On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Here's the problem: there's a disagreement that is ineradicable about
> what's moral. Do you want antiabortion judges acting in defiance of Roe
> and Casey? Homophical judges punjsing gay behavior in definace of Roemer
> and Lawrence? Racist judges defying Brown?
I've made this argument already with Brian, and he doesn't seem to appreciate the force of it. Well intentioned, intelligent people differ in their moral beliefs; that's just a reflection of the profound complexity of social relations and social structure. I don't get why Brian ignores the ubiquity of moral disagreements.
What's important, as Justin keeps emphasizing, is a good method for adjudicating between people with different moral beliefs and practical objectives. Encouraging judges to make legal judgments on the basis on their own moral sentiments rather than law only exacerbates the problems. (Again, it is only in a fantasy world where all people had the same moral beliefs that legal judgments based on personal moral sentiment would be consistent and fair.)
Miles