Bob Brown’s opinion piece for Fairfax today seems to endorse Jonathan Moylan’s “activism” as a form of civil disobedience.
The thoughts echo the sentiments expressed earlier in the week by his former colleague and Greens leader, Christine Milne who also endorsed Moylan’s actions as being “part of a long and proud history of civil disobedience, potentially breaking the law, to highlight something wrong”.
Milne is of course right: Moylan has highlighted “something wrong”. But whether or not he broke any law, he certainly did something that is ethically wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Moylan engaged in identity theft by creating a false identity for ANZ Bank and then falsely impersonating one of the ANZ employees. Stealing someone else’s identity for whatever misguided reason for whatever ends is ethically wrong. One can reasonably presume that neither Ms Milne nor Mr Brown would appreciate having their own virtual identities stolen and misused to embarrass them or damage their personal or political reputations, for that would also be ethically wrong.
Secondly, Moylan engaged in information corruption. He purposely used false information (disinformation) to corrupt the integrity of the digital informational environment. This is the environment whose reliability and trustworthiness we all rely on to conduct our legitimate informational transactions, for travel, education, sport, play, politics, health, finance, socialising, shopping and the whole web of our activities as citizens of a modern democratic capitalist state.
That Moylan, a self-described environmentalist, chose to corrupt that environment is ironic and paradoxical. For the informational environment, our shared infosphere is just as valuable and indispensable as our natural environment.
It is equally worthy of protection from misinformation pollution and vandalism by so called “activists” willing to undermine its integrity in order to advance their own ideologies whether the rest of society agree with them or not. Along with many other people I am personally sympathetic to Moylan’s concerns about the impact of greenhouse gases on the natural environment.
However, the use of unethical and nefarious means destructive to the integrity of our informational environment to promote concerns about the natural environment is not justified.
Instead we should welcome and engage in open, transparent and rational debate and action on how to tackle this complex issue, rather than engage in informational disinformation and vandalism, that does no one any good. Moylan’s action is ultimately self-defeating and as such not only ill-conceived and irrational, but also because of its destructiveness to our informational environment, unethical and grossly irresponsible.
In his article, Bob Brown seeks to indirectly justify Moylan’s hoax through the use of an argument from analogy. He refers to a number of historical and venerable examples of civil disobedience such as Gandhi, Mandela, Martin Luther and Jesus Christ.
No doubt all good examples of right action inspired and guided by right thinking. The problem with arguments from analogy, however, they only work when the analogy they draw on is accurate and apt. But that is not so in the case of Moylan.
For the venerable fathers of civil disobedience listed by Brown only engaged in just and ethical acts that were not intentionally harmful to others or the common good which they sought to promote. If their acts were harmful at all they were primarily harmful to themselves. Moylan’s actions by contrast are harmful to all of us who rely on the integrity and trustworthiness of the informational environment. We are not only biological beings but also and increasingly so, informational beings. When the informational environment is harmed we are also harmed.
Brown concludes his article with the foreboding words that “in Australia in 2013, while Whitehaven’s mine will help cost us the Earth, it is Moylan’s actions which have excited outrage and may cost him his freedom”. Well the Earth in Australia 2013 and for the foreseeable future also comprises the informational environment on which our civilisation depends, for better or worse, for its survival and continuous evolution and advancement.
In terms of our collective wellbeing the infosphere is no less important and precious to us than the natural environment. Polluting that environment with false information corrupts and undermines its integrity and undermines public trust in its reliability. As such,
Moylan’s act was an act of uncivil disobedience that merits not the praise one expects at a nationalist socialist rally by unreflective and fanatical storm-trooping devotees but like all unethical acts that undermine the public good for misplaced self-serving ideologies, public condemnation and sanction.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Karsten Mohr
Cat Herder
While I dont agree with what Moylan did, the media should check sources. Then again news corp has this sorted on their servers. http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/greenrelease.png
Dejan Tesic
Former Lecturer at Charles Sturt University
I didn't have a clue that the "informational environment" (whatever that is) is as important "for us" (what about all other species btw?) as is the natural environment. Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me, and I would like to see extraordinary proof for it. Just stating so doesn't make it so.
"Stealing someone else’s identity for whatever misguided reason for whatever ends is ethically wrong." - I know of many cases when this doesn't apply. Since the author didn't shy away from pulling the Godwin's law on the reader (in the final paragraph), I will do the same - smuggling people over borders to help them escape (from Nazis, for example) fully justifies stealing someone else's identities.
Paul Gregory
Honorary Fellow at University of Melbourne
"That Moylan, a self-described environmentalist, chose to corrupt that environment is ironic and paradoxical. For the informational environment, our shared infosphere is just as valuable and indispensable as our natural environment."
I don't see how the 'shared infosphere' is as 'valuable and indispensable' as the air we breath and the soil that grows our food.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Seems strange this concern for the integrity of information in the financial sector.
Any comments on CDO's, i.e. the lemons sold as AAA investments that brought us the GFC?
Any comments on the LIBOR rate scandal?
Any comments on the way the fuel price is calculated?
Any comments on short trading?
If you want to talk about unethical acts, how about the resource industries dealings with communities?
It is the "under the table" acceptance of dodgy deals in the "business as usual…
Read moreTim Keegan
Community Worker
I'm sure those now suffering from asbestos and tobacco related diseases would have loved the informational environment to be ethical in the the 60's and the community, through government , shut down toxic products. Big Carbon and its enablers in finance, planning and politics need to be put under the ethical spotlight as a priority. Then turn to Moylan.
Sal Kennedy
logged in via Facebook
"informational environment"
this whole article hinges on a term that i've only ever encountered in this article.
the internet is teeming with falsehoods. as Anonymous once said it's like pissing in an ocean of piss.
rational and fact based discourse died when carbon interests polluted the "informational environment" of news media.
absolute hogwash. this is the worst article i've read on the conversation. i read it all the way through because i'm trying to train myself to hear out opinions i don't agree with, but it was a trial, i tell you.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
Don't worry Sal! The Conversation will soon be back to evil fast food companies, the need for press regulation and climate catastrophe.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
Another content-free post then, James?
Ian Milliss
logged in via Twitter
I have to agree with the other comments, this article is little better than concern trolling and the unforgivable last para Godwin about storm troopers should never have got past the Conversation editors. It is depressing to think that there are "ethicists" who believe a minor hoax on an endlessly corrupted stock market is worse than the ongoing destruction of the basis of life on the planet.
I think much of the pearl clutching and vapours among the media has been because the hoax so easily exposed the incompetence of the markets, the very same markets whose ineffable wisdom the media endlessly promotes. The hypocritical whining of Eric Abetz, the promoter of the Godwin Grech hoax, only added to the delight I felt.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
I'm not surprised at the comments. Because they agree with and support what Moylan did, the correspondents have thrown out logic and fairness. What would happen to our civilisation if everyone who felt they had a reasonable grievance took similar action?
The problem with the thinking of Milne, Brown and the correspondents is the assumption that the coal mine is evil, ANZ financing the coal mine is evil, so everything Moylan did is OK. Well surely we have parliaments and courts to make determinations…
Read moreIan Milliss
logged in via Twitter
So you endorse the current situation where any lie (sorry spin) is acceptable if it makes money for someone but no lie is acceptable in opposition to that?
Its seems clear that Moylan is perfectly willing to accept the consequences of his actions which should of course be exactly the same as those faced by anyone issuing false company info. He will join those many hundreds of company directors, bankers, journalists already doing time ... oh hang on...
But if you think the natural next step is daily bomb hoaxes then I suppose we should be glad that you are not the campaign tactician.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
And what would happen if everybody always obeyed the law? By my reckoning, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, we'd still have apartheit and colonial rules in much of the world...for that matter, we'd still be burning witches.
"Logic and fairness" depend on trying to make balanced judgements of the importance of the issue and gravity of the danger - which, with expanded coal-mining, is severe and genuinely endangers health and life - weighed against the damage caused - which…
Read moreRobert McDougall
Small Business Owner
how naive james. explain then how people like Gina Rinheart, Clive Palmer and Rupert Murdoch are able to have undue influence in political, legal and media spheres, how does their right to exert inflence sit in your view?
The laws are written by these people, handed to their pet politicians and greased through parliament.
When legal options are closed off or obfiscated for the benefit of proponents (look at the Mining Acts, the power of resource companies and the recent castration of NSW EDO…
Read moreJames Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
All the ills you listed were changed through legal action, demonstrations, sanctions, voting and legislation pranks which caused collateral damage or danger to innocent bystanders.
But you still are assuming that history will judge Moylan right in condemning coal mining and I think that point is very far from being proven and is not widely accepted by the general community, just widely accepted by the left wing community.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Seriously Robert? You write that as if you believe it, yet we have legislation such as the Carbon Tax only because the Greens, voted for by was it 12% or 14% of the population - not because of Gina Rhinehart. We are currently ruled by the Labor party with most members of parliament never having worked in private enterprise. They have primarily Union or Lawyers for Union backgrounds. So there goes your theory about the likes of Gina Rhinehart, Clive Palmer and Rupert Murdoch having undue influence. Talk about naive!
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
sorry james, i don't really see the relevance to what i posted.
Money talks, these people have the money, and the contacts to influence behind the scenes, so they are individuals who have great influence and they exert it.
All politicians listen to that influence, particularly if they want to get re-elected. So they frame legislation in such a way to promote the interestes of those listed above.
And yes, the Carbon Tax got in because the ALP needed the support of the greens and independents to form government. the LNP would have done so too if they were in the same situation. political reality.
Gina, CLive and the rest did everything they could to scupper it, including using their influence in politics and the media, for their benefit, not the benefit of the nation as a whole, also including using that influence to remove a Prime Minister.. Are you saying these people do not have that power?
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
You implied that Rhinehart, Palmer et al have all the power and influence and members of the public are forced into acts of civil disobedience. I simply pointed out how obviously wrong you are. If you were correct we wouldn't have had the Carbon Tax or the MRRT, and we wouldn't have significant welfare including the wasteful middle class welfare supported and expanded by the Coalition for that matter. In fact, what is happening in politics at the moment is that the vocal minority is getting a larger say in the running of the affairs of the country be it the supporters of The Greens, or the 18% of workers who are members of Unions who decide on 100% of the make up of the ALP parliamentary team.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
No James, I didn't say they had all the power, just that as individuals, they have an undue amount of influence due to their money.
In terms of the makeup of parliament, that is a direct result of an election.
And the mrrt and carbon price we have was significantly watered down through the activities of those I listed.
When you refer to the vocal minority getting a larger say, what do you consider the appea or Aca to be? A vocal minority on the form of a powerful lobby group.
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
That's certainly a refreshingly novel reading of history you have there James.
The Suffragettes, for example, were noted for never doing anything more active than writing pamphlets and making cucumber sandwiches, were they? Rosa Parkes never broke the law, did she?
I think you're confusing the ultimate outcome (legislation) with the means taken to get to that point (which have frequently had to include illegal action).
I have never claimed to know what the judgement of history will be, assumed…
Read moreJohn Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Nah, Felix. In a democracy, laws are changed by elected officials. You know that and so did boy wonder. You also know that there are many legal forms of protest that can be accessed in order to facilitate such change. When you support actions like the Whitehaven fraud and the Gleick fraud you achieve only two things: Firstly, you encourage anarchy and provide a situation where any individual can justify any action on the grounds that it was taken for the 'greater good'. (This point has been made before and then called the 'slippery slope' argument as some type of excuse and in a false attempt to discredit it - the very act of supporting illegal actions leads directly to that same slippery slope.)
Secondly, the support given to these illegal and ethically bereft actions identifies those who support them as being radicals or zealots, which in turn destroys the credibility (by association) of those who would push for change through legitimate means.
Gavin Moodie
logged in via LinkedIn
Whitehaven wasn't a fraud: Moylan did not gain nor even seek financial advantage by his deception. It was just a hoax.
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Gavin, fraud is defined on Wiki as "a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;"
By stealing the identity of the ANZ bloke, boy wonder perpetrated a fraud.
Gavin Moodie
logged in via LinkedIn
Sorry, I was using the Australian common law's definition of fraud.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
A very lonely voice of reason!
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
John, do try reading what I said - obviously laws can only be made by legislators (that has something to do with why they are called legislators) - the point is about the social forces that lead to them realising that the laws should be changed - sometimes that happens through changes of government, but just as often it happens because legislators recognise the intensity of public feeling. The outcome of the Eureka stockade provides a good example of this effect.
I do not "provide a situation where any individual can justify any action on any grounds" as I have never given blanket approval-in-advance for any and all illegal action. That would be about as rational as claiming that allowing heterosexual marriage will lead to pedophilia against little girls...hang on, wasn't there someone who raised a slippery slope argument along those lines?
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
As an ethicist with a focus on ecology, I share the concerns of other commenters about the logic of this piece, which hinges on the somewhat bizarre claim: "In terms of our collective wellbeing the infosphere is no less important and precious to us than the natural environment."
I'd rather live on a planet with an intact natural environment where our access to accurate information was patchy than in a hell-on-earth of collapsing ecosystems about which we have perfect information.
David Collett
IT Application Developer at Web Generation
I agree.
I also think that the worst thing about living in "a hell-on-earth of collapsing ecosystems about which we have perfect information" would be that you could log into the internet and know just how bad everything was.
Additionally, with perfect information, you could also probably see how we came to live on a hell-on-earth. It would be a catalogue of short term decisions, poor planning and vested interests which would be an equally depressing read.
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Byron, how would like to make that transition from what existence to the other, gradually or violently?
Felix MacNeill
Environmental Manager
John, when you make gratuitous, nasty and meaningless comments like this, why do you expect to be treated with anything other than contempt?
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Simple rule:
If you are wealthy then you are above fraud.
If you protest the above statement by clear demonstration of how easily market forces are fooled, you're a fraud.
Phil Dolan
Viticulturist
And the fossil fuel industry only brings out real arguments as to why we should carry on using more and more!!! They don't put out a press release, they discredit the whole scientific community. They pay people to make things up.
As someone pointed out on the Drum the other evening, if a newspaper ran a story based on that release without checking it, they would be laughed at. What's the difference between a media organisation and a share trading organisation?
Good on him I say.
Anthony Nolan
Ruminant
So, we are told by a professional ethicist that the 'infosphere' is as important as the biosphere on which the 'infosphere' depends. Moylan's actions then, they'd be analogous to real pollution of the biosphere. Stuff in the very drinking water of commercial life.
Let's hope that someone soon develops a manner of attacking the global market 'infosphere' in the same way that US forces attacked the jungles of Vietnam with defoliant.
Sooner the better, really.
Claude Walker
Research Assistant
The logical fallacies in this piece are simply overwhelming. This article would be better suited to the Australian than the Conversation.
One logical fallacy is this unsupported premise: "Stealing someone else’s identity for whatever misguided reason for whatever ends is ethically wrong." Presumably, then, Edward Spence opposes the activities of ASIO, ASIS and some undercover policing. To him, there is no reason why you could steal someone's identity.
He also says "That Moylan, a self-described…
Read moreThomas Brookes
Founder of the Australian Independents Movement
It seems to me that something crucial to this whole discussion by everybody, including the author Edward Spence was that a large part of Jonathon Moylon's motivations was Ethics. The Ethics I am talking about is the ANZ Bank's Ethics.
ANZ CEO, Mike smith in a recent speech on Navigating Responsible Growth, said. “We seem to be at the beginning of a rebalanced world". “At the highest level of the organisation we have started a dialogue about values and ethics which is very explicit and very practical…
Read moreJames Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
I am sure whoever shot JFK felt equally as justified!
Thomas Brookes
Founder of the Australian Independents Movement
James Doogue.. I have read some of your other comments. Thank you for the invitation to a fight, but I decline. Can I recommend to you some extreme right wing sites where I feel you might feel at home?.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Very mature!
