Sea Shepherd are pirates on the high seas. If they get shot by the Japanese acting in self defence then it will be a form of natural justice.

Adolf Hitler (like lots of social utopians before and since) also thought that the ends justified the means. In fact the notion that the ends justifies the means is a form of evil in and of itself.

Incredible!

Absolutely incredible.

That the head of a university law school can argue - quite eloquently by the way - the stance of "the end justifies the means" is both shocking and frightening. It demonstrates the depths of immorality that have infected Western thinking and its very basis of justice.

Never is it moral nor just to take the view of "the end justifies the means", never - unless of course one's morals are those of an animal. Even during circumstances of self-defense, such as during WW2, Hitler and the like, as quoted, "the means continue to justify the ends" and always must, by moral conscience, lest we simply become squabbling animals fighting for survival in the jungle as in survival of the fittest.

Ends justifying means are the principles of criminals and psychopaths. Where their objective is all that counts and shall be achieved at what ever cost. This attitude has been clearly demonstrated by Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Hussein, just to name a few. Now the concept as a desirable philosophy is being espoused by the head professor of a university in Australia.

The means to an end must always dominate the human conscience as being the overriding morality in every task we undertake, individually and in collectives. Winning a war against an oppressor and aggressor may be the end we seek, such as in WW2, for self survival, but our moral conscience must be our guide in determining the means by which we bring about that end. Otherwise, one would be fighting on the wrong side. You'd be no better than your enemy.

To read this opinion written by a professor of law, is deeply disturbing because it truly reflects just how immoral our society has become. It also gives shocking insights into the present day morality of academia and educational institutions in Australia.

Absolutely incredible. I'm shocked.

Is this an argument in itself or is it related to Gregory Melleuish's piece on academics being out of touch with reality?

Our universities are in deep trouble.

t.u.s

I thought it was satire, it is isnt it?

It's too open ended to just say "the end justifies the means" but the author does try to qualify this by saying the end must be for the net common good (ie for all, not just Germans or Aryans like Hitler's "common good").
Bagaric does make this point which also saves face:
"The moral and political debate in relation to important societal issues must move on from not whether the end justifies the means, to what end we as a species should be attempting to secure." One would assume that an end that secures the common good for all is possible and can be decided by such a process.
Despite this though, even with an ideal end goal in mind, the means still need to be considered and selected carefully so that they will in fact lead to the end and not at all jeopardise the net common good along the way.

Professor Bagaric is talking about philosphy, not law. His claim that ‘The ultimate end is to maximise net flourishing’ is pure utilitarianism.

Modern utilitarian theory provided much justification for nazi and communist attrocities, and continues to be popular with terrorists who justify the killing of small numbers of innocent civilians on the grounds that this will ultimately benefit entire (islamic) societies.

Utilitarianism is a weak justification for most actions, and is a poor philosophy to apply to whaling. Consider a situation where every time a whale was killed the whalers gave $10000 of medecine and food to 100 starving people who would otherwise die. On utilitarian grounds the killing of whales would be acceptable because it resulted in a net benefit to the world. I am sure Japanese whalers would be only too pleased to buy such acceptance if they thought they could. In fact utilitarianism can justify almost any action that can be shown to ultimately contribute to the greater good..

It would be nice to think that such an influencial and internationally recognised legal expert does not really have a facile utilitarian view of the world and is just writing this article to stir up debate. However given his past articles advocating toruture and lying on utilitarian grounds I am starting to think that he may be serious after all. Perhaps he aspires to be the new Peter Singer.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

For examples of greenpeace hypocracy try this article:-

http://www.greenspirit.com/printable.cfm?msid=29

I am not misreading this column at all, Amanda. I am staying on topic. The principle that “the end justifies the means” can be included in that topic, but it is a question that is difficult to refer to in 350 words. This is a topic which kept Plato and Socrates up all night drinking vino and thumping the table.

What Mr Bagaric is pointing out, is that Greenpeace now considers that the end justifies the means, and that puts an entirely new perspective upon their holier than thou attitudes, with it’s accompanying baggage of insisting upon moral absolutes. Because if you oppose the concept of “the ends justify the means”, Amanda, then that is a moral absolute. The significance of that, Amanda, is that Greenpeace has just crossed the Rubicon. It can never again claim to speak in terms of moral absolutes if it violates that principle itself. Greenpeace’s self bestowed moral halo just fell off.

Now, if you do not believe that the ends justify the means, then it is incumbent upon you to kick the ever lovin’ sheet of Greenpeace for violating your moral absolute. Since I do not believe in moral absolutes myself, I will just sit back and watch you and Greenpeace kicking the crap out of each other.

I once debated with a school teacher who also believed in moral absolutes. He insisted that it was better for Osama bin Laden’s bunch of merry Jihadi’s to detonate a nuclear device in Sydney then torture a terrorist who could give information that might prevent it. Of course, he lived in Adelaide. Perhaps you do too?

Wellllll.....this is FASCINATING... at last a secular writer actually SAYING what we (Godbotherers/Loonies/ bible Bashers/Pulpit pounders/Right wing fundies/Armchair nazis/whackos/ etc to name but a few 'names' allocated to us; say in our firm stand on...

"Without divine self revelation, all concepts of right and wrong are relative and without meaning"

which leads to:

"Make-it-up-as-u-go"... which is exactly what the good professor is saying.. similar to Peter Singer's ideas about 'culling' the lame and defenseless and 'useless'.

I've often said that social values 'filter down' from Philosophers into the wider community through various means, such as even this, and when the ideas are placed in Movies or high profile respected media or sporting identities speak positively about them... eventually they 'become' our values. (ala the change in opinion about Homosexual behavior over the past 30 yrs)

and for the next exciting installment of 'social change' watch NAMBLA and how Man/Boy love becomes more 'acceptable' by the same process.
Prepare for a 'word' like "Namblaphobia" to arise..

... and here we actually observe it happening..but as Jesus said "They have eyes, but do not see, they have ears, but do not perceive".... is this the case now ? or have the scales of willful ignorance possibly been removed ?

REDNECK... u saved me the trouble of pointing to the hypocricy angle. yes.. as with all 'human idealism' gaining power is never going to be inconvenienced by little side issues like lying or misrepresenting or manipulating. After all, when you have 'noble goals' based on atheism, u realize that a bit of lying is not intrinsically 'wrong' its just not acceptable if u get caught.. and so this develops into "what they can get away with".

By contrast "Your Word oh Lord is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" Pslm 119:105

I like others are outraged by this attitude. There are a lot of organisations in the US with similar attitudes and I am sure that Prof. Bagaric would not agree with all of them.

The main problem is: Who decides what 'ends' are good? Do we allow George W. Bush of Osama Bin Laden take the lead here?

Bagaric formed his attitudes in his days as a policeman, and in his academic career has just learnt more sophisticated ways of expressing them. Actually, "sophistry" sums it up well. This is pseudo-intellectual drivel which has only appeared because of the media silly season, a description well-merited if judged by this sorry offering.

No the end does not justify the means. The means must be of themselves justifiable (now of course not everyone will agree with the justification).

Redneck I agree with your point comparing whales to pigs and cows. I think it would be okay for the Japanese to eat whales on two conditions:
1. The whales were not an endangered species; and
2. The whales did not suffer while being killed.

Minke whales (the main type the Japanese are after) are as far as I know not an endangered species, but the current methods of killing are very cruel. I don’t think these methods should be allowed. I admit, however, to total inexperience in eating pigs, cows or whales – I’m a vegetarian ;-)

ps. Sorry to be so pedantic BOAZ_David and Redneck “hypocrisy” is the correct spelling not “hypocracy” or “hypocricy”. Thanks for your understanding.

wow, the end justifies the means and "The ultimate end is to maximise net flourishing, where each agent’s interests counts equally - even those who do not excite our emotions."

so we must all act selflessly for the common good then? where the common good is 'net' flourishing. hmm..

consider this; population A is starving. Population A notices the country of population B has lots of unused resources. population A walks into country B non-violently and takes all their unused resources and starts setting up farms everywhere.
now this would satisfy the 'common good' and 'net flourishing' requirements. Population B would not be able to legitimately force out population A in order to reclaim their resources.
This ideology doesn't work in a world of individial countries with borders. it falls over in many other scenarios also.

You are right about satire. I love the American satirical website The Onion. Sometimes when I'm typing onlineopinion, I accidentally get the Onion. But sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. The fog is in your head, Mirko (an aptonym if ever there was one!).

Since you are a vegetarian, Pedant, I can see that you are unable to understand the concept that the ends sometimes do justify the means.

Psychologists and psychiatrists are aware that some people posses what they refer to as “Authoritarian personalities”. People with this particular personality defect are unable to comprehend moral perspectives. To an Authoritarian, morality can only be right or wrong, black or white, sacred or heretical. People with this condition behave as if nothing else matters other than principle, and people with this condition make the most fanatical members of any religious, political or social order. The most famous Authoritarian was the Greek philosopher Draco, who proposed that all crimes, no matter how trivial, were equally bad. Draco proposed a “Draconian” criminal code where the only suitable punishment for any crime was death.

