Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Why I read blogs

Marvin, over at LittleRedBlog has another gem, "The Danger found in the Irrelevance of Moral Arguments."

With simplicity and clarity, Mavin presents a rational and at times, even biting argument, for the inclusion of morality into the political debate.

It is not an argument for a particular moral stand-- the very nature of debate itself is reflective of a plurality of opinion. Nor is the argument he makes a "one size fits all" arrangement.

"...It isn't sin I wish to discuss, as I believe that to be a matter between the individual and God. However, moral and legal issues are of man's domain and must be discussed and understood in order to develop the finest characteristics in man, enabling our compassion, inspiring our dreams and suppressing our aptitude to harm each other..."

Marvin's argument is that regardless of the nature of the debate, it is an imperative to insert moral values into the issue at hand. The moral component of an argument cannot be shunted aside, replaced by vague references to ever fickle 'rights and wrongs.'

"The loss that concerns me today is the loss of clarity and relevance of righteous and moral thought, dialogue and action in governance and daily life. "

In his piece, Marvin discusses Iraq, terror and world views, all matters where morality does count.

Rather than quote more, read the original in full context, here.

It is a superb read.



Wandering Mind

may not be suitable for political vegans