Yale Daily News

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/comments/24750#addForm

Gabriel, I generally enjoy your columns, and this one is no exception. I have also noticed that we seem to have become something of rivals or opponents with respect to how we approach given issues, as has been evident in the comments on the articles regarding this year's various scandals. Considering that this year is drawing to a close, I'd like to commend you on a job well done being faithful to your value-set and reasonable, respectful discussion. I look forward to more of it next year.

Niceties aside, the problem with such euphemistic theological appeals as those made by Sandel is, as you point out, not everyone shares them. In this particular case--that is genetic engineering in general--I actually think there are a lot of people, myself included, who don't see a problem with genetic engineering. This is directly related to my problem with your criticism of utilitarian ethics: it's not just that we need to respect more value systems and so must degenerate to a subhuman lowest common denominator. Rather, there are certain values and beliefs that honestly aren't sacred or meaningful to many people. To use myself as an example, even when I was Christian, I was all for genetic engineering (although anti-abortion because the Church seemed to be thus). Now that I'm not, I'm still all for genetic engineering and pro-choice (because I don't and have never really been convinced that zygotes are persons), and the theological arguments, euphemistic or otherwise, simply don't pull at me, don't mean anything to me. Some may say this is an example of my lacking or losing part of my humanity. I would say otherwise. Obviously, they would be unable to convince me of their side, and I have no need to convince them of mine, as mine is the default and doesn't require their assent in the first place (insofar as I'm not beholden spiritually, emotionally, or otherwise to their ethical framework). There are, of course, useful utilitarian conceptions of humanity that go to the least common denominator that some people will never like. The thing is, this so-called l.c.d. is actually how many people conceive of humanity and not merely some bizarre compromise between different, somehow opposing belief sets.

However, utilitarian ethics does not forbid theological arguments from justifying moral actions; rather, it does, in fact, forbid such arguments--which simply won't mean anything to many people--from being a grounds for legislating people's actions. It's actually a very conservative principal when you think about it. Utilitarianism assumes that government exists for its people and every restriction it places on them must be justified rationally and cannot (or ought not) be allowed if it can not be so done, regardless of what the majority wants (against tyranny of the mob). Theological arguments may have a lot of sway, but only for people who buy into them. If there is no emotional or spiritual response to such arguments, then it seems fair to say they have no power over those not swayed and ought not to bind them legislatively. So, this utilitarian (and I'm sure there are others who would agree) is not denouncing you, Sandel, or any others who attempt to implore reasonable theology in public discourse bigots or prejudiced or backwards. Rather, we are merely pointing out that we don't agree, see no reason to agree, and policy ought to default to autonomy rather than oppression, as the government ought never to be (based on the few shared principals of utilitarian ethics) the tool of non-universal or at least fundamentally non-rational (as opposed to irrational with its negative connotations) morality. For many, appeals to autonomy and the harm principal actually do say enough, whether the masses and/or the theologians like it or not.

>> Utilitarianism assumes that government exists for its people and every restriction it places on them must be justified rationally and cannot (or ought not) be allowed if it can not be so done, regardless of what the majority wants (against tyranny of the mob).<<

By what sort of l.c.d rationality are restrictions justified ?