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Just in case some others just read your comment Mr Brookes I should add that I can't see how my logical arguments and factual notes could in any way be interpreted as "an invitation to fight". However your interpretation of my comments as an 'invitation to fight' gives readers an insight into your own misguided thought processes. I appreciate at least you considered it and chose not to fight, so hopefully I don't have to worry about any strange packages arriving at my house either, no matter how justified you and apparently others may think that would be.
Thomas Brookes
Founder of the Australian Independents Movement
Mr Doogue. Your comment about JFK was extreme and stupid, and you want to have a go at me about maturity? As for "strange packages arriving at your house"..... refer my previous sentence.!
I love it how people like you have to resort to extremism and insults, when they are on the losing side of a 'Mature" discussion. You want to keep making yourself look like an idiot continue on....... I will be ignoring you from now on.....
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
How was the comment re JFK extreme or stupid. I'm sure the perpetrator thought he was doing a worthwhile, good and just thing, just as Moylan does. Where do you draw the line - just at the actions you happen to agree with? I suggest it should be at the point that a free, democratic society agrees with. We all get to vote. Moylan is trying to increase his power in a democratic society by making it riskier for legal businesses he happens to not agree with, to operate.
There are a whole lot of things…
Read moreUlf Steinvorth
Doctor
Thankfully there are plenty of good comments on this article which brims with 'informational disinformation' (that has to win the 2013 non-word prize!).
Could the author name one act of civil disobedience that was described as 'civil' by the masters against which it was deployed in its time? Could he give examples of how any of those acts were not described as a threat to society, law, finance, justice, ethics or even a direct threat to the freedom and safety of others?
Could he describe the…
Read moreJohn Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Ulf, we dont live in an 'unjust regime' - we live in a democracy where our biggest threats are lifestyle choices so your argument's a bit extreme on that point.
Comment removed by moderator.
Ulf Steinvorth
Doctor
I notice that contrary to the user guidelines and eitquette you formally accepted when joining you refuse to give your real name and your real profession.
While that should be sufficient to discredit your comments and take you off this particular platform I find this one very helpful as it beautifully illustrates where our strict anti-terrorism laws can lead. All that remains to be done in the future is to expand the definition of 'terrorism' against whatever is perceived a threat to the way the world is currently run and bingo we can 'legally' lock up the offenders indefinitely and without trial.
Which leads back beautifully to the eternal ethical question of when it is morally right or wrong to obey/disobey unjust written law.
Ozzy Patriot
Watermelon interrogator
Guidelines are guidelines. Laws are laws. Willful economic sabotage committed with the intention of inflicting losses on and coercing victims is an act of terrorism. I never advocated indefinite detention. I never advocated extra-judicial punishment. On the contrary, I specifically said he should be prosecuted. I am outraged by your hysterical and dishonest strawman attack on my comment!
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Ozzy I don't know what their problem is, they are all for civil disobedience and breaking laws!
Ulf Steinvorth
Doctor
If you know so much about laws are you surely also know that an act is not unlawful until declared so by law and a person is not guilty until found so by legal process including an independent defense and judge or jury.
Your extra-judicial conviction is an abuse of due process and our legal foundations, just as your hidden identity is an abuse of our guidelines.
If you are so keen on upholding the law and the guidelines of our country, why not start with adhering to them yourself before accusing others?
Comment removed by moderator.
Ozzy Patriot
Watermelon interrogator
Moylan has made a publicly confession of malicious intent and guilt. It takes quite a committed loony tree-hugging lefty to protest his innocence!
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
Must have missed something, where was the terror part again? As in how did Moylan employ terror?
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
He has admitted guilt sure, as it further serves to highlight the issue he was protesting, i dont know, maybe he feels he doesnt have anything to hide. Precedents abound. No one has said he is innocent, they can just understand why he did what he did.
How committed would you have to be to money to hide, obfuscate and refuse to take responsibility for breaches of the law, like say, resource companies and environmental breaches? International investment banks? News Ltd? They all say they are innocent and we can also understand why they do what they do.
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Ulf, if Roxon gets her 'discrimination' legislation through, we'll be well on the way to an oppressive regime in which free speech is a distant memory and the "government' will be able to define whatever the hell they want. (Hey, we've already got Macquarie redefining 'misogynist' to suit our current leaders.)
Craig Thomas
logged in via Facebook
What "malicious intent"? He's trying to save the world.
John C Smith
Auditor
What a joke?
He did not get any monetary benefit from this. The investors are fools, relying on something that could have been verified easily. i am sure the formal telephone numbers are publicly vailable.
What would have been the case if he was a jock shock?
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Before releasing the story the media verified the veracity by contacting the number on the press release. Which of course was Moylan's number. You really think that once the news hits the market and the share price starts sliding it is realistic that anyone holding shares call both ANZ and Whitehave including Mum and Dad Investors? There were apparently 1600 trades done and I am guessing that they were all done either as automated trades which are designed to happen as soon as a price trigger is hit, or they were done individual investors who trade directly, not through an advice broker. As all stockbrokers would have looked for an ASX notice and of course there was none.
What you are essentially saying is that if someone is gullible enough to fall for a scam then that's their bad luck. Funny morals you have.
Aden Date
Manager of the Guild Volunteer Hub at University of Western Australia
The piece seems to refer to the "integrity of our systems."
What integrity?
David Sindel
Designer
"the informational environment, our shared infosphere is just as valuable and indispensable as our natural environment."
I also am not sure what exactly is meant by the 'informational environment' - is it our shared digital network only decades old, or is it referring to all human collective culture and knowledge, dating back maybe up to 5000 years ago?
Either way, I can't think of a more ridiculous claim that it is as valuable and indispensable as our natural environment. With only a few small tweaks to our natural environment (ones that we are undertaking currently) life very quickly becomes untenable for humans, and many other species at the same time.
However if this 'informational environment' were to disappear then after a short period of discomfort we would quite happily get on with life, which after all relies on clean water, food, shelter and community to survive.
Anthony Nolan
Ruminant
Quiggin:
"It’s now clear that this systematic criminality is part and parcel of modern financial markets, and that nothing can or will be done about it."
http://johnquiggin.com/
Peter Redshaw
Retired
I do not know the legality or not of Moylan's action, but what he has done is remind everyone of the flaws and weaknesses of the current market system. It demonstrates how much this system has been set up as simply a reactionary investment process rather than one based on a proper check and verification of the facts. And it says very little if anything has changed since the GFC hit in changing the culture and practices of the market. The market continues to act on greed and fear. Facts, or ethics…
Read moreJames Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Your argument for Moylan not being prosecuted boils down to:
1. The current financial system in your opinion is deficient.
Read more2. The financial markets nor the mining industry operate on [suitable] ethics in your opinion.
3. Investors should have worked out that Moylan was fraudulently impersonating officers of the ANZ by forging a press release on ANZ letterhead and should not simply react to falling share prices as a trigger to sell - in your opinion.
4. People unidentified by you from big banks…
Gavin Moodie
logged in via LinkedIn
I agree with Karsten Mohr.
Moylan's bogus press release was effective only because it was reported as fact by the mainstream media which should have checked the story more rigorously before publishing and which accordingly should share some responsibility for any damage done.
Les McNamara
Researcher
In this context, it's a bit of a stretch to link the "infosphere" to the biosphere, the "informational environment" to the natural environment, and "misinformation" to pollution and vandalism.
As the author says... "The problem with arguments from analogy, however, they only work when the analogy they draw on is accurate and apt." I don't think Brown's analogies are any more or less apt that the authors. A very subjective piece.
Tim Kottek
logged in via LinkedIn
The "info sphere" is in tact and was then.
The market damage was suffered by those seeking to benefit from "insider" information; that is information not released through the ASX announcements platform
as an aside - I'm sure (faily well anyhow) that not all of Nelson mandela's actions were harmless to others - another example was the intended harm to Adolf Hitler by Colonel Count Claus von Stauffenberg "unethical"
Paul Atkinson
Social Worker
Surely this article is a hoax, it certainly plays havoc with our informational environment.
Daniel Boon
logged in via LinkedIn
'By watering down liquidity requirements, Basel III remains a bank's best friend' .... what about this fraudulent act ?
