Paul,

Australian unis *do* provide a liberal, literary education. Historicism is not in opposition to this but part and parcel. Long's claim is part political aspertion and part hysteria. To give him the benefit of the doubt, it may also be part misundertanding, but I doubt it.

You ask

>>Doesn't accepting moral relativism remove any base upon which to claim a science of the study of society and politics?<<

Perhaps it was an error on my part to adopt Long's reductive term for the sake of argument. If the question refers to the practice of refraining from moral judgment whilst seeking understanding, the answer is a patent no.

You write
>>Following moral relativism down its logical path presents us with a world without morals. Yes I know you predicted it but that doesn’t make it any less true. Surely some things are moral for everyone no matter their point of observation.<<

Academic disinterest does *not* lead down this path. Real people do have morals, we are agreed on this point. There are sociopathic and psychopathic exceptions, but these are necessarily rare.

The disinterest of "historicist" academia is not real, personal moral relativism but a recognition that different people, and different societies, have different moral compasses -- and are no less human, and no less capable of insight or beauty or truth, for their distance from the observer's moral milieu.

A healthy person's moral sense is synthesised through a process of instinct, socialisation, learning and contemplation. The morals of societies and of individuals evolve in response to learning and experience.

To pretend instead that morality is something objective puts one firmly in the camp of religious fundamentalists (whose holy books bottle the moral zeitgeist of distant history and distil it as a prescription for all time) and of "objectivist" prophets like Ayn Rand or Ludwig Wittgenstein, who pretend that moral truth can be inferred from some universal human condition.

It's fine for you to hold such a position, but all such absolutist opinions are equally "true", and where they repudiate the validity of contrary positions, equally likely to be false.

Ok I admit I never had any formal education in Australia as to its history as I grew up in The Netherlands but then again on the other hand it does not prevent me as an Attorney (not a lawyer) and “CONSTITUTIONALIST” to present constitutional and other legal issues before the Courts and succeed in them using Australia’s legal history that those educated in Australia and so also having law degrees never even knew about.
It all comes down to how one looks at history and its meaning.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” (See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH) I pursue the true meaning of the Framers of the Constitution and not some version politicians and judges of the High Court of Australia pretend to make from it.
Local Government is historically State Government in the Constitution, not the Local Government we know of today being Municipal Councils.
When States are teaching their own versions of history they can bring out what is significant in its State history whereas a Federal Government dictated “history” can be what suits the politicians most.
For example the federal politicians will pretend that “Australian citizenship” is a nationality, whereas constitutionally Australian citizenship can only be obtained by obtaining “State citizenship”. This, as the framers of the Constitution specifically refused to give the Federal Government any legislative powers to define/declare “citizenship”. “Citizenship” being a “political status” and has nothing to do with nationality.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded on those and other constitutional ground in Court, after a 5-year legal battle against the Federal Government, and as such my lack of formal education in Australians history is made up for in my quest for JUSTICE and to pursue the true application of the Constitution!
No one should be expected to know everything of history, as what is needed is a mere general perception of the world and blended with local history of once State.

Even my step-daughter (46), with several law degrees made known she learned more from me about certain historical legal matters then she ever had before!

Xoddam,

You say “The disinterest of "historicist" academia is not real, personal moral relativism but a recognition that different people, and different societies, have different moral compasses -- and are no less human, and no less capable of insight or beauty or truth, for their distance from the observer's moral milieu.”

This is all well and good in theory, in practise what you are saying is that the historicists view all morals as equal.

Historicists want to avoid making any value judgements at all. But the fact of having morals does not make you a ‘good’ person. Not all morals are equal. By doing this Historicists are rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as ‘good’.

But there are universal principles that occur in all the good books of the world’s religions. Surely they are on to something there

Paul.L,

You write

>>In practice what you are saying is that the historicists view all morals as equal<<

No, David Long says that, my position is clear. Perhaps you missed the discussion under Long's previous article:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6293

Donald Blake's single post last Friday was particularly pertinent.

The purpose of scientific study is to discern facts. One's moral values inform one's curiosity and whatever use one makes of one's knowledge, but factual assessment must be dispassionate *especially* when studying human behaviour.

Someone whose passionate moral sense causes them to dismiss information coming from "immoral" sources or presume "Biblical inerrancy" is very likely to miss the mark.

I think Long wants readers to conclude that there is one objective morality, but he would prefer that they lead themselves there by reading the timeless classics of moral philosophy rather than simply be told to follow his mores. A noble goal, but undermined by Long's approach of denigrating the rigorous study of human behaviour. He would prefer a cultural canon of European philosophers to the progressive and evolving scientific understanding that always informed them.

Long gets my goat with his close-minded assumption that all open-minded people must come to the same inescapable conclusion, and with the insufferable way he belittles the social sciences, as though seeking facts in the field is itself doomed by hubris.

You write

>>But there are universal principles that occur in all the good books of the world’s religions. Surely they are on to something there<<

The books have the morality of the human animal in common. The archaic morality of vendetta and of narrow tribal loyalty is there too. Morals evolve subject to contemplation and socialisation, and it is a valid and noble goal to seek to direct that socialisation through education and public policy.

It is neither valid nor noble to denigrate the pursuit of science whilst espousing "liberal education" and an arbitrary "already moral" cultural norm.

Long says the mind should be cultivated by reading great books. The greatest and most truthful book is Bacon's book of nature. It is read by skeptical, rigorous science.

Disgraceful Downer. You are trying to divide Australia. It is you as our Foreign representive government who confuses the Humanitarian issues.

Australia does not support the Death Penalty.

This is not a Club-med subject. We need to Stop Playing these Mindless Politcal Games.

Death is the one topic that is bound to confuse and under-mine the core principals of human rights and I am SHOCKED that you would even attempt to imprint our fear or focus of war, boarder security and now the death penalty as you wrangle for desperate brownie points over "sensitivities" trying to finger-shame at the opposition in the shadow of Bali rememberances.

Worse is the darkness of positive issues you fail to promote with your resources.

As Indoneasia's people historically struggle with poverty, poor infrastructure, industrialisation, complex forms of crime, military and economic structures... Where progress is being made by the people of Indoneasia, you abuse their rights as you do the democratic rights they struggle for, not to mention the tireless work of people who work on the issues (NGO's) which you fail to adequately fund, which do help ground level conditions.

We need to learn more to Solve Problems. Become more aware of how cartel movements operate and share the work with international movements against war, poverty and crime.

Australian needs to assist and work constructively to influence the complexity of debates valid in the UN context of Human Rights. We need to face the causes of crime so there is less chance of people becoming mixed up with the issues around attracting the death penalty. We need to het to the bottom of the problem,

People daily lives are at Stake!

As Foreign Minister I learn little from you, which is sad, given the wealth of knowledge and skill you are exposed to throughout Australia.

Listening to other Australians cope with this media tonight gives me strength to know of their soundness, regardless of the governments ill-advised cartoon not-gaffs being made in leadership.

http://www.miacat.com
.