Human beings ought to be free to pursue what is good unhindered by
state-sponsored barriers. As a result, “plural”—conflicting—visions
of the Good will co-exist and interact in society.
This
seems compatible with a Christian view that holds—as a fact, not an opinion or
a personal value (see Thursday’s post)—that the Creator God and His Son are
owed our love and worship, and that coercion de-natures love and worship. So
while politics and religion are perhaps inseparable, freedom of worship and robust
religious liberty are possible.
(Note
here the stark difference in commitments to religious liberty in Western
societies—rooted in Christian thinking—and those rooted in Islam).
Yet
the fact remains that the law itself makes truth claims, and civil institutions
must choose between conflicting visions of the Good, the nature of the human
person, the nature and purpose of law, and a wide variety of other foundational
presuppositions which reflect—and require—moral knowledge.
What
is the purpose of punishment?
Why
compensate victims and on what grounds?
What
is a judge?
What
does it mean for a state to “do justice”?
Different
answers to these simple—but foundational—questions result in widely divergent
practices, laws, and even institutions.
Even
on basic presuppositions, we are faced with plural conceptions of the Good, and
the choices that must be made in this regard in areas of public justice are certainly
within the authority of the civil government.
Some resources on this topic:
No comments:
Post a Comment