Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Sen. Santorum's Comments on Homosexuality

4thTimeLucky · 04-26-2003, 04:29 AM

ART

How am I merely linking them with words?

Response 1
My point is that every political and practical action must be based upon an underlying set of moral principles. The two cannot therefore be cleanly seperated and where there is disagreement on those underlying principals, politicians have a right - a duty even - to debate them publicly.
OR... you must cliam that there is no ethics or morality. It is just a lot of a smoke. In which case everything is about pragmatism, including what he is discussing, so you would no longer have grounds to object.

Response 2
Another way of expressing my argument:
You, I presume, want politicians to outlaw rape. You do not, I presume, want politicians to outlaw sodomy.
Why do you want to outlaw rape?
Well, you say you use two distinct categories, Politics (the practical sphere) and Ethics (the moral sphere).

Practical Politics
So first I'll assume you want to outlaw on practical grounds.
What could these be?
- That rape could lead to the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy thus placing a burden on the welfare state.
- That rape places stress upon the victim reducing her economic output.
- That rape, if unpunished, will lead to a more violent, dysfunctional and 'impractical' society.
[Note how difficult I am finding it to find 'practical' reasons here. If you ask "and why does that matter" of any of the above, you will eventually reach an ethical statement.]

Ethical
Now you want to seperate politics and ethics, so you have procluded yourself from wanting politicians to outlaw rape on ethical grounds. Nonetheless, my contention is that you really do want it outlawed on ethical grounds, so I will pursue some possible reasons why you might:
- People have the right to pursue their own life projects so long as these do not interfere with other people doing the same. Rape prevents people from pursusing their life projects, so is wrong.
- God has told us what is right and wrong and he says rape is wrong. (Not my own view, but its an option)
- We have a duty to help and protect others and committing rape is a serious dereliction of that duty.
- Rape can endanger the life of the victim and life is sacred.
- The right course of action is to maximise happiness/utility in the world and rape causes more disutility than utility.

Now, we come to the Senator. He wants to outlaw sodomy, but what sorts of arguments did he use?
I would contend that he used pragmatic arguments and not ethical ones. Furthermore I believe that it is precisely because he does this that his words are so dangerous and that the speration of politics and ethics (as you are trying to do) is harmful.
Examples of the senators argument and how I'd catagorise them:
@ "The right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion" (Practical. Rejects a moral rights standpoint.)
@ "society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of society" (Practical: Infact the epitomy of the pragmatists dilemma: A circular logic that says that what is best for society is what is best for society.)
@ "I have a problem with.. acts outside.. the traditional heterosexual relationship" (Practical: Note he appeals to what is 'traditional' and what worked in the past. Not what is right.)
@ "The right to privacy is a right that that was created in a law" (Practical: Rights are created by man for practical purposes.)

I guess in conclusion then, that if you are all in favour of pragmatic politics then you should be okay with the Senator's approach. He wants a practical, stable society and argues that sodomy is not condusive to that.
I on the other hand think that this is a generous path to go down. Sure minorities can be impractical. So can the disabled and the old. That doesn't mean that there aren't fundamental moral rights and duties that mean we can prevent them from having consensual sex or can conveniently dispose of them.

Response 3
So many great works, from Plato's Republic to Rawls' Theory of Justice have mixed ethics and politics that it seems odd to try and keep them apart.

04-26-2003, 04:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	ART How am I merely linking them with words? Response 1 My point is that every political and practical action must be based upon an underlying set of moral principles. The two cannot therefore be cleanly seperated and where there is disagreement on those underlying principals, politicians have a right - a duty even - to debate them publicly. OR... you must cliam that there is no ethics or morality. It is just a lot of a smoke. In which case everything is about pragmatism, including what he is discussing, so you would no longer have grounds to object. Response 2 Another way of expressing my argument: You, I presume, want politicians to outlaw rape. You do not, I presume, want politicians to outlaw sodomy. Why do you want to outlaw rape? Well, you say you use two distinct categories, Politics (the practical sphere) and Ethics (the moral sphere). Practical Politics So first I'll assume you want to outlaw on practical grounds. What could these be? - That rape could lead to the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy thus placing a burden on the welfare state. - That rape places stress upon the victim reducing her economic output. - That rape, if unpunished, will lead to a more violent, dysfunctional and 'impractical' society. [Note how difficult I am finding it to find 'practical' reasons here. If you ask "and why does that matter" of any of the above, you will eventually reach an ethical statement.] Ethical Now you want to seperate politics and ethics, so you have procluded yourself from wanting politicians to outlaw rape on ethical grounds. Nonetheless, my contention is that you really do want it outlawed on ethical grounds, so I will pursue some possible reasons why you might: - People have the right to pursue their own life projects so long as these do not interfere with other people doing the same. Rape prevents people from pursusing their life projects, so is wrong. - God has told us what is right and wrong and he says rape is wrong. (Not my own view, but its an option) - We have a duty to help and protect others and committing rape is a serious dereliction of that duty. - Rape can endanger the life of the victim and life is sacred. - The right course of action is to maximise happiness/utility in the world and rape causes more disutility than utility. Now, we come to the Senator. He wants to outlaw sodomy, but what sorts of arguments did he use? I would contend that he used pragmatic arguments and not ethical ones. Furthermore I believe that it is precisely because he does this that his words are so dangerous and that the speration of politics and ethics (as you are trying to do) is harmful. Examples of the senators argument and how I'd catagorise them: @ "The right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion" (Practical. Rejects a moral rights standpoint.) @ "society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of society" (Practical: Infact the epitomy of the pragmatists dilemma: A circular logic that says that what is best for society is what is best for society.) @ "I have a problem with.. acts outside.. the traditional heterosexual relationship" (Practical: Note he appeals to what is 'traditional' and what worked in the past. Not what is right.) @ "The right to privacy is a right that that was created in a law" (Practical: Rights are created by man for practical purposes.) I guess in conclusion then, that if you are all in favour of pragmatic politics then you should be okay with the Senator's approach. He wants a practical, stable society and argues that sodomy is not condusive to that. I on the other hand think that this is a generous path to go down. Sure minorities can be impractical. So can the disabled and the old. That doesn't mean that there aren't fundamental moral rights and duties that mean we can prevent them from having consensual sex or can conveniently dispose of them. Response 3 So many great works, from Plato's Republic to Rawls' Theory of Justice have mixed ethics and politics that it seems odd to try and keep them apart. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 04-26-2003 at 04:51 AM..