I think the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate is a poor example of a "single track" issue. The Pro-Choice side is not just about the support of a woman's right to have an abortion. It is also about people being able to choose euthanasia to avoid a long and painful death. And there are many other related issues that are normally grouped under the header "quality of life". Similarly, the Pro-Life side is not just concerned about preventing what they claim is the killing of innocent humans, they are also interested in discouraging euthanasia and other activities which they claim undermine the "dignity of life". It's not my point to argue for one side or the other of this debate, but just to state the obvious fact that this is not a "single track" debate. This is a debate which goes to the heart of questions around authenticity, dignity, human flourishing, etc. The fact that there is no consensus on these issues suggests that we are a long way from coming to a critical mass of people willing to work together to find common solutions to core societal problems.
If your point was not to argue for one side or the other, then you have failed. You've made it completely clear where you stand just by the language you use.
John Smith, the abortion issue has deep roots in one's assumptions about the human condition. Pro life assumes a given moral framework that is above human reason. Pro choice assumes that we human beings should make our own decisions based on our own reasons.
That's not necessarily the division, though it's often framed that way. Pro-choice advocates (esp for euthanasia) can couch their reason in terms of objective moral goods (whether of human flourishing or the good of the species or planet under population stress, or even the ethic of authenticity according to rationally participating in a transjective good, just as Taylor argues that the ethic of authenticity properly construed assumes a given, unchosen moral horizon of significance, and simply acknowledges the form this commitment will take will vary among individuals to certain, but not infinite or arbitrary degrees.
I think the Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate is a poor example of a "single track" issue. The Pro-Choice side is not just about the support of a woman's right to have an abortion. It is also about people being able to choose euthanasia to avoid a long and painful death. And there are many other related issues that are normally grouped under the header "quality of life".
Similarly, the Pro-Life side is not just concerned about preventing what they claim is the killing of innocent humans, they are also interested in discouraging euthanasia and other activities which they claim undermine the "dignity of life".
It's not my point to argue for one side or the other of this debate, but just to state the obvious fact that this is not a "single track" debate. This is a debate which goes to the heart of questions around authenticity, dignity, human flourishing, etc. The fact that there is no consensus on these issues suggests that we are a long way from coming to a critical mass of people willing to work together to find common solutions to core societal problems.
If your point was not to argue for one side or the other, then you have failed. You've made it completely clear where you stand just by the language you use.
John Smith, the abortion issue has deep roots in one's assumptions about the human condition. Pro life assumes a given moral framework that is above human reason. Pro choice assumes that we human beings should make our own decisions based on our own reasons.
That's not necessarily the division, though it's often framed that way. Pro-choice advocates (esp for euthanasia) can couch their reason in terms of objective moral goods (whether of human flourishing or the good of the species or planet under population stress, or even the ethic of authenticity according to rationally participating in a transjective good, just as Taylor argues that the ethic of authenticity properly construed assumes a given, unchosen moral horizon of significance, and simply acknowledges the form this commitment will take will vary among individuals to certain, but not infinite or arbitrary degrees.
the unheroic Inauthentic Man doesn't want anyone else being authentic....sorry charles