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.