Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Edmund Burke on politicians

By Max Atkinson - posted Friday, 2 November 2012


John Biggs reminds us that 'thirty five out of our 40 politicians didn't count heads or take any notice whatsoever of the large majority of Tasmanians who were opposed to fast tracking the pulp mill.' The implication is they should have counted heads - in which case we must reject Burke. I don't think so. Burke cannot criticise them for failing to act on a majority view, but he might do so for ignoring the environmental values this view is based on. Otherwise we have no answer if the case is reversed and politicians must try to protect old-growth forests, or pelagic fish stocks, from a public opinion bent on exploitation.

TGC made a plea to keep things simple, and should not be discouraged if his own efforts did not succeed. The issue can be simply stated: if politicians believe they should do what most people want, what happens if they want what politicians know will harm the community, or is contrary to values the community wish to live by, and which they share?

Burke saw himself as a simple, practical man not a 'dabbler in abstractions'. He was given to citing Prudence as a guiding principle and was widely seen as a brilliant pragmatist. This may explain why no one has put a simpler theory than his injunction to judge policies on their merits. Perhaps he understood intuitively that there is no other way to respect community values in the first (and only relevant) sense discussed above. But while the duty can be put in simple terms, to explain and defend it is another matter; it raises questions about the nature of moral argument which continue to engage professional philosophers and perplex ordinary people.

Advertisement

Whether, as John Hayward says, politicians 'overwhelmingly act on self-interest' is a matter of opinion and we should try, even when provoked beyond measure, to avoid projection. I see no compelling evidence that they are, as a group, less conscientious than the rest of the community, including those of us who contribute to blogs.

In which case it is reasonable to suggest that standards may improve if we clarify the duty they owe the public, and ensure it is more compatible with values we hold in common.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Max Atkinson is a former senior lecturer of the Law School, University of Tasmania, with Interests in legal and moral philosophy, especially issues to do with rights, values, justice and punishment. He is an occasional contributor to the Tasmanian Times.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Max Atkinson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Max Atkinson
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy