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 > Moral v national interest: does anyone care anymore? > Comments

Moral v national interest: does anyone care anymore? : Comments

By Nahum Ayliffe, published 15/12/2006

When it comes to global issues do we tend to act in self-interest, rather than by moral considerations?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Its mistaken to draw parallels between personal & community morality and the amorality of our governments neoliberal militarism. Howard talks up 'relaxed and comfortable' as he commits troops, stokes racism and slashes-and-burns the common wealth (workplace rights, Medicare, higher ed, natural resources..), just as any conman will tell you what you want to hear as he lifts your wallet. Our megacorporate lobotomised media parrots his lies daily, and so the naive feel confused about the mismatch between the rhetoric and the action. Ignore the MSM advertorials & 'follow the money' Mr Ayliffe and you'll find the world makes alot more sense.
Posted by Liam, Friday, 15 December 2006 10:09:52 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
Nice piece, though the AWB scandal isn't as black and white as is being currently presented - one interesting nugget which doesn't seem to be bandied around all that much was that the UN Volcker inquiry found that more than 60 nations had been up to mischief with regards to the Iraq sanctions, yet only Australia investigated.

That isn't to excuse the heinous behaviour of the company, but the fact that Australia (not AWB) dummied up when no one else did seems a little unfair when there should be many more companies worldwide taking the blame.

There are a minority of Australians who do care about moral issues, but unfortunately there are a majority who don't. Unless we feel the effects of international actions at home (i.e. bodybags from Iraq) we simply don't care.
Is this a bad thing? Perhaps.
Is it understandable? undoubtedly.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 15 December 2006 2:12:54 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
A thoughtful article, but I do feel you've overlooked the double edged sword of morality; namely, its ability to act against the national interest and community wellbeing. If we use your example of Howard's moral stance on gun control, the evidence now shows that the billion or so dollars spent on it (and however much more the states have since spent on it) didn't lead to any reductions in violence. Nonetheless, Howard doggedly insists that his moral decision was for the good of the community, despite the facts telling us otherwise. Morality can be used to justify many things, no matter how misguided - so what do we do when the evidence shows that morality was misplaced?
Posted by The Yabby, Friday, 15 December 2006 2:17:13 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
It is truly disturbing how poorly people understand the implications of simplistic notions of "morality". Vague, emotionally driven yet poorly understood catchphrases such as "Global Warming crisis" or "Better treatment of asylum seekers" as unaddressed moral issues seems to suggest someone in a church or political party somewhere has the answer. THEY DON'T!

Please note Kevin Rudd is yet to supply a SINGLE SOLUTION to any of the supposed "moral problems" mentioned here, nor does this author. These issues are poorly understood and defined and do not have simple answers. Global Warming is a political issue and as such has lost its scientific objectivity. What are the facts? Depends which political leanings the scientist as much as the data.

Consider this: If we are a economically poorer country for not selling out Uranium for example, we will have less to give to struggling overseas nations. So what is moral?

So lets all leave at 5.00am to cycle to work every day to save the planet and get home at 9.30pm. Is this a "solution"?.

Do we really want to encourage people to freely land on our shores?

What's the answer Kevin?
Posted by Atman, Friday, 15 December 2006 5:48:10 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
Firstly, I am against white-collar crime in a big way. However, we should not forget that the Iraqi children were able to get bread on the table during the sanction regime. Perhaps Australia was entrusted with this International responsibility.

But to answer the thread topic, and the question of moral compasses and whether we act as a Nation in absolute economic or rational terms, is a complicated question to address.

To answer Ayliffes’ position that: If we wish for this proud legacy to continue, it is imperative that we confront the excesses of self-interest and mindless consumerism. Our failure to do so will continue to result in dire and despairing social externalities.” is also complicated. This gives us a glimpse of the enormity of the question.

I think, that on morality and economics, we have as a society, blurred the lines. Either deliberately, or by accident. I don’t intend to answer that question. Economically, we seem to address macro-economics with a deal of caring and concern: some would say, where and how to spend. Some would ask, which priorities. Others look for ethical expenditure, such as aid, or recovery. However, at the domestic level, I reckon we have been somewhat de-sensitised. Hence, we see white-collar exploitation, mega-bank accounts, poor re-distribution from same, and un-inspired fiscal concern. Coupled with that, there is comparitively little responsibility incumbent on domestic expenditure for societal purpose.

A lot more could be achieved, if we re-focused our abilities on domestic affairs. So what we have is a complacency bordering on a morass, and that is dangerous. And then we see the Leftists banging the drum of responsibility, in the same fiscal milieu as the rest of us.

My realist opinion tells me that we need fundamental exposure to entirely new thinking. And I don’t think Australia should be a morality laboratory; however, I do think that we must try to answer such questions in an academic fashion. Market economics will help many things, a whole lot; but it mustn’t be let loose without a guardian. Im not in favour of earthly moral guardians either.
Posted by Gadget, Friday, 15 December 2006 5:51:20 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
Excellent item Nahum.

For once I agree with both almost everything written and all the comments too.

In particular Liam's comment about the difference between government and the people. The problem is of course that the government(s) push their agenda every day and people just can't cope with it all and tend to believe at least some of what is belted at us daily. I strongly believe that the majority of people here are still the people we have always been. It's our governments that have changed.

It is our domestic politics that needs rugent attention as opposing issue by issue is a losing battle. We need to change the way government ignores and abuses what we want and need instead opting for their corporate mates and their own self interest. Labor included. Just look at Beattie and Carr if you are unsure about that. They operate exactly the same as Howard, Bush, Blair and all the rest.

We need to get over this Coalition vs Labor rubbish as a duopoloy is just as bad as a monopoly as they operate exactly the same way.

To me our supposed aid to the Pacific etc is simply Howard following through on his responsibilities as Deputy Sherriff. He's just doing what Bush does on a small scale. It's about terrorism and money, not helping the countries at all.

On AWB, it is black and white. Despite so called "lack of evidence (you'll note the current use of that line istead of the word "innocent".) government knew of the corruption and let it continue. End of story.

Are any of you actually interested in getting involved in trying to build a network of people that do oppose openly what is going on. Not taking to the streets. Just uniting all the little groups trying to oppose this on their own. You can make a difference if you want to. Just say and I'll add my email contact for anyone interested.
Posted by RobbyH, Saturday, 16 December 2006 10:41:10 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
Does anyone care anymore? Considering the awful mess, we allies have made with the Iraqi campaign, possibly we are safe in the knowledge that the US always wins in the end, as proven in Vietnam where the old enemy now invites us and the Americans in for a holiday.

None really care about GWB being shown re-making wornout plans with his sacked Defence Minister, Donald Rumsfeld, the victorious democratic Congress now not so victorious as one of its key members needs to be replaced with authority from the Republican White House.

No real care about democracies we are taught to look up to, ruining their reputations through Supreme or High Court decisions decided by persons whose politics take first place over ethics or morals.

About America, where at times we get media flashes of people in high places whom in normal life you would not give the time of day.

Blair trying to regain political pride trying to save people in Sudanese Africa. Who cares? Tony's last rushed statement about being good for the future, making one wonder whether it was for the future of neo-colonial Western intrusion still going on down there, or really to save dying women and kids, which we get sick of seeing pictures of, and nothing done.All the billions so far that have been wasted in Iraq, could have saved not only the women and kids in the Sudan, but also all desperate bodies right across Africa. This also includes all those negroes starving while our corporates take out trillions in oil.

As Bill Clinton said so many times, don't you know, its the economy that counts. And as most people in our cities and their precincts, especially in WA, could be called happy consumers with such cheap Chinese clothing, as well as electrical appliances and general hardware items.

So why worry about anything else, the global situation even brightened with Condoleeza Rice playing luvey-duv with Alexander Downer, saying how much America now depended on Australia.

That should get us worrying somewhat about the future. But surely America has not lost that many friends?
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 16 December 2006 6:56:07 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
Most of my 60 odd years I wondered how decent Germans stood by and let Hitler and the nazis carry on as they did.
Since Australia joined the 'coalition of the willing', supporting the destruction of a functioning state, and then saw Australians reelect the Howard government, changing Australia's status from simply having a rogue government to being a rogue state, I have had my answer.
People simply do not care about others.
This I believe fails both the moral and the self interest test. Short sighted greed won the day.
Everyone will, I am sure have seen that Blair stopped an investigation into payments to Saudis --- saying that national interest came before the rule of law.
So Britain too, can be bought, the only question is the price!
If this continues it is going to be a very ugly world!
Posted by petere, Sunday, 17 December 2006 1:53:42 AM
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
Morality based agendas must be regarded with scepticism and suspicion. Communism, Fascist and Theologian regimes are morality based regimes. Hitler’s master race ideals were assumptions that Arians intrinsically held moral superiority. The Soviet Union censored sex and pioneered the cures for homosexuality that is used by Christians in the U.S today. Theocratic regimes indulged in multiple century long cleansing bloodbaths cleaning the dirty world of witchcraft and blasphemy. Morality mixed with politics is the path to persecution, then if successful ethnic cleansing then genocide.

I would not argue that Howard or Bush are not moral men. Bush is Pentecostal and so may believe Pentecostal Prophecies that the rapture follows a great defeat of Islam, the Jews rejoice and in gratitude convert to Christ and then Christians (except Catholics as many Pentecostals have told me Catholics are not Christians) are lifted into Heaven. Everybody else burns in hell because everybody else is morally inferior.

Howard’s discourse is that of moral superiority. Howard claims the authority to determine Australian culture and values regardless of the fact that he appears completely ignorant of actual Australian culture and values.

Not that Howard is trusted or taken seriously outside of his supporting media. Howard’s complete career is a total exercise in political survival. It is doubtful if in a more sane position Howard would even agree with himself as he appears to unthoughtfully respond to one self generated crisis after another.

It is not that Morality is suffering to a growing self-ism. It is that Australians are both non-analytical and politically lazy. Morality itself is a form of self-ism. Morality after all is a social contract; if it is wrong to stab you in the back it is wrong for you to stab me in the Back. Morality in its organic form is a mutual survival tool until it is hijacked by a political or religious agenda then it becomes a weapon.
Posted by West, Sunday, 17 December 2006 12:27:41 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
Good points West, would you agree then that morality becomes a problem when crystalised/solidified into institutional positions, or is centralised control & co-opting of a malleable morality the crux of the problem? Its hard to resist talking to morality-focused people in terms they immediately understand, but yes there are real dangers there.

RobbyH, i'm not sure forming another group or network is the answer; instead why not take the mounting evidence of democratic failure to the networks you are already part of and work thru them, or failing that join the nearest-to-best already existing. Proliferation sometimes just increases fragmentation.

Petere, we do increasingly resemble fascisms Good Germans, but not all Germans behaved, and they had an impact on the length of the war (see also campaigns in Aus against the Vietnam war, and against conscription in WW1). Australians nauseated by militarist RightThink have a world full of allies.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 18 December 2006 10:21:46 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
I think it is both Liam but certainly theocracies, communism and fascism is institutionalised morality.

The discourse of morality is difficult because on one level we should indivudually choose what is good and bad. Morals could be judged as those which have positive impacts on individuals and those which have negative imapcts on individuals.

This level is not often the one pursued by (often self claimed) moralists , especially concerned with religion. Spiritual moralism or moralism based on dogma tends to be an articulation of individual preferences , ie I disapprove of homosexuality so therefore homosexuality is immoral. Where in real impact terms this position is the immoral position because the exclusionism it creates polarises individuals and leads to social entropy.

Liam may I refer you to browse the Islamic moralist movement developing in Bande Ache where people are being caned and flogged for kissing in public and or not wearing appropriate Islamic clothing?
Posted by West, Monday, 18 December 2006 11:10:08 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
Hey Liam,

That would be good, that is if existing networks actually worked or more of us actually joined in instead of offering steadfast opinions often with little knowledge of the topic(s). I do that too of course but want more than the satisfaction of writing my own point of view.

I guess, much like here, most people are not uniting, simply arguing and disagreeing with the author or each other. That's natural of course but it strikes me that to keep criticising from the sidelines is simply accepting the current governments as they are. Again I include myself despite several years of involvement which has resulted in nothing. But if you don't try then nothing can change. Right?

As to accepting the nearest to best. What one would you suggest? Coalition or Labor? They are the only options as a government under today's systems are they not? Plus they are so close in nearly every supposed policy that I'm struggling to tell the difference between a Federal Coalition and a State Labor government on their actions. I choose neither but know any vote I make will force me to choose one of them unless I happened to be in one of those few lucky electoarates wheer an independent has a chance or is already sitting. Which I'm not, drovers dog country here.

