Moral v national interest: does anyone care anymore?

As Mr Howard is such a consummate analyst of public opinion, perhaps his intransigence is a telling reminder of just how little the public cares about the glaring immorality of David Hicks’ lengthy incarceration.

The AWB was the single most corrupt company in its serial rorts of the UN Oil-for-food program. Yet even though Canadians and Americans raised alarm bells, and 34 diplomatic cables were duly filed, no Australian politician, bureaucrat or AWB offical recalls seeing a blip on their moral radar.

Is this symptomatic of our moral indifference? Even in spite of the lack of evidence for any executive malfeasance, does the claim that no eyebrow was furrowed raise questions as to the philosophy governing Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war from the beginning?

Perhaps the one difference between the US and Australia on the war, where voters were troubled by the ongoing violence and the descent into chaos at the recent Congressional elections, is the financial and human costs borne by the US. Perhaps in the age of economic prosperity, the radar of self-interest has replaced that of morality.

But what are the implications of such a revelation? If the determinant of our action or inaction on global issues is found primarily on the locus of self-interest, rather than by any underlying moral considerations, then this dramatically reshapes our national and individual psyches.

If relationships with neighbours, both near and far, are viewed strategically rather than for their intrinsic worth, economic alliances are as much an expected outcome as harsh divisions and exploitation. But perhaps closer to home, the lack of a political desire to understand and engage with our neighbours on intrinsic terms leads to insularity, and this fuels xenophobia.

For example, in Kevin Rudd’s first session of parliament as Opposition leader, Prime Minister John Howard attacked him on the alleged foreign origins of his stance on climate change.

“It is European-based thinking, because he quoted countries whose economies are fundamentally different to Australia’s economy”, fired the prime minister. Rather than engage with the issue of climate change, and whether the policy had merit, Mr Howard highlighted the foreign nature of such a policy without substantiating his position with specifics.

To be fair, the ALP has directed criticism towards Mr Howard based on the alleged American origin of industrial relations laws.

Regardless of the legitimacy of either claim, the foreign origins of individual policy should have less to do with its merit than moral and intellectual integrity. The danger of untamed self-interest is that our focus turns completely inward, which tends to reinforce ill-informed prejudices. Worse still, when systemic myopia fails to recognise the voiceless, injustice prospers.

If the forgotten people forget their moral compass, they are likely to be lost in a morass of mediocrity.

This is not the philosophy that has underpinned our society from the very beginning. It was our moral compass that determined the way forward against the Holocaust, against apartheid and in favour of equality in the civil rights movement in the US. It was the same moral conscience that precipitated changes to the Australian constitution regarding the rights of Aborigines in 1967.

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.