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

Prosperity and rights, but no morals

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Tuesday, 30 May 2006


Ignoring the cries of others – it wouldn’t happen if we had regard to the common good.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed some remarkable acts of indifference to the plight of others. This disappointing trend will continue until the concept of the common good replaces the notion of individual rights as the basic moral currency.

Double amputee Mark Inglis was given a hero’s welcome in New Zealand last week for his remarkable accomplishment in climbing Everest. His heroic exploits are being undermined by revelations that he and his team of climbers came across British climber David Sharp who was near death. Inglis tried to help Sharp, but felt there was little he could do and continued his trek. Sharp later died.

Advertisement

This drew criticisms from some quarters, including Sir Edmund Hillary who accused Inglis and his team of not doing everything reasonably possible to save Inglis. Hillary is right.

Unfortunately this is not a one off incident. Last week eight Melburnians ignored what police described as the blood curdling screams of Juan Zhang as she was attacked outside her workplace. Her body was found in the boot of her car several days later. None of the eight witnesses bothered to even make a free 000 call to police. Several days ago, Australian climber Lincoln Hall was abandoned on Everest’s “death zone” by his Sherpa guides who believed he was gone beyond hope, only to spring to life less than a day later.

Remarkably the jury of public opinion is still out on the propriety of such conduct. This shows the depths to which our collective moral psyche has sunk - we are camped near the base of the moral mountain.

The big question remains how can this be? How can it even be an issue that the highest order moral imperative is to save human life?

Much of the answer rests with the distorted individualist moral code that pervades our collective thinking. Over the past 60 years there has been a slow but unmistakable change in the manner in which we approach moral issues. Our personal morality is central to our conduct because it impacts, often subconsciously, on all of the important decisions we make in our daily lives. You don’t need to be a philosopher to recognise the fundamental shift.

We are now wired in a way that the standard currency for dealing with moral issues is that of “rights”. Rights claims emerged in response the atrocities during World War II as counter-ideologies to combat tyrannical regimes.

Advertisement

From humble origins where it was proclaimed that all people have the right to life, liberty and property we have come to gorge on rights and all sorts of dubious claims are now dressed up in rights language.

Not too long ago, it was claimed that “each child has the right to a mother and father”. In a similar vein, Greek soccer supporters, frustrated by the fact that coverage of the European Soccer Cup was only available on pay TV, were asserting a right to “watch their team on free TV”. We can’t blame too much Ouzo for that one. More likely they were fuelled by Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Rights which claims we have a right to “rest and leisure”.

It’s easy to invent rights claims because rights are intellectual nonsense. No one has yet been able to provide tenable answers to questions such as: Where do rights come from? How can we distinguish real from fanciful rights? This allows people to make up rights as they “go along”.

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


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

18 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

Mirko Bagaric, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash), is a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy. He is the author of 20 books and over 100 refereed scholarly articles. He is not connected with any political party or other interest group. He is the author of Australian Human Rights Law (forthcoming). Mirko is the author of Being Happy and Dealing with Moral Dilemmas.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mirko Bagaric

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

Photo of Mirko Bagaric
Article Tools
Comment 18 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy