Amazon Contextual Product Ads

Thursday, August 5, 2010

A philosophical approach to Prop 8 (metaphysics and social morality)

Thanks Ed Fesser. Not only are you sharp as a tack on philosophy of mind, but you point out and expose, of utmost importance, that age old 'pretended neutrality fallacy.' This applies on both sides of the coin, liberal and conservative, mind you. In fact, Fesser's article is a challenge to conservatives, if anything.

Be warned my friends: he is not in favor of liberalism. I grant that. But this is a good piece, and I'm posting it because it at least peels back the onion a bit on issues involved at the deepest level: one's worldview, presuppositions, and fundamental metaphysical commitments. I think he is right to draw out the logical conclusions implied: it is either Nietzsche or Aristotle (Better yet, Augustine). If we predicate societal moral standards upon either a) intuition (a la Rawls) or b) contract (a la Hobbes), then in the end anything can be declared righteous. The question is where to draw the line. This piece is a helpful spring board toward an answer.

1 comment:

  1. I may have read this wrong, but is he saying because he can philosophically prove that same-sex marriage is wrong, then it is OK for the government to decide (even by vote of the people) what marriage is? I guess I am to simplistic in my libertarian thinking to wonder why government is giving license for individuals to marry at all. If we do decide that same-sex marriage is invalid, who is to say that one day a majority will not vote that heterosexual marriage should be illegal. The question is not whether or not homosexuality is wrong and if so, therefore same-sex marriage is wrong. The question is whether or not we want the government making these decisions at all. So maybe we shouldn't be taking up the fight about marriage but we should fight for liberty so that in the future I am still free to worship as I feel morally obligated, drink and eat as I feel morally obligated and raise a family as I feel morally obligated instead of worrying whether or not a homosexual (who will remain a homosexual regardless of the law of the land unless transformed by the gospel) receives a piece of paper from the State who has not business giving out the piece of paper in the first place. I'd rather the government not tell either of us what is morally correct, which essentially not lead to legalizing same-sex marriage but getting the State out of marriage all together. Maybe that is what Feser is getting at?