Voice Ethics Arguments That Don’t Make Sense

There’s been this article floating around on the internet published on The Conversation, our beloved ABC, and SBS. In this video, we’ll be taking a look at the SBS version titled, “What are the philosophical concerns about the Voice referendum? An ethicist explains”. It was published on 25 September 2023 by Paul Formosa. Paul Formosa is a Professor at the Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University in Sydney. Of course it comes as no surprise that he’s probably a Voice supporter as we’ll see throughout his article. It’s supposed to be a piece on ethics, but it reads more like a Yes23 campaign.

Professor Formosa posits two ethical concerns. First, is it appropriate for members of one group to decide what rights members of another group get? Why should non-Indigenous Australians get to decide if the First Peoples of Australia are granted an institutional Voice? Okay, without diving too deep, I would suggest that of course non-Indigenous Australians should have a say in this. If they didn’t, then it would only be Indigenous Australians voting on this. Essentially, the minority would be able to change the constitution of the majority, and that would be an absolute disaster if we allowed it. Whatever we have left of our democracy would be dead.

Second, is it appropriate to give members of one group rights that members of another group lack? Isn't our system of government based on the idea that we are all equal and therefore we should all have the same rights? I would answer Yes to that last sentence. Of course we should all have the same rights! It’s the first Yes I’ve answered this whole campaign.

I don’t like this question. It’s making it sound like that there are two distinct categories of Australian citizens, Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people, with one requiring constitutional protection, as if they’re not already covered by the same constitution that all Australians are covered by.

Moving on to the second concern: Should one group get something others don't get? This leads to the second issue, whether there is something undemocratic about members of one group having different rights to members of other groups.

Something similar would apply to the Voice, with First Nations people having the right to elect members to the Voice that members of other groups would not have. Okay, but it still raises the ethical question, why should First Nations people be entitled to this Voice, where other Australians will not?

First Nations people of Australia have suffered specific and significant injustices that other groups have not, such as the loss of sovereignty over their traditional lands, and they are therefore entitled to redress, which could (in part) take the form of a Voice. If you go back far enough in history, we have all suffered some sort of significant injustice. For example, many of us are descendants of convicts who were forcefully transported to Australia. We didn’t ask to be taken here. We were made to.

“We match the rights to the kinds of disadvantage being compensated for”. For example, Australians with a disability are entitled to certain rights, such as disability support, that members of other groups are not. On a range of measures, from health to education and wealth, Australia’s First Nations people face significant disadvantages, and it's therefore reasonable that members of that group receive specific rights to counteract the specific forms of disadvantage they experience. I just don’t think that’s comparable.

You know what I think? I think this entire article, and other articles like it, serve one purpose: To allow comfortably middle and upper class Yes voters to bask in their own sense of self-importance and profoundly superior moral righteousness. They’re blinded to their own racism. It’s almost like they’re trying to convince themselves that it’s okay to give one ethnic group a constitutional advantage. And they don’t even realise that these articles with their questionable arguments do nothing to sway people’s vote. Do you think Terry who works down at the local IGA is going to be swayed by the ethically superior ramblings of a professor from Macquarie University? No, of course not.

Actually, the whole debate is kind of pointless. Any answer will very quickly conclude that the sovereignty and power of a nation state is pretty much arbitrary. Nations don’t need to be right and good. Just look at any country across the globe. It’s a perversely contemporary Western ideal that our countries should be ethical and justified.

WHAT ARE THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE VOICE REFERENDUM? AN ETHICIST EXPLAINS
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-are-the-philosophical-concerns-about-the-voice-referendum-an-ethicist-explains/xt5w7xm1a

PAUL FORMOSA DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/paul-formosa

MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn