Tue 28 Nov 2006
Evil Intent
Posted by anaglyph under In The News, Philosophy, Politics
[15] Comments
The news in Australia over the last few days has been headlined with the scandal of the findings handed down by the Cole Inquiry into the behaviour of the Australian Government and the Australian Wheat Board and their ethically despicable trading deals with the Iraqi Government just before the 2003 invasion.
At that time there were (in theory) severe sanctions placed by the world community upon trade with Iraq, an accord to which Australia was a signatory. However, for reasons that are still unclear, the AWB considered that these sanctions didn’t apply to them and they carried on business as usual, a situation that encompassed significant bribes to officials in the Iraqi Government in order to lubricate the machinery of commerce. This was, we are to understand from the AWB, normal business practice.
The Howard government in its typically weaselly manner has managed to slip like a greased pig from the grasp of the Cole Inquisitors, avoiding the allegations of Corruption directed toward it for its part in the debacle, and settling for the questionably safer judgement of Incompetence (with which it evidently feels quite comfortable). This is not a surprise for thinking Australians. We’ve become used to this over the last decade or so. This Government is not ‘responsible’ for anything except winning the cricket.
But the full force of the law has landed on the AWB, which has been found in Australian law to be about as rotten as any capitalist venture can be. The punitive effects of this are yet to be decided, but they are likely to be severe.
The extraordinary comment of the day, however, came from the former Managing Director of the AWB Andrew Lindberg, who made a philosophically booby-trapped statement to the effect that he did not believe that AWB acted with evil intent.
Aha. No, Mr Lindberg. Of course you didn’t. Very few people, except for psychopaths and Satanists actually set about acting with evil intent. That’s the really tricky thing about Evil, isn’t it? It kinda sneaks up on you when you thought that all you were doing was just fudging the truth. Just telling a little white lie. Just looking after the interests of your shareholders. Just giving a few mill to Saddam because, y’know, if we don’t, someone else will.
Evil isn’t a big cackling sulphur-smelling demon, Mr Lindberg. Evil is an obsequious little bespectacled man with a ledger, who keeps pointing at the bottom line and telling you your market index has dropped by half a percent. Evil is a little voice that whispers “Go on, just one little signature won’t hurt – they’re a backwards country run by towel-heads: no-one will care…” Evil is a lot of little moral compromises that really don’t matter all that much…
A deficit of evil intent does not mean a deficit of evil.
And you always know when you’re doing the wrong thing.
(It’s not like you were trying to cover your tracks or anything. Right?)
I’ve been following the Cole enquiry myself for Uni actually. Little John is so absurd isn’t he! Of course the AWB acted un-ethically. Firstly, they actively sought to give bribes, this is a hard thing to justify to the Australian public. Also, If my actions are the cause of some secondary consequence, whether good or bad, I am responsible for that consequence. The Labour party outlined a relevant secondary consequence and that being that the Iraq Government used this money to by weapons which were in turn used against Australian troops. I’ll have to reiterate Kim Beazley’s choice question of today – How do you sleep at night, John?
eep! What’s with the sudden intrusion of domestic current affairs into the sacrosanct space of my favourite Reverie?
You’re absolutely right guys, but I’m sorry: Bring on the revolution or ignore this same ol’ same ol’ boring media dissection of today’s standard business practice. Rupert Murdoch’s picture should be in the dictionary under “hypocrite”!
The only reason the AWB was rolled was because a bunch of pissed off American farmers were jealous they were outbid on the kickback contract and ran to mummy…. pffft!
Gimme cows anyday! ;)
Australia has a government?
*slap*
Ow! Okay I deserved that.
Whoa… unclosed “bold” tag. Wasn’t me!
Um. Sorry…. what a dork.
That would be me….. *sigh* not a good night apparently.
Youd think if a Aussie Wheat Board wannad t make a ridickulously large sum o money, theyd jus start puttin circles in th wheat crops n wait fer th American n British tourists t flock in by th boatloads.
Aint nothin evil bout ropin in th gullible.
Hey Rev, sucking us into politics? Now THAT’s evil ;-)
I so agree with Evenstar… yet I sometimes can’t seem to help myself. For shame, putting temptation under my nose :-)
tp
No kidding Spam, they have grown not only a primitive, if not adorable, government, but also some cute little scandals involving wheat. It’s always so wonderful watching the other former colonies grow up. I heard the inquiry has led to calls for their “Big-Man Chiefy” to be marked in charcoal and ridiculed by the rest of the village in a public display of beating toegether sticks and body painting. Australia’s really coming along. Before you know it, they’ll have nuclear capability, theocratic leaders, and start wars.
It will be nice to see them finally grown up like we are.
(This is all a joke, I really like Australia; the wine is good and plentiful and the women are hot and immoral. What more can a nation offer?)
Wow- I’m crushed. I thought that Aussies were perfect. Oh- yeah, there was that bit about all-white beaches . . . you mean you guys are human, too? Nice post.
Simon’s Space: Unfortunately, when it comes to putting the cards on the table, Kim Beazley is holding nothing but a low pair. If that.
evenstar: This is not so much a post about politics as it is about moral naiveté. When I heard Mr Lindberg claim that the AWB did not act with evil intent I was struck by his obvious sincerity. He actually seemed to believe what he was saying.
This kind of ethical ingenuousness is worryingly symptomatic of modern thought. This terrible simplistic post-rationalization can be seen everywhere from politics to business to religion.
Another example: ‘The US did not invade Iraq, it committed itself to a pre-emptive strike’. While this seems on the face of it just duplicitous language, if you consider it carefully it is obvious that George Bush and his cabinet, and a large percentage of the American people, actually believe this. They are unable to apprehend the moral ambiguity inherent in this reasoning.
When Andrew Lindberg says that the AWB did not act with evil intent he is showing the moral perspicacity of a child. Our world is being run by people like this.
Jam: Now now. At least we know where North Korea is on a map. (Tut. Sorry, it’s a bit too much like shooting fish in a barrel ;-))
Joey: The only circles in crops in this country are the ones the AWB is running around in, trying to extricate themselves from paying the billions of dollars that shareholders have lost.
tp: As I say, I’m less interested in the politics than the concepts of ethical slipperiness. Normal frivolous transmission will be resumed presently.
Casey: Oh, we’re almost as growed up as Mr Bush. Almost.
ren.kat: Some of us are human and maintain a reasonable moral compass. And the beaches are all white, except maybe for Bondi which is full of cigarette butts. Blame the English tourists.
I was going to have a pun for you, but I decided to make you wheat for it instead.
Ugh. That was a grainer.
Oh please. What do I do to deserve this?
See, this is why I shouldn’t be studying philosophy. Because it takes a perfectly decent (some of the time) thinking apparatus and makes it all algebraic.
A isn’t evil because it leads to C where C is evil, unless A has no other properties except that it always causes C. Otherwise, A must be judged on all its properties including its ability to cause C.
Now why do I get the feeling I’m helping the bad guys? Someone kill it before it multiplies.
A is evil because of its relationship to C. This relationship we will call B. C is already evil, we know this but for other ‘things’ to be evil too they need to possess B to realise this evil. A possesses B so is therefore evil. If A didn’t possess B then it could not realise C. A will only be not evil when it never possesses B.