Since I am not in a position to lay down the law to anyone, I am referring to the basis upon which one appeals to others in a public forum. If one cannot get the votes, or the court judgement, or whatever, that is it. I either succeed in an appeal to common values, or I do not. I do not understand what is off kilter here. I thought that I had made it clear enough why a pragmatic appeal will not suffice....
Anyway, yes, there are both similarities and differences across many different philosophic and religious traditions, and one hopes to appeal to those that are common enough to permit rough consensus, otherwise the polity breaks down. The argument is primarily one of application or line-drawing. The common values are not the conclusion, but the premises that one hopes to draw on in making the argument. As in the case of slavery, the absence of a consensus does not mean that the matter is dropped, by any means, and if there are no political avenues to contest it, or there is an institutional breakdown, then conflict explodes. That is one reason that I think the matter should be returned to the states, rather than written into the Constitution. The consensus is insufficient, and so everyone must feel as if they have their chance politically..... |
