本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛就是对于个人的行为不说对错，好坏。只要是不干涉别人的，个人做什么都可以。导致社会的道德观念的侵蚀。大家思考一下，发表看法。
Tracking society's incremental erosion
Politician's 'moral neutrality' comment signals the end of blamelessness
When British Tory leader David Cameron issued his stunning criticism of the obese, the poor and the politically correct this week, he invoked an academic phrase that has become the bete noir of conservative philosophy.
In a speech that launched a byelection campaign, he warned that "moral neutrality" was eroding the country's foundation. "We prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong," he told a downtrodden Glasgow riding. "These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more."
Proponents of this concept believe that politicians and lawmakers should not determine what makes or detracts from a morally worthy way of life. Instead they reference a central tenet of 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, what is called the "harm principle": citizens can do whatever they want, provided they don't injure others.
Critics increasingly worry, however, that as benign as a little "lifestyle liberalism" might seem, it can collectively take a huge toll on society. "Some vices can seem harmless," said Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George. "A guy hiring a prostitute, taking heroin or looking at porn online doesn't seem like a big deal, but on a widespread level that's a big deal."
They also debunk the notion of moral neutrality. "It's impossible," Prof. George said.
On an individual level, people make moral decisions every day and might not even know it. "For example, we know that it is deeply unworthy for people to live a short, unhappy life of drug addiction," Prof. George said. "We can appreciate that human life has dignity and value."
They can also make value judgments about the difference between a grave error and a tiny trespass, recognizing that rape is a more harmful crime than, say, name calling.
As Prof. George and other detractors say, culture and law are inextricably entwined: The law might follow the lead of cultural movement and vice versa. A law, no matter how neutral it might seem, informs behaviour.
One example he gave was no-fault divorce, a legal phenomenon that began in the 1970s. Advocates insisted that dissolving marriages without having to show wrongdoing would save taxpayers and parents a lot of money in legal proceedings, and alleviate the suffering of children. It was not framed as an attack on the institution of marriage.
But Prof. George said it had consequences that underscored the law's lack of neutrality: Divorce rates shot up, children were left to shuttle between several households and, as a whole, it helped undermine the institution to the point where traditionalist defenders of the man-woman union feel they are on the defensive and "starter marriages" are the norm.
Though experts deliberate the "moral neutrality" phrase's philosophical origins, it emerged as a powerful force in the 1960s with such leading liberal thinkers as the late John Rawls of Harvard and Ronald Dworkin, who has held prestigious posts at Yale and Oxford.
Professors such as McGill's Douglas Farrow say that three decades later, moral neutrality remains the prevailing wisdom of his students, who believe there is no such things as absolute values. Tolerance, he said, remains the all-important buzzword, but in his view it just leads to more intolerance. "We have certainly trained a generation that is morally neutral," said the religious studies professor.
"A student that comes to McGill will be very loath to say that any behaviour is morally evil. They might express their own revulsion, but if you ask them if this is morally wrong, if it is an evil act, they tell you that they don't want to judge."
He said the notion of tolerance has created more intolerance because people are afraid to judge, and the more reticent they are, the more issues are buried--and perhaps more likely to rear their head unexpectedly.
"The more recent business about the [Dr. Henry] Morgentaler controversy is indicative that we've been stuffing all these judgments under the carpet," he said, adding that Canadians usually don't have obvious outlets for making moral deliberations.
Another flashpoint issue, he said, is the controversy over human rights commissions, a free-speech debate in which some say the mores of tolerance are valued over the validity of free expression.
He predicts that with its own problems of relativism and senseless violence, Canada could soon face its own David Cameron moment. "There, the trigger apparently is yet another mindless stabbing. In Toronto, we've had similar things: mindless shootings. Hopefully we can learn a little bit from what's going on elsewhere."更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Tracking society's incremental erosion
Politician's 'moral neutrality' comment signals the end of blamelessness
When British Tory leader David Cameron issued his stunning criticism of the obese, the poor and the politically correct this week, he invoked an academic phrase that has become the bete noir of conservative philosophy.
In a speech that launched a byelection campaign, he warned that "moral neutrality" was eroding the country's foundation. "We prefer moral neutrality, a refusal to make judgments about what is good and bad behaviour, right and wrong behaviour. Bad. Good. Right. Wrong," he told a downtrodden Glasgow riding. "These are words that our political system and our public sector scarcely dare use any more."
Proponents of this concept believe that politicians and lawmakers should not determine what makes or detracts from a morally worthy way of life. Instead they reference a central tenet of 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, what is called the "harm principle": citizens can do whatever they want, provided they don't injure others.
Critics increasingly worry, however, that as benign as a little "lifestyle liberalism" might seem, it can collectively take a huge toll on society. "Some vices can seem harmless," said Princeton jurisprudence professor Robert George. "A guy hiring a prostitute, taking heroin or looking at porn online doesn't seem like a big deal, but on a widespread level that's a big deal."
They also debunk the notion of moral neutrality. "It's impossible," Prof. George said.
On an individual level, people make moral decisions every day and might not even know it. "For example, we know that it is deeply unworthy for people to live a short, unhappy life of drug addiction," Prof. George said. "We can appreciate that human life has dignity and value."
They can also make value judgments about the difference between a grave error and a tiny trespass, recognizing that rape is a more harmful crime than, say, name calling.
As Prof. George and other detractors say, culture and law are inextricably entwined: The law might follow the lead of cultural movement and vice versa. A law, no matter how neutral it might seem, informs behaviour.
One example he gave was no-fault divorce, a legal phenomenon that began in the 1970s. Advocates insisted that dissolving marriages without having to show wrongdoing would save taxpayers and parents a lot of money in legal proceedings, and alleviate the suffering of children. It was not framed as an attack on the institution of marriage.
But Prof. George said it had consequences that underscored the law's lack of neutrality: Divorce rates shot up, children were left to shuttle between several households and, as a whole, it helped undermine the institution to the point where traditionalist defenders of the man-woman union feel they are on the defensive and "starter marriages" are the norm.
Though experts deliberate the "moral neutrality" phrase's philosophical origins, it emerged as a powerful force in the 1960s with such leading liberal thinkers as the late John Rawls of Harvard and Ronald Dworkin, who has held prestigious posts at Yale and Oxford.
Professors such as McGill's Douglas Farrow say that three decades later, moral neutrality remains the prevailing wisdom of his students, who believe there is no such things as absolute values. Tolerance, he said, remains the all-important buzzword, but in his view it just leads to more intolerance. "We have certainly trained a generation that is morally neutral," said the religious studies professor.
"A student that comes to McGill will be very loath to say that any behaviour is morally evil. They might express their own revulsion, but if you ask them if this is morally wrong, if it is an evil act, they tell you that they don't want to judge."
He said the notion of tolerance has created more intolerance because people are afraid to judge, and the more reticent they are, the more issues are buried--and perhaps more likely to rear their head unexpectedly.
"The more recent business about the [Dr. Henry] Morgentaler controversy is indicative that we've been stuffing all these judgments under the carpet," he said, adding that Canadians usually don't have obvious outlets for making moral deliberations.
Another flashpoint issue, he said, is the controversy over human rights commissions, a free-speech debate in which some say the mores of tolerance are valued over the validity of free expression.
He predicts that with its own problems of relativism and senseless violence, Canada could soon face its own David Cameron moment. "There, the trigger apparently is yet another mindless stabbing. In Toronto, we've had similar things: mindless shootings. Hopefully we can learn a little bit from what's going on elsewhere."更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net