A good argument against gay marriage
Why Ross Douthat fails to deliver
I agree with Luke that Ross Douthat’s argument against gay marriage in the NYT is bad political philosophy. A good argument against gay marriage needs to clarify:
(A) What values gay marriage threatens,
(B) The process by which it threatens those values,
(C) The values protected or promoted by the legalization of gay marriage, and
(D) Why the values gay marriage threatens outweigh those it promotes.
Douthat focuses on the (A) category and completely ignores the other three. He argues that gay marriage threatens the Western ideal of “lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate.”
Citizens by birth?
Republican leaders have reversed course after it was widely reported last week that some top Republicans are reconsidering the 14th Amendment right that guarantees citizenship to those born in the United States. In an Associated Press article, Jeff Sessions of Alabama was quoted detailing his party’s concerns about the amendment with respect to immigration policy:
“I’m not exactly sure what the drafters of the [14th] amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen…”
Similar comments from other Republican lawmakers have generated controversy, and Republican leadership has since backpedaled. Is challenging birthright citizenship merely partisan and discriminatory, or is it a reasonable idea made indefensible by its controversial nature?
I have a proposition for you… never mind
The gay marriage debate in California and beyond
In a 136-page decision, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has overturned California’s Proposition 8, which provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid.” A (temporary) triumph for supporters of gay marriage, the case will likely be appealed and eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.
The gay marriage debate is but one battle in a larger “culture war” between two diametrically opposed worldviews, with differing beliefs about human flourishing and the societal consequences of social liberation. Read more
Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink
Clean water as a fundamental human right: theoretical justifications and consequences
Last week the United Nations declared clean water a “fundamental human right.” This is not a large departure from the rights to food, education, and employment that have already been embraced by the UN, yet such “welfare” rights are still controversial. Critics have argued that access to things such as food and water are not rights, that governments are obligated to prioritize and deliver immediately, but rather important policy goals.
The UN “declares the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life.” It is easy to see how a right to life would entail a right to clean water, as well as rights to food and medicine. In fact, some might even argue that rights to employment, education – indeed, all the welfare rights, including the rights to a certain standard of living – stem from the right to life. To many American ears, however, this would be going too far. Read more
Morality, meet the financial crisis
Many things have been blamed for the economic crisis, including easy credit, consumer (and banker) irrationality, poor regulation, unmonitored derivatives trading, the inappropriate use of government-sponsored enterprises, and the underlying forces of the global real-estate bubble. In a Project Syndicate article, Raghuram Rajan, a finance professor at the University of Chicago and former chief economist of the IMF, has a particularly interesting and unique take on the root causes of the crisis. According to Rajan, the proximate cause of the financial crisis was easy credit, with inequality at its root. Inequality led policymakers to pursue policies that encouraged consumption rather than addressing the root problem of stagnant middle-and-lower class incomes in an increasingly skill-biased economy.
So it turns out that inequality –- an issue generally seen as normative — may play an explanatory role in the most consequential economic challenge of our time. Could this be true of other things generally thought of in moral terms, such as freedom, order, peace, or justice? Are these only moral goods in their own right, or do they also have real bearing on outcomes that we might consider desirable?
–Charles
Image used under a Creative Commons attribution license from Flickr user saxarocks
Philosophizing cloth
The Muslim burqa and equal rights
On The New York Times’ The Stone, its new philosophy commentary series, University of Chicago Professor Martha Nussbaum wrote in response to Spain’s recent, narrow rejection of a ban on public wearing of the Muslim burqa. She gives a quick history of what Western political philosophy has said on the topics of equal rights and free exercise before examining five arguments commonly made in support of this sort of ban.
Her responses to the arguments are certainly convincing. Nussbaum effectively demonstrates the inconsistency or hypocrisy in Western resistance to burqas, and anyone who reads the piece is more likely to dislike the idea of banning burqas.
But her most compelling point is also the most unique: Westerners cannot seem to recognize the inconsistency of their arguments against burqas because they are Westerners, burqa-wearing is not traditionally Western, and burqa-wearers are not viewed as traditionally Western.
I’m not racist, I have lots of friends who are pale
The Washington Post has a ridiculously amazing article on people who think that the “tan tax”, a provision of the health care reform bill charging a 10 percent surcharge on the use of tanning beds, constitutes racism against — yeah, that’s right — pale-skinned people (or is it pigment-challenged Americans?):
The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law. “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect…. To say that this health rationale was a mere pretext for wanting to stick it to white people is completely implausible.”
-Marc
Photo by Flickr user Whatshername? used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Who should make you eat your brussels sprouts?
The market, responsibility and perfectionism
The New York Times has an article from last week on a duo of internet filmmakers, known as the Internet Celebrities, who use humor and YouTube to spread a unique brand of social criticism. One of their most watched videos has them entering the world of Bronx food bodegas to highlight the diverse, yet disgusting food options available to many New Yorkers.
Beyond the humor – for example, the bodega food pyramid – their video raises important normative questions about the availability of healthy foods in low-income communities.
It is a well documented fact that middle- and upper-income communities have many times more supermarkets than low-income neighborhoods. As a result, people in these communities are forced to purchase food at corner markets, convenience stores and bodegas. And these food providers have little in the way of healthy options. This matters because a diet short on healthy foods increases the risk of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, obesity and other illnesses. So if healthy foods have such a direct impact on the life of individuals, whose responsibility is it to ensure that everyone, including those in low-income communities has access to them?
The perils of philosophy in public
We’ve long called for philosophical issues to play a larger role in public debate. Well, on Wednesday, recently crowned Kentucky Senate nominee, Rand Paul, got himself into a bit of trouble trying to do just that. Paul was discussing the legitimate role of government in regulating private institutions and ended up suggesting that government shouldn’t be able to stop a restaurant from discriminating against African Americans The Washington Post’s Chris Cilliza concludes that “theoretical arguments are stone cold losers in the context of political campaigns.” Of course, political campaigns are only one aspect of the public debate – philosophy can play a less problematic role in these other domains. And while we don’t think philosophical arguments are necessarily losers in the campaign sphere, they clearly have their perils. So be careful out there campaign managers – philosophy has an important place in public debate; just make sure you know where it will take you.
-Marc
Guest Post: Back to the burqa
Dissecting the complexities of banning burqas
In his May 1st post, Jake brought our attention to the plans under way in France to ban the full-face veil, or burqa and I’d like to take a deeper drive on the issue.
One obvious concern has to do with the rationale and scope of the law. A key justification of a modern democracy’s legal system is that it meets a certain standard of generality and applies to all citizens equally. Legislation that targets a specific subset of a population might be seen as violating this principle. Read more
Share us