Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial

The circumstances in which we are liable for our omissions are in fact demarcated by the “maxim of positive duty”, which prescribes that we must assist others in serious trouble, when assistance would immensely help them at minimal inconvenience to ourselves.

Our non-neighbours are included in this principle by virtue of the fact that human life does not come in different levels of importance.

The last reason is the most fundamental. Contemporary moral discourse is framed in the language of rights. We like rights. They are individualising claims and seem to give us a protective sphere. But rights are nonsense.

They have no foundation and limit our moral horizons to ourselves and those closest to us. Rights appeal to those of us who have a “me, me, me” approach to life. Hence, we just make up rights as we go along and give priority to whatever right happens to coincide with our self-interest.

The emptiness and absurdity of rights based theories is highlighted by the fact that against this backdrop we have convinced ourselves that our right to keep our excess food outweighs the right to life of people in the developing world. It is only once we erase this indecent belief that world poverty will be history.

This can only occur if we abandon the notion of rights as the mainstay of moral discourse and make consequences the main moral building blocks. What matters most is maximising flourishing, not adding to the ever increasing catalogue of rights, which can only be enjoyed by many people at the conversation level.

The predictable response to my argument is that we should multi-task and fix backyard issues such as Hicks and global concerns. This is code for moral nihilism. It is a sure-fire way of continuing to consign more distant people to early unmarked graves from readily preventable causes.

Concern for others, like economic resources, is finite. It is important that it is not warped by crusades that narrow our moral thinking and distort our compassion trigger.

Of course we can continue to act in a manner whereby Australian lives are more important than others. But then we also need to peg back our moral self-assessment and accept that in the end the human condition is such that self-interest is trumps.