right-side-up Wrote:
Jun 19, 2012 6:39 PM
Who says? On what basis do you say that one set of moral principles, e.g. don't harm others, is a proper subject for laws, while another set, e.g. don't be promiscuous, is not? Do you have any basis for making this distinction other than "sounds good to me"? Obviously your intuition is different from that of Mr Brown. Why does your intuition trump his? And by the way, on what basis do you say that Mr Brown does not have a "coherent political philosophy", while you, apparently, do? Even using your terms, why is "government should protect the rights of the individual" a coherent philosphy but "government should impose a general morality" is not? Both statements are equally coherent, regardless of which you agree with, if either.