Under The Sun
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Moira Breen comments further on the post I linked to below:
"It's possibly not so much a matter of "moral relativism" as different ordering of moral priorities. Surely we all deal with minor issues over which we're willing to go along to get along. What's disturbing to me is how high up the moral hierarchy some people seem to have to go to find something that trumps the value of harmony and consensus. For me, the bar is set pretty low, and I can understand that others will set it higher. But it appalls me to see "let's just slide here, live and let live" applied to something as morally central as a debate over euthanasia. (Or shall I say "live and let die" in this case.)
"Which leads me to bring up another observation (or prejudiced conclusion, some might think): the "consensus" approach is inarguably a good method for diffusing and avoiding blame. I could go on at vituperative length on that subject, but I'll just opine here that I think that scoundrels do much better in "consensus" groups, as it's much easier there to shift the debate from their own bad behavior to the violations of good manners committed by those ill-bred enough to confront and accuse them."
(This is taken from the Comments section under the main post.)
This relates, of course, to the Talmudic principle of "Shalom Bayit" ("peace in the house[hold]").
[By the way, I only just now followed links far enough to realize that the original essay by Wesley Smith was actually a political comment.]
Comments: Post a Comment