Suchergebnisse

THAT GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND OFFICIALS SHOULD BE NEUTRAL REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS A COMMONPLACE IN AMERICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT. THE RELATED IDEA THAT PERSONS HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO EMPLOY SECULAR REASONS AND ARGUMENTS WHEN PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE IS ALSO WIDELY HELD. THUS, WHEN PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC POLITICAL DISCOURSE, THE RELIGIOUS BELIEVER HAS A MORAL DUTY TO BOLSTER HIS RELIGIOUS REASONING AND ARGUMENTS WITH SECULAR REASONS. IN THIS ESSAY, THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON TO DOUBT THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE A MORAL DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM EMPLOYING ONLY RELIGIOUS REASONS IN PUBLIC POLITICAL DISCOURSE. IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE SUCH A RESPONSIBILITY SINCE THE ALLEGED DUTY HAS A CONSEQUENCE THAT WOULD BE EPISTEMICALLY DISASTROUS IF WIDELY ADOPTED AND, MOREOVER, THE ALLEGED DUTY WOULD LIKELY HAVE THE PERNICIOUS EFFORT OF DISCOURAGING POLITICAL PARTICIPATION.

Many readers will have long known Professor Michael Walzer's remarkable book Just and Unjust Wars. The most interesting thing I can do is to discuss the way it has been received in some centres of the study of international relations in Britain. Professor Hedley Bull, Professor W. B. Gallic and Mr David Watt have reviewed it with Important differences but all to the same ultimate effect. Oxford, Cambridge and the Metropolis conclude that It Is a shallow book, lacking In philosophical depth.