The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The end justifies the means - but not only for whales > Comments

The end justifies the means - but not only for whales : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 18/1/2006

Mirko Bagaric argues we should be grateful to Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd for lifting us from a moral fog.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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.
Posted by Yobbo, Monday, 23 January 2006 11:00:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by redneck, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 5:27:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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”!
Posted by Pedant, Tuesday, 24 January 2006 12:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by Terje, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 10:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Verdant, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 11:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by redneck, Thursday, 26 January 2006 7:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy