When societies are no longer characterised by reference to race or ethnicity, values become central to our social identity. A society, a movement, an era is defined and judged by its values, for good or for bad. Albert Camus, for all his nihilism, could see that ‘a man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world’. Presidential biographer, James MacGregor Burns, perceived that ‘Divorced from ethics, leadership is reduced to management and politics to mere technique.’ The sternest of warnings, the vindication of which we have seen all too often, was issued by Edmund Burke: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ This is a challenge to all good people: defend your values or lose them. This is a good place to start.
Want to contribute an issue? Click here!
Many are calling for an Australian bill of rights to ensure human rights are duly protected. Is there really a need for such an instrument? Should it be statutory or constitutional? Is it undemocratic in that it transfers power from the elected representatives of the people (Parliament) to an unelected, unaccountable judiciary? What kind of rigths should be included in a bill of rights?
An age-old institution is being attacked: what side should we be on? To answer this question, I begin with a negative argument, i.e. why we cannot accept gay marriage; I then attempt to show that the discrimination charge is circular; lastly, I propose a positive argument, namely why the current definition of marriage is the best.
(continue reading »)
The death penalty has been abolished in all Australian jurisdictions. The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967. Our governments’ abolitionist position, however, is somewhat at odds with opinion polls which consistently show considerable support for the death penalty. According to a poll conducted by Newspoll in August 2003, 56% of respondents supported the reintroduction of the death penalty for “major acts of terrorism”; only 36% voted against; the rest were uncommitted. An ANU survey from 2003, which asked if the death penalty should be reintroduced for murder generally, found that only 33.6% were opposed. The president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission lamented in 2006 that “there are concerning signs that public support for the death penalty is growing.”
Relativism is the philosophy which asserts that there is no absolute or objective truth. Friedrich Nietzsche, the father of Perspectivism and arguably a forerunner of Relativism, said that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. In his enigmatic books, he argued that humans beings do not find values, but invent them. Postmodernism, too, seems to be premised on this principle. Is it true that there is no absolute truth and that morality is man-made? What are the consequences of this school of thought for humanity?
The censorship debate has recently come back to life following the Bill Henson exhibition in which sexually suggestive photographs of naked 12- and 13-year-old children were displayed in Paddington. The Prime Minister, the Premier of NSW and other politicians did not hide their disgust. In an act of defiance, the editors of Art Monthly published an old picture of a naked 6-year-old girl (continue reading »)
Metaphysics aside, is the world better off with or without religion? Secularists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens argue that religion has been a malevolent force in human history and should be eradicated. Others disagree with some of the doctrinal claims of religion but believe that on the whole it is a force for good in the world. The faithful regard religion as the greatest gift of all. Where do you stand?
Click here to read Andrew Bolt’s fascinating analysis of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight, in the Herald Sun (30/7/08). Bolt argues (not facetiously in my view) that the character of Batman is actually a metaphor for President Bush. Whatever the actual intentions of director Chrisopher Nolan, this column offers very interesting insights not only into the film but into the character and presidency of George Bush.
Can we believe that murder is wrong if there is no deity to which the values can be traced? If there is no such deity, where do these values come from and are they authoritative? Does atheism necessitate moral relativism or can atheists belief that murder is objectively wrong even in the absence of a God?
The Sydney Morning Herald (12/7/08):
“China and Russia today blocked a US draft resolution in the UN Security Council that would have slapped sanctions on Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe over his disputed re-election.
The Chinese and Russian envoys joined their colleagues from South Africa, Libya and Vietnam in opposing the draft which would have imposed an assets freeze and a travel ban on Mugabe and 13 of his cronies, as well as an arms embargo. Indonesia abstained.”
Given the recent failure by the UN to condemn Rubert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, can the institution still profess moral authority?
In September 2005, a Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten printed a series of cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammad and linking Islam with violence. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. (continue reading »)
Are you theist, atheist, agnostic or some other ist? Time to come out of the cloister!
I will admit that initially I was torn on this question, ultimately I believe it is about expression of identity. The argument for not allowing girls to wear veils in schools is a simple one. It creates difference and demonstrates the extent to which Muslims or any other group are not integrating into society. Those who champion this view believe in a neutral public space, a place that can nurture a common life from which religion is excluded. (continue reading »)
