|
to say that you would use moral criteria to make an evaluation, ustwo, is not the same as saying that a particular issue is a moral one. the first is about judgment. the second is a statement about the kind of argument that is appropriate to a given issue.
on the first, you assume that right/wrong is exclusively a moral matter.
that does not seem to me to be accurate.
it could just as easily be a true/false evaluation. or an aesthetic evaluation. or any number of other kinds of judgment--there are many ways to yeild a right/wrong response.
on the second, arguments from morality have failed to garner much support for anti-smoking bans where they have been implemented. the dominant argument is worker health--the effects of prolonged exposure to lots of smoke on bar and resto workers. that is why i have no problem with smoking bans, actually---and i smoke. it hasnt the first thing to do with morality.
one problem that conservative political discourse has created for itself is that it loves loves loves morality as a framing move. loves it. uses it for everything. you use it for everything it ends up signifying nothing.
this is why i argued above that the primary problem is tactical--even if politicophile's arguments in favor of using this language were compelling (and they are not to me at least) the static generated by the move is such that it is counterproductive to go that route.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|