Now I am not saying that vegetarians are Authoritarians, but personality wise, they are getting a bit close to the abyss. Vegetarians consider that the principle of being kind to animals is so sacred that they even go against the natural order by refusing to eat meat. However, I would point out that among the vegetarian movement, one sub group who call themselves “Vegans” who are very extreme. Vegans are all bloody Authoritarians. They are so obsessed with moral absolutes that they even refuse to eat honey, because to them it is “stealing from bees.” Draco would have been impressed by their logic.

But normal people who do not possess Authoritarian (or near Authoritarian) mindsets can understand moral perspectives. Normal people will concede that moral values are extremely important. But they can also moderate their scruples depending upon what is at stake. Normal people can understand that sometimes, the ends can justify the means

Whilst the ends may justify the means in some issues, there is never ever a hard rule which ordains such to always be true.

The “ends” are invariably emotional / subjective issues or aspirations. They are rarely commonly accepted absolutes or irrefutable facts.

The “means” are invariably physical actions or prohibitions.

Thus justification of “objective means” being deployed to resolve “subjective ends” can never be resolved absolutely.

Even “hindsight” will fall foul of the emotional malleability of the “ends”.
Example, should the allies in WWII have bombed the gas chambers of Auschwitz as a priority or not (I bring that up because I listened to a program the other evening and it illustrates the highly emotive nature of the “ends” versus “means” with regard to collateral consequences)?

“Ends and means” can only be considered in the isolation of every application.

Some took exception to my observation if anyone wanted to get serious about all the environmental challenges we face they needed to take on board first the cause, population explosion. To resolve that in simple terms

the “End” is Zero (or possibly negative) population growth
the “Means” – curtailment of results of activites for those who are creating that population growth (steralisation).

Does Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd want to deal with that massive, profound and underlying challenge or does Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd just want to play around at the edges and promote their “glamour” issues like saving whales and frigging around in matters economic which they just do not understand?

Some Ends will justify Some Means.
Some Ends are of significant human consequence. Some Ends are merely the playthings of people with too few challenges to fill their daily struggle. They are to promote their obsessive interest in their play pursuits. The latter would find it a hard challenge to justify, rationally, their indulgences in the face of a real crisis. Yet they recruit greater global interest to their hobby, partly because of the intensity of fervour which obsessives are capable of generating and inspiring.

I love the first comment. The poster should understand the duplicity. For example, the U.S.A. uses "end justifies means" for renditions and civilian casualties, you know. And their ends don't always end so nice, in that Osama Bin Laden is alive and that there is a new generation of people who lost their parents to American missiles.

Thanks Redneck for this interesting information.

From your definition, I don’t think I have an Authoritarian personality. I don’t mind if you or anyone else eats meat. I feed my cat and my husband meat. However, if I don’t want to eat meat then I don’t have to. In the same way I can understand the concept that “the ends sometimes do justify the means” but I don’t have to agree that this concept is valid. I don’t think I have a Draconian personality either, as I don’t approve of capital punishment.

Also I think you’re being a bit bold to state, “Vegetarians consider that the principle of being kind to animals is so sacred that they even go against the natural order by refusing to eat meat”. People are vegetarians for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons I am a vegetarian have got nothing to do with animals. If vegans don’t want to eat honey (yummy) then they don’t have to, that leaves more honey for you and me to eat.

What Terje said. The Japanese whalers would be quite justified in sinking the Sea Shepherd vessel as a preemptive defensive measure. The have made it quite clear that they have every intention of sinking their vessel and have done so many times in the past. They are pirates and deserve no sympathy at all.

To Pedant.

I am surprised that you claim that the principle of being kind to animals is not the reason why you refuse to eat meat. My own experiences of speaking to vegetarians indicated to me that they were all gun hating Animal Liberationists. As such, it was fair of me to diagnose them as near Authoritarian personalities.

You have stated that you could not be an Authoritarian yourself because you do not believe in the death penalty. It is plain to me that you are having trouble grasping what an Authoritarian personality is. To an Authoritarian, the cause it self does not matter. It is the absolutist principle which supports his favourite cause which is the all important factor. Authoritarians can be ardently pro capitol punishment or anti capitol punishment. Pro Communist or anti Communist. Pro religion or anti religion. Pro gun or anti gun. People who are fanatical about their causes cover the entire spectrum of political and social opinion. People who are fanatically pro Communist or fanatically pro Nazi have exactly the same absolutist, Authoritarian personalities.

Any human social movement that has begun as a result of a practical appreciation of a social problem will eventually be corrupted by those among it’s own members who’s Authoritarian personalities consider that the principles that underpin a practical solution are more important than the cause itself. Greenpeace is an example of that. This a movement dedicated to non violence and the protection of the environment. Along the way, Greenpeace quite creditably took up the cause of protecting endangered whale species.

