The ends and the means

Two events have caught my eye in recent weeks. One of them is the go-ahead that NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg gave to the building of the Muslim Cultural Centre close to Ground Zero – what is being billed as the “Ground Zero Mosque”. In one of the most rousing speeches that I have ever read, one that I highly suggest our readers check out, Bloomberg extolled the virtues of religious tolerance, and proposed that this building was a progressive way to move past the tragedies of the past. More recently, President Obama threw his support behind the centre as well. In contrast, the building has not surprisingly drawn considerable vitriol from families of 9/11 victims, with Americans overwhelmingly find it “offensive“. In amongst the opinions against the mosque, was one attributed to Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, who said that families of 9/11 victims were entitled to “positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted”. In other words, he believes that in extreme circumstances, and under extreme provocation, it is excusable to hold and state opinions that in other circumstances would be viewed as wrong.

Funnily enough, that is the exact argument that our current and previous governments have used for the Northern Territory intervention. The intervention, initiated in 2007, specifically targets the Aboriginal population with a raft of measures that range from pragmatic (increasing police presence) to outrageous (forced checks of Aboriginal children for signs of child abuse without parental consent). This week, a United Nations panel will investigate whether or not these policies are racist. Given that in order to carry out this policy, the Howard government had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act, it will be pretty hard to argue that this isn’t the case. The policy was justified on the grounds that the situation in the Northern Territory is dire, and that extreme measures are necessary to combat extreme problems. In other words, the ends justify the means, even if the means involves temporarily abandoning some of our moral standards (and even if, in this case, the justification for the ends, beginnings and middle section are all a bit hazy).

It was Machiavelli who said “In the actions of men, and especially of Princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means.” When reflecting on these two circumstances, we need to be firstly clear as to whether the ends are desirable in the first place. For example, a recent report into the intervention showed that child abuse has actually increased in the past three years, even though the prevention of child abuse was the main justification for the policy’s initiation.

These two situations are both related and abhorrent. They both excuse thinly veiled prejudiced attitudes through the justification of the outcomes that the seek. They also suggest that it is reasonable to temporarily abandon moral standards and codes if the situation demands it. What do our readers think?

Tagged as: 9/11, ground zero, john howard, justification, morals, mosque, northern territory intervention, obama, standards, values