Concerns about the Church and law

[seakelp]

I think if you make logical connections between something people may be able to understand. But that doesn’t translate into agreement. There are some set of values, preferences, and other positions that would need to be shared.

For example there are those that assign a negative value to birth (see “antinatilism.”) Such a person may be able to understand arguments against controception, but since the person doesn’t assign a positive value to birth as a pronatilist does the person may understand but not agree. While I think it is helpful to be able to defend one’s stance it does seem that throughout history reason alone hasn’t been sufficient.

I totally agree. I’m not suggesting that people only advance rational arguments, or that people who advance rational arguments will all agree. What I’m trying to do is simply set out some minimal criteria for deciding whether certain ideas should influence public policy.

Again, people advancing rational arguments will (and should!) disagree vigorously. But the value in having a universally accessible “language” of reason is that those arguments can happen productively. Ideas can be discussed, refuted, supported, &c. This process should weed out really bad ideas, and should also take okay ideas and sharpen them into good ones.

If some basic “floor” isn’t set for public dialogue, then you’d have people having the equivalent of shouting matches, not discussion. That’d be bad. That’s why I think people therefore have a duty to restrict their arguments to rational ones, at least in the public square.

At times interest have had to be tied to something else that a person cares about to change their stance (some other cause, a friend or family member, or even the self). Part of the movement for equal rights for homosexuals reflects this. In not hiding that one is a homosexual those in there lives that care about them are less likely to see the issue as something that only impacts distant people and see it as an issue that interferes with the happiness, property ownership rights, and health coverage of those for which they care and love.

I’m not sure I understand - can you explain this a bit more?