Is morality limited to questions of direct harm? That question is not
just a matter of moral theory — it also informs our most urgent
political and cultural debates. Back in May, columnist Eric Zorn of The Chicago Tribune asserted: “To me, immoral conduct is that which harms others, period.”
That seems to be a straightforward statement, especially in light of
its context. Zorn was writing a column in which he dismissed common
arguments against same-sex marriage. I his concluding section he argued,
“I will not debate the morality of various forms of private sexual
conduct between consenting adults and neither should our lawmakers.”
Since no one is harmed, Zorn argues, there is no real moral issue with
respect to the sexual activities of consenting adults.
In truth, a good many people agree with him. His logic is encapsulated in the 2003 U S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas
that invalidated all laws against homosexuality. I am fairly confident
that the vast majority of Americans would be tempted to accept Zorn’s
argument, and younger Americans especially. My guess is that this would
include many Christians, especially younger Christians.
Is Zorn right? There is certainly wisdom in his acknowledgment that
harm to others, and particularly any intentional harm, is immoral. The
problem is the restriction of his definition to others as understood in a
radically individualist scheme. If we restrict morality to that which
directly causes harm only to specific persons, we will eliminate an
absolutely essential moral horizon — the community of which individuals
are a part. Continue at Al Mohler
No comments:
Post a Comment