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

Think morally - rejecting the coercive adoption of Aussie values

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Thursday, 21 September 2006


The above rules all focus on what we can’t do, except for number 4, which imposes only modest demands. This means that we are free to do as we wish so long as we don’t break these rules.

The only other legitimate restriction on our freedom comes from new pioneering studies in the science of human well-being. Social and “brain” scientists have been doing some impressive work in mapping the commonalities that all of us share regarding the things that are conducive to our well being.

What they’ve found is that the things that matter most are a sense of participation and control, close relationships, good health and the pursuit of challenging projects. Except for the good health part, liberty is the key to others.

Advertisement

This takes us back about 150 years when famous British Philosopher John Stuart Mill stated: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”

Mill didn’t have the benefit of the work of contemporary social scientists. But he was very close to the mark.

The upshot is that we are morally complete and virtuous individuals if we do as we wish so long as our actions do not harm others and we “kick in” to help the needy when this does not set us back much.

The government has no basis for expecting more from any of its citizens, except if it can demonstrate that it will increase observance of the four golden moral rules or advance our health.

This ethical framework provides ample opportunity for all people in the community, irrespective of their religion or ethnicity, to continue to revel in their cultural practices and customs. An appeal by both major parties for non-Australians to abdicate some of their customs and values which conform to these objective moral norms is ill-founded and ultimately destructive to a harmonious and just community.

This means that multiculturalism, even of the “mushy” variety, should be celebrated not derided. Failure to do so will diminish us as a society.

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

Article edited by Jack Scrine.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

43 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 dean of law at Swinburne University and author of Australian Human Rights Law.

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 43 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy