking place while the truth is that boat arrivals make up a small percentage of Australia's migration intake and an even smaller part of our population growth.

Ultimately I believe there is to much grey area and almost to much tolerance on issues of morality and ethics. Particular when those whose arguments are outright false, without evidence or go against the core beliefs of our society are given breath in the public arena.

Brenton Luxton

There are some excellent comments in this set of posts - my own contributions are only minor - and I hope you take them to heart.

Rhian:

"My objection to your article is that it neither puts a positive case for the positions you espouse, nor engages critically with the arguments against."

I think you've misunderstood the intention of my article. My positive (arguably overly optimistic) case that I put forth was to empower citizens with honesty and no spin. Did you read it thoroughly?

"They have reasons for their views which by their own lights are no less “ethical and moral” than yours. Respecting the sincerity and integrity of people you disagree with is a liberal virtue."

My article was also about ethics, and doing what is right. Despite what you may think, ethics isn't such a grey area as what you describe. You're arguing from an entirely ethical relativist perspective, one that other branches discount quite vigorously. For you to discount my philosophy with your own relativist philosophy is guilty of the exact same ideological sin you've charged me with.

Thanks for your comments Rhian.

Hasbeen:

Once again, you have failed to grasp the intention of the article, as well as my subsequent comments. This is a political philosophy article. Nice of you to attempt to twist my words also. My gripe with your comment was attacking higher education while exhibitings signs of having none. It is a poor reflection on your case, and may well represent why you haven't understood this article.

I'd also like to direct everybody's attention to the comments by Mr. Anderson, he has grasped the intention of this article well (particularly relating to ethical stances).

Brenton

“Moral relativism has the unusual distinction—both within philosophy and outside it—of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone.”

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/)

I’m not sure what you intend by calling me an “ethical relativist” (there are several different versions of relativism), so I cannot be sure whether the label applies to me or not. It’s not one I’d apply to myself. If you mean that I recognise that different ideological positions and worldviews lead people to very different views of what is right and what is wrong, I accept it. If you mean that I think all moral systems are equally valid, or it is not possible to say one is more “moral” than another, or we should all “agree to disagree”, you are completely wrong. Indeed, it is BECAUSE I think it possible to have a meaningful debate with someone I disagree with that I try to understand the reasons why they think as they do. You will never win a moral or political argument if you don’t trouble to understand why your opponent thinks differently from you. All can do is trade pejorative labels, as your article does.

Mr Anderson

Respecting the sincerity and integrity of those you disagree with doesn’t mean you stop disagreeing with them, or allow them license to do what they want; quite the contrary. Murder is wrong and murderers should be punished. I agree with you that we should take a more compassionate view of refugees, and that gay rights are fundamental human rights. We will win that argument eventually, as we won the arguments for racial and gender equality, with reason and evidence, not insults.

But like Brenton, you assume that the truth of your position is unassailable. Only stupidity, malice or propaganda prevents people from seeing it. So you say “the reason the majority of Australians support offshore processing is that they have been spoon fed propaganda about a refugee and Islamic invasion.” That is patently not true of the arguments of say, Curmudgeon.