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.