WWUD?
What would Uganda do? Michael Gerson writes in today’s Washington Post about proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda. His piece is a pretty good example of public philosophy. He regards the principles at stake, but also does some interesting intellectual history. Not sure I agree with his conclusions. But absolutely worth a read. Here’s an excerpt:
It took long centuries for this radical idea of religious and moral autonomy to work itself out in the political realm. But it found expression in the American founding. We refused to be a “Christian nation” precisely because the founders held a broadly Christian view of human beings, who are subject to God and their conscience, not to the state. Pluralism is not a temporary or tragic compromise; it is the proper way to treat men and women created free and autonomous in God’s image.
This principle does not require a complete libertarianism. Some individual choices are legally prohibited as inherently exploitative (statutory rape or using child pornography) or destructive to the very idea of freedom and autonomy (drug use or voluntary slavery). A single worker drunk on gin is generally a matter of indifference to the state. A large portion of the British working class drunk on gin in the 18th century — catching their arms and legs in looms — required regulations on the sale of spirits.
But it is not sufficient to argue that a practice should be illegal just because some — even many — regard it as wrong. Laws require a clear, public good. Absent that good, people can still advocate their moral views publicly and strongly. But their method should be persuasion, not coercion.
-Sam
Related posts:
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