But the protection of whales became such an all consuming passion, that Greenpeace went from protecting endangered species to protecting all whales regardless of the fact that the whales they demanded that the Japanese stop eating were not even endangered. Greenpeace substituted a rational, practical cause to one that was entirely emotive and based upon an absolutist moral principle. Along the way, they completely forgot about the moral absolute of non violence which was the primary reason for their own existence.

Redneck, you might be being a bit of fanatic yourself if you go around stereotyping people in this manner. It’s not fair to judge every member of a very wide group based on the few ones you may have met. Millions of people are vegetarians check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian there are no less than eight major motivations listed. Some religions forbid killing animals so practitioners are vegetarian, but then they will not euthanise a suffering animal because it is against their religious beliefs. Now in my opinion that is cruel (hmmm a moral perspective...). So I’m pleased to be able to introduce to you the concept that there are vegetarians who don’t hate guns. I do think it’s important not to treat animals cruelly, but it’s okay to eat meat if you want to (and if I don’t want to, which I don’t, then I don’t have to).

You say, “You have stated that you could not be an Authoritarian yourself because you do not believe in the death penalty.”, this is incorrect. I said, “I don’t think I have a Draconian personality either, as I don’t approve of capital punishment.” (nb. “capital punishment” not “capitol punishment” unless you mean it in the sense of punishing a group of buildings where a legislature meets). It is plain to me that you are having some trouble reading my post and summarising it accurately. With all due respect, I do not agree that I am having trouble grasping what an Authoritarian personality is. You said, “People with this particular personality defect are unable to comprehend moral perspectives.”, well I say that I am able to comprehend moral perspectives so therefore I do not have an Authoritarian personality. You can disagree about whether I am or am not able to comprehend moral perspectives if you like, that’s your prerogative.

However I do totally agree with you that Greenpeace appears to have lost it – they’re not very “peaceful”!

QUOTE: I love the first comment. The poster should understand the duplicity. For example, the U.S.A. uses "end justifies means" for renditions and civilian casualties, you know. And their ends don't always end so nice, in that Osama Bin Laden is alive and that there is a new generation of people who lost their parents to American missiles.

RESPONSE: I am not a big fan of US military adventurism either.

PS: I was a vegetarian for six years

I enjoyed his writing because it was unique, not some rehashed political propoganda. Someone has a new theory.

Regarding vegetarian, I think we all will have to be soon.

Just read on bbc website about how charitable soup kitchen in France is being persecuted as racist for serving soup with pork in it because it cannot be eaten by jew or muslim homeless. Nevermind the recipe was a typical French one.

It could be a real good idea if we accepted cultural differenc but I doubt I could be told what or what not to eat. So maybe we should not dictate this to Japanese.

Unless we are all willing to go veg!

Stereotyping other human beings has always been the favourite pastime of all human beings. When I say the word “Arab”, what springs to mind? A dark skinned man with a large nose with white robes and a camel? You just stereotyped. Do the same for “surfer”, “Bikie” or “negro”. Are you starting to get it? Human beings stereotype in order to think. People who say “don’t stereotype” are actually saying “don’t think.”

Psychologists and physiatrists stereotype people by personality, and by abnormal behavioural traits. Sociologists and advertisers stereotype by demographics. Most people stereotype through their own social experiences. I use whatever is appropriate at the time.

I can understand your outrage at having your deepest held beliefs explained to you through psycho analysis. Most people genuinely hate having their own motivations explained to them by an analysis of their personality traits. It is only when their behaviour becomes so socially unacceptable that it is resulting in legal problems (or social ostracism) that they are willing to concede that they may have a personality problem.

Your example that some vegetarians would not even kill a doomed and suffering animal would be an example of an Authoritarian personality. Most people would consider such an attitude as taking a good moral principle way too far. But Authoritarians do not think that way. To an Authoritarian, moral values are absolute. An Authoritarian may have based their opposition to killing animals upon a good moral principle (kindness to animals) , but once the concept of not killing animals out of kindness is established, then never killing an animal for any reason becomes infinitely more important than the upholding the action that the original principle was based upon. That is why they would not kill a suffering animal. To them, killing animals for any reason is automatically cruel. No amount of reasoning can shift them from that position.

I don’t accuse vegetarians of being Authoritarians, but their thinking is getting dangerously close to the rim. But your own example that some vegetarians obviously display Authoritarian behaviour proves that some vegetarians most definitely are Authoritarians

Redneck, I’m quite happy to agree that some vegetarians are most definitely Authoritarian.

However, I do not have an Authoritarian personality.

If the community was truly against whaling we'd send the Navy down there to put a few Harpoon anti-ship missiles into the Japs. That'd stop whaling once and for all.

Clearly, we don't care about whales THAT much.

I'm not cheering for Watson. I hope he ends up in prison for his actions.

Can I be the first to openly say it?

Carn the Nips!