In the end my decision has been to vote against any incumbent in the hope they don't become extremists, or more so really. That's not a choice is it?
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 18 December 2006 3:06:36 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
RobbyH
It is not much of a choice, but there is something that you can do.
If there is an independent standing — any independent! — give them your first vote, encourage independents and take the funding attached to the primary vote away from the established parties.
No independent at all? First preference to anybody other than the established party! Don’t worry about their politics, simply use them to deprive the established parties of the cash.
I have been doing this for years!
Posted by petere, Monday, 18 December 2006 3:24:53 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
Hi Petere,

I'm with you. I too have done that for years simply for the $ they gain and the big two lose. Coalition always go last and second last, I just change which goes last depending on the incumbent as one of them ends up with my vote in the end through no choice of mine. I could not vote like some but then I would have given up and that isn't going to happen.

Thanks for pointing that out so others are aware of it too. Keep hoping, I will. I think it's $2 per vote but it all counts doesn't it?
Posted by RobbyH, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 8:46:43 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
Yes RobbyH, the approximately $2 is very little, but if 1000's or tens of thousands would do it, it would begin to hurt!
Posted by petere, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 9:58:34 AM
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
So there lies the core of the problem with political modernity. Few vote on considering the effects of policy but go with the “I’m all Right Jack – Let them eat cake” approach. The self claimed spiritual vote on the lines of “The earth must be punished by Gods own Government”.

A moral government will be guided by morality. Good policy will not have negative impact on citizens, neighbours and visitors. Bad policy will have negative impact on citizens, neighbours and visitors. Where negative impact is unavoidable the government will make absolute certainty those impacts are minimised.

We have witnessed horrific immoral policies tabled of late from banning stem cell research and abortion drugs to banning gay marriages. Clearly to appease those who confuse superstition and Dark Age fiction with values. We have witnessed a declaration of war against families with new IR changes. We have witnessed repeated attacks and erosion of the Australian value of live and let live in attempts to have it replaced with American style flag fetishes and Barbie doll ideology.

Things will change when there is a change in government. Each prime minister presses his culture onto the nation. Howard’s government to date has been weighed heavily by a culture of dishonesty this reflects on the nation and is mimicked as we have witnessed with the media. Howard is a Christian and many of his cabinet are Christian. Christianity is a cult of dishonesty; it is built on a foundation of fiction, deceit and manipulation. Howard and his government cannot be blamed for it is their culture. For them the real world is not important. Rudd is likely to win the next election and it is likely we will see a repeat of this same culture as he too is self drenched in the same superstition. This cycle will continue as long as superstition rampages through our society and people vote on terms of their short term gain and religious bias.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 12:20:48 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
Petere and Robby,

Is a moral course legitimized by an effective outcome? When voting, I vote for the candidate who I believe is the either the best, or least worst. I would do so regardless of whether it brought about change or not. i.e. I'd do it if I was the only one voting that way.

If the candidate doesn't get over 4 percent, then they are not entitled to any funds from VEC/AEC. The bonus here is that you've taken money away from the big two, and smaller primaries may make them sit up and take notice. Also, there's hardly a mandate if the win scrapes home on some favourable preferences. It's not emphatic if you stumble over the line with the help of every minor party that attracted a dozen votes.
Posted by Nahum, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 3:20:15 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
What i find with interest is that those here that post keep saying that there is no choice , it is a 2 party system.

When it comes to elections it is not 2 party, so one should reflect on what you are doing everytime you say well its either liberal or labor. These are the choices that you are making, even though you know of other parties.

When you decide to make a positive change and stand up then we will get change.
With candidates why not you, have you ever thought, you say there is not anyone suitable, well you come up with the answer wouldnt someone suitable be someone from your electorate who knows and not just somebody moved in from somewhere else.

Email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au
Australian Peoples Party.

It is always good to debate but unless you really want change then debate is nothing.
Action makes change

And this moral vs national interest is why i am doing this.
Posted by tapp, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 5:09:56 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
Nahum, If you are asking does the end justify the means, then I would say no!
I more or less agree with the rest of your observations. As I have moved around a bit, there have been times when whatever I vote was going to filter down to one of the major parties. However, first I believe in encouraging anyone who is prepared to put the time, effort and money into standing, and you are right, about needing 4 percent, or some such to get any benefit from the funding, but you might help them get their deposit back!
Then I live in hope that the scrutineers might, just might take some message back to the party when they see that I consider everyone, and anyone else as more worthy of my vote, than they are!
Posted by petere, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 10:53:51 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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