We must recognize that modern societies have become so large, populous and complex that we can no longer expect everyone to rally around some single set of shared values. Our society is one that favors lifestyle experimentation. Individuals are encouraged to find their own way, to discover their own sources of fulfillment. But this has important consequences. When it comes to answering the big "meaning of life"–type questions, this system of individual liberty generates more, not less, disagreement.
Generally speaking, this is a good thing. Not many of us would want to live in a society in which we are simply told what to think, whom to marry, what career to pursue or what to do with our free time. Yet our freedom to make these choices for ourselves means that often we must agree to disagree with one another about some of the major questions of life—the value of family, the existence of God, the sources of morality. We need to learn to live with disagreement—not just superficial disagreement, but deep disagreement, about the things that matter most to us. Furthermore, we cannot organize our social institutions around the assumption that some consensus is obtainable. The state, in particular, must treat all citizens equally, and this will mean, for the most part, remaining neutral with respect to all of these controversial questions of value.- Andrew Potter
No comments:
Post a Comment