Reference no: EM133346501

Case: Modern liberalism (following the work of Kant and Rawls) says that the law should try to be neutral on more controversial moral and religious questions. According to this view, the law should not affirm or promote any particular conception of the best way to live. Instead, the law should help let citizens choose for themselves how best to live their lives. But is it possible to settle questions of justice and rights without addressing other controversial questions about morality and the common good?

Consider the following case study. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln went head to head with Stephen Douglas in a now famous series of debates about slavery. Douglas argued that the federal government should not take a stand on the controversial question of slavery. Instead, Douglass thought the federal government should 'bracket the question' for the sake of civil peace and leave it up to the individual states and territories to decide. In contrast, Lincoln thought that the moral question raised by slavery could not be avoided and that it needed to be addressed. The federal government would be taking a stand, one way or the other.

1.) Working under the assumption that you see slavery as abhorrent, do you generally agree more with Douglass' or Lincoln's line of thinking in terms of not talk about it or addressing it openly? Why?

2.) Whenever there is a law that either permits or forbids some controversial practice, does that mean the government is taking a stand on the morality of the practice?

3.) In the process of its law-making, should the government should pay close attention to morality and the common good?