Repiphany

Author notes

#10 - The Rawlsian Debate

TehArgus

on Oct. 20, 2008

Rawls, as we learned in my Philosophy of Law class, believed that lawmakers should never discuss "comprehensive doctrines" - things so important to themselves that they can never find a way to compromise. Big ticket items like abortion and the death penalty could never be debated directly because in the end, nobody would agree. Instead, people have to debate these issues in their least controversial terms. A man who is against gay marriage can't say that his position derives from the point that homosexuality is a sin against god - rather, that homosexual marriages are bad for children. Creationism becomes intelligent design. Etc.

Thing is, I actually think this would work. Odd that people need to avoid the important issues in order to get shit done.