The end justifies the means - but not only for whales

No action is intrinsically bad or good. No principle is absolute. Matters are always context sensitive. Plundering the organs (in the form of kidneys and bone marrow) is permissible if it is done with the consent of the patient and in order to save lives; engaging in conflict that will result in the certain deaths of many innocent people is permissible to save many others (as is the case currently in Iraq) and detaining suspects without trial is morally sound where it is likely to prevent innocent lives being lost.

The best way to deal with evil is to pulverise it. As we did (although far too late) with Adolf Hitler and should have in relation to the likes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. The good news is that evil is not transmittable. Ostensibly harmful acts are permissible if they are for the greater good.

The moral and political debate in relation to important societal issues must move on from not whether the end justifies the means, to what end we as a species should be attempting to secure. In this regard, there can only be one answer. The ultimate end is to maximise net flourishing, where each agent’s interests counts equally - even those who do not excite our emotions.

Each person must count equally in this equation because there is no logical or normative basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another. An argument along the lines that “I am more important than you” is inherently discriminatory and morally vacuous.

Animals get a look-in into this equation because they posses the most important attribute that qualifies an entity for moral standing: the capacity to feel pain and hence suffer. Suffering is suffering, whether experienced by animals or humans.

The insurmountable conundrum that civil libertarians need to address is if the end (measured in terms of net global flourishing) does not justify the means, then what does? Surely, they must have some end in mind as well, beyond the repetition of “fine” words - which are of no comfort in the grave. Until their elusive end is revealed there is no basis for believing that their retorts are anything more than pre-reflective visceral responses. But that shouldn’t sway anyone. Their emotions are no more important than those of anybody else.

Hopefully the icy waters of the Southern Ocean will encourage misguided libertarian groups to come up for air and take a few steps up the moral mountain beyond the rights fog in which they are currently enveloped. The world would be a better place if we all applied our energies towards securing the right end, for whales, humans and even less sympathy inducing creatures.