John Zerilli
Tutor in Law and Philosophy at University of Sydney
Edward Spence writes that "Stealing someone else’s identity for whatever misguided reason for whatever ends is ethically wrong."
Kant thought so too. He deplored untruth in any form, and was unable to reconcile himself even with the "supposed right to lie" to a murderer who asks for the whereabouts of his victim. Most human beings, hopefully, would disagree with so stringent an ethic.
I can think of one instance where you might want to steal someone's identity. Watch the film Argo for a clue. I hope applied ethics courses would allow some wiggle room for lying under straitened circumstances.
Daniel Boon
logged in via LinkedIn
anyone who says they don't lie ... is a liar
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
I feel exactly the same empathy for the financial sector as they feel for me, I could not care less
Given that Climate Change is a real thing I have no qualms about his actions, maybe not the most productive, maybe wrong, but I find the framing of this piece rather odd, a little bit over the top regarding morality in the financial sector....well it sounds a little like a bully and a thug crying when you push back
Piero Moraro
Lecturer in Moral and Political Theory at Charles Sturt University
I don't understand why Ed wants to draw the inference "illegal therefore immoral". Lots of things that are not illegal are immoral (e.g. cheating on one's own partner). Other things are immoral regardless of what the law says about it (e.g. rape). Moylan committed actions that are illegal, but this does not make them immoral (unless we want to argue that all laws are morally right, of course..)
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Piero, the guy falsely used someone's identity - that's immoral (and hopefully, illegal).
Piero Moraro
Lecturer in Moral and Political Theory at Charles Sturt University
John, if I pretend to be you in order to save a person from committing suicide (supposing you are the only one this person would listen to), is my action immoral?
John Phillip
John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.
Grumpy Old Man
Yes, because you are lying to force your wishes on someone else.
Ian Milliss
logged in via Twitter
so John Philip, that could be described as "lying like a climate change denialist"?
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Would a 'climate change denialist' be someone who states categorically that our climate is so sensitive to human greenhouse gas emissions that they trump any natural climate variables. Like the IPCC have been doing for years, and we've been told the science was settled on the matter and that the Climate models were to be believed as good predictors of future climate. But with no statistically significant global warming for 16 years even though GHG emissions have increased 58% since 1990 climate scientists…
Read morePhil Dolan
Viticulturist
Why do people keep on with the lie that the planet hasn't warmed in the last few years. It has and you must be reading stuff from denialist sites to believe it.
The most consistent, highly respected, and regularly analyzed and updated data on global surface temperatures are available from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, NOAA’s National Climate Data Center, and the United Kingdom’s Met Office Hadley Center.
But I guess you believe that these folk are part of the amazing scam that's hoodwinked most governments in the world, but not fossil fuel barons and baronesses.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
It is the Hadley Centre at the UK Met Office has revised its global temperature predictions as a result of a new version of its climate model and climate simulations using it. They also concur as does the Satellite temperature records that there has been no statistical warming since 1998. Even poor old Phil Jones had to choke out that admission so I'm afraid you are going to have to swallow it too.
Sure you can torture data and say stuff like it was the hottest decade on record or we have had…
Read moreIan Milliss
logged in via Twitter
1 A climate change denialist would be someone who hides behind great puffs of verbiage when faced with an increasingly undeniable climate reality.
2 Until now I have never come across anyone who regarded the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information. You need to read more widely I think. And check the definition of "confirmation bias".
3 "left wing media in Australia"? What media would that be, as far as I'm aware all mainstream media in Australia is clearly right wing although it occasionally claims to be centrist.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Here is the NOAA satellite data you seem to be unaware of Phil: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ I certainly don't think NOAA and their satellite records, which provide a far more accurate measure than simply land based temperature stations, are part of a scam or conspiracy. You can see quite clearly there is no statistically significant warming since 1998 just as I wrote. If you took the smoothed out rise in average global temperatures since 1979 when satellite data became…
Read moreJames Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Ian your point 3. shows you are unable to recognise point 2. Also regarding point 2. I was hardly using the Daily Mail as a source of information, I gave it as an example of the opinion regarding how the UK sneaked the dramatic change in climate models out on Christmas Eve. Are you questioning the fact the UK Met have changed their modelling and forecasts? Are you questioning the fact that there has been no statistically significant increase in global average temperatures since 1998? Are you questioning…
Read morePhil Dolan
Viticulturist
So you respect the Hadley centre. Good. Read this from their site. And read the last sentence twice. And maybe repeat it before going to bed.
The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler.You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña.
Despite this, 11 of the last13 years were the warmest ever recorded
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
So now you have been found wanting - you have changed the argument. You stated "Why do people keep on with the lie that the planet hasn't warmed in the last few years." I proved that the planet hasn't warmed in the last few years. You failed to acknowledge that proof and go off on a tangent! So now let me deal with your tangent:
1. I totally agree the long term trend since 1870 is that global temperatures are rising. That is what you would expect after recovering from the Little Ice Age during…
Read morePhil Dolan
Viticulturist
I give up. How can you argue with a troll.
James Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Phil I don't blame you for thinking what you do. After all the climate alarmist has been consistent and persistent and it is hard to sift fact from fiction. It was remarkable that days after the UK Met Office were announcing their new modelling which would see no increase in global average temperatures from 1998 to 2017, we had our Climate Commissioners all over the news in Australia, telling us global warming had been particularly bad in recent years, was the cause of the bush fires and was going…
Read moreJames Doogue
logged in via email @doogue.net
Your definition of a 'troll' must be someone who has facts to support what they say, not unsupported mantra Phil.
Leo Kerr
Consultant
Nice piece of righteous entertainment Edward - loved the moral pronouncements of:
"Polluting that environment with false information corrupts and undermines its integrity and undermines public trust in its reliability" - think you should flick that to Lord Monckton, Koch brothers, big oil, Alan Jones, oh and thingy what's his name - you know - the "climate change is crap" guy ......... and this
"However, the use of unethical and nefarious means destructive to the integrity of our informational environment "
informational environment - love that - that's the same informational environment that gave us sub prime mortgage loans / low doc loans, insider trading scandals and the like ........ hmmmmm - maybe flick that one to the financial sector.
So glad to see that ethically the informational environment takes precedence over the natural environment - how's your bushfire planning going?
Sue Morrison
Environmental management student, UNE
I agree this article is not up to the usual standards of The Conversation. It's quite worrying that it came from a supposed centre of research excellence in the area of philosophy and public ethics. It shows little understanding of the nuanced ethical issues raised by Moylan's actions and seems much more like a very narrow, politically biassed rant.
Hope Edward is also following the comments on this related article:
https://theconversation.edu.au/anz-imposter-takes-up-new-climate-tactic-11482
Daniel Boon
logged in via LinkedIn
I believe its demonstrative of an insidious incrementally increasing incursion in so called main-stream intellectual forums ... where dissent and denouncement resultant outcome is having one's posts deleted (such as mine) and a pro-nuclear, pro corporate government is allowed to flourish ...
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
I don't believe that a philosophy and ethics author can seriously argue about 'rational' and 'irrational' dialectics of actions, intents and effects based on such 'irrational' statements as, "In terms of our collective wellbeing the infosphere is no less important and precious to us than the natural environment."
This must be a hoax or perhaps the philosophy behind this is based on Marquis de Sade?
Ian Milliss
logged in via Twitter
Can I assume, given all their pompous posturing here , that the "OMG he told a lie" crew would be 100% in favour of truth-in-media legislation similar to that in Canada? Perhaps we could find something to agree on in that, even if it did put Murdoch out of business.
Craig Thomas
logged in via Facebook
"corrupt the integrity of the digital informational environment." Oh good. I'll look forward to you holding 'The Australian' to account for their systematic and long-standing devotion to the same crime then.
As for "identity theft" - he didn't pose as Toby Kent to obtain any advantage and nor did he try to access any of Toby's assets. It would seem you are using this term with a novel and alternative meaning.
People are embarrassed. People are angry. Blaming Moylan is a pretty silly response to indulge in.
David Hamer
student
I was always taught that "two wrongs don't make a right"
pity that lesson was lost on Moylan