Article is here.
He/she notes that in an effort to prevent the "moral decline" of Western Civilization, the promoters of this amendment are, in fact, CONTRIBUTING to its moral decline. Says he/she:
When equal rights for all is [sic] denied, then justice is denied. When the law doesn't sanctify love and commitment between responsible adults, then it is immoral. By standing against justice and morality, the proposed amendment in itself was a proof of the extent of moral decline in our society.
An interesting view from the other side of the philosophical fence for sure. Can censure be far behind for this unfortunate philosopher?
3 comments:
Censure at the U for this opinion? Hardly. It's more likely to garner an award. Note that the faculty member is not speaking out against a major policy pronouncement of his/her institution's owner.
indeed, you are right, I was "tongue-in-cheeking" that one.
Thanks
Thanks for the link to the letter. When I was at the U I enjoyed reading the editorials for the wide array of viewpoints.
The Philosophy class I took there was one of my favorites.
However, I think the instructor took a bit of a logical leap in the argument.
The letter says,
"When equal rights for all is denied, then justice is denied"
Then immediately says,
"When the law doesn't sanctify love and commitment between responsible adults, then it is immoral"
The logic advocates rights for all, but then narrows down the definition of "all" to just "responsible adults" who show "love and commitment".
If what the author advocates is true, ie that moral decline is caused by excluding certain people or groups from any "right", then there can be no exlusions for any reason. According to this logic it would be unjust and morally bankrupt.
The fact is, there have always been exlusions. We exclude single people from the "right" of the better tax bracket that married couples enjoy. We exclude two heterosexual people living together in a "loving" and "commited" relationship from filing as married.
The question is why?
Post